HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Philosophical Investigations, Do you think about thinking?
Prinz_Zoisit
post Jan 3 2005, 01:41 PM
Post #31


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,123
Joined: 30-May 04
From: World
Member No.: 30
Gender: Male



QUOTE
2+2=4


You mean that everybody who sees this equation sees the same sense("Sinn" after Frege), but different refererences("Bedeutung" after Frege).
2+2 has another "appearance" than 4, but they're still the same thing....very interesting^^
No, arche! You aren't boring at all!!

QUOTE
For instance, water was not always referred to as H2O.


Do you mean that the following chemical reaction takes time always and everywhere where water is:
H2O <<<---> OH(-) + H(+)

If you mean that, it's another case than the light case...
If you say it's the fault of our lack of experience that lets you say that logic still exists, then you have to know everything in order to raise yourself over all things and happenings in the universe in the past, in the present and in the future. I think that we use logic, just because it's easier for us. Short, you believe in logic and it's "unbreakableness".

P.S.:
The Logical Proof of Non-Goatism

1. The proposition "Nothing is a Goat" is either true or not true.
2. If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
3. The opposite of "nothing" is "everything", which give us the proposition "Everything is a Goat".*
4. Now, this statement is clearly false, for not everything you see is a goat. This means that it's opposite must be true.
5. Therefore, "Nothing is a Goat" must be a true statement.

.......but the statement "Nothing is a goat" is false as well as the statement "Everything is a goat".....
..it's so weird because with these general statements, you automatically deny any 0,5, 0,2 or 0,75, only 0 and 1.


--------------------
IPB Image

"Two things fulfill my mind with always new and increasing admiration and reverence the more frequently and continuously i think about it busily:
the sky full of stars above me and the moral law inside of me..." (Immanuel Kant)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prinz_Zoisit
post Jan 3 2005, 01:50 PM
Post #32


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,123
Joined: 30-May 04
From: World
Member No.: 30
Gender: Male



please cancel this post, i posted it double, sorry.. Thanks^^


--------------------
IPB Image

"Two things fulfill my mind with always new and increasing admiration and reverence the more frequently and continuously i think about it busily:
the sky full of stars above me and the moral law inside of me..." (Immanuel Kant)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 02:36 PM
Post #33


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



I'm glad I'm not boring or confusing you. Most people get confused and I have to tone it down a bit.

I liked reading up on Frege's Sinn und Bedeutung (I couldn't read it in German as my German stinks). Of course there are other issues with reference and whether reference can be made externally or internally. But it does show the significance of thinking about the difference between two statements that most would just pass off as simply equivalent (2+2=4; 2+2=2+2). There's more going on here.

Now, logic is basically an attempt to bring thinking into terms of validity and invalidity as well as understanding the best way to deal with an argument. To do this, logic uses variables to represent other terms. You've seen this and already understand that (p=snow). Now, a valid logical structure will exist regardless of the terms entered into the variables. So, when I say 'p v ~p' is always true, substituting any values for p should always work.

Of course an important point is that whatever is substituted is consistently substituted. This means that if 'p=snow' then '~p=not snow'. In each case, however, the term being used is the same 'snow'. What if the term is not used consistently?

1: Snow is white and Schnee is not white

Of course we all know Schnee is just german for snow, but if there wasn't a linguist available to answer that question, how you we symbolize this statement? Statement 1 would take the form 'p & ~q' on the surface. So, on its surface value it would not seem contradictory at all, but once we confirm that Schnee is just snow in another language, it can be reduced to the form 'p & ~p'.

The above example is very trivial and is only used to show that the actual meaning of a word changes its symbolic representation. Let's take the case of water. First we have H2O. We did not always know that water was composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. There was a time when we would simply say 'pass the water' and not have any knowledge of this (500 years ago for instance). Even now when we say 'water' we don't really think of the chemestry, but we know it's there and if we had questions about whether something was water or not, we would look at the chemestry to prove it.

Let's suppose that there is a twin earth out there that has all characteristics of earth and a copy of everything on earth (including a copy of you and me). The only difference between this twin earth and earth is that the term 'water' is not actually made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, but rather XYZ atoms. Everything else about water is the same on twin earth, so people drink it, bathe in it, etc...

Now let's say we visited twin earth and brough our 'water' with us. If we were to examine the two types of water, on the surface there wouldn't be any difference. If I asked you for a drink of 'water' you would not know whether I was referring to H2O or XYZ. Now let's say we discover the truth. That there is a difference chemically between the two types of water. If I were to say, 'this water is not water' would I be breaking the form 'p & ~p'? Of course not. I would be actually making a statement of the form 'p & ~q'.

Another distinction needs to be made before I can talk about your objection specifically. Take this statement made prior to knowing that there was a difference between Twin Earth water and Earth water.

2: This water is not water

On the surface, the statement would be of the form 'p & ~p' because both of us believe that the water is the same on twin earth and earth. Once we know that the water is different, the structure of the statement changes to 'p & ~q'.

Does this mean that logical structures change over time based on scientific evidence? I would say no. The logical structure of the statement is metaphysically 'p & ~q' regardless of our epistemological state. What it shows is that when we refer to something, we may not have the correct definition. This is why definitions and empirical exploration is so important. The truth value of the statement doesn't change, but rather our ability to symbolize the structure.

Now to your objection. When you say that light has the quality of matter and not matter obviously being contradictory, I would say that the term 'matter' is not being used identically. There are two different terms being used, which keeps the structure from being 'p & ~p', but rather a 'p & ~q'.

Goatism:

It's a funny argument isn't it? You can technically argue that Everything is anything you want using the argument. The problem is that it creates a false bifurcation. The problem is not expanding the statement into quantification I think.

1: Everything is a goat

Let's restate this as:

1': For every x, if x is a thing, then x is a goat
Symbolically:
(x)(Tx -> Gx)
Tx:x is a thing
Gx:x is a goat


The negation of this is not 'nothing is a goat', but rather

2: It is not the case that for every x, if x is a thing, then x is a goat
~((x)(Tx -> Gx))
Tx:x is a thing
Gx:x is a goat


Based on 2, you can argue that it is possible that something is a goat and something else isn't a goat.

So, the flaw is in the lack of examining the argument more logically. Negating a quantificational statement is not the same as ordinary language negation.

I hope I got that right - I am rusty on my predicate logic at times. Did I miss something? Please let me know.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wondering Samura...
post Jan 3 2005, 05:40 PM
Post #34


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,903



wow, these last few posts have just blown my mind, the last thing i need after a long school day and even a longer wrestling practice. Im sorry, i was never really very good in math, but i could see that theres much philosophy hidden under these equations. But im not going to read these and pretend i fully understand them. I really dont understand it when you write p & ~p or 'p & ~q or anything along those lines. What are the p's and q's representing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 06:12 PM
Post #35


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



They're just representing propositions. Just like an algebra variable. Logic is just math for words smile.gif. But it's the foundation of philosophy and must be at least basically understood to really get into the meat of philosophy.

The common variables are 'p' and 'q'. Just typical, you can use anything you want, 'a', 'b', 'c', etc...

The other parts are the syntactical connectives. Basically if you use a computer you are familiar with them (and, or, if/then, if and only if, equals (identical to), etc...). These are fundamental to any computer work as well as thinking in general.

Once you put all that together, you can use them to help create cogent arguments. Twentieth century philosophy spends a lot of time on linguistic analysis, so that's where the example statements come from. So, many of the same problems that have plagued philosophers over the years are now analyzed using linguistic tools.

Philosophy is a very technical field unlike what most people think. It is fun, but does require one to be able to think systematically and carefully.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post Jan 3 2005, 06:14 PM
Post #36


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



Wow, I actually understand it. Now you have me very interested in it. blink.gif


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 06:20 PM
Post #37


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



Awesome! I usually get the: confuzzled response when I get into it. I'm a bit rusty, so I'm sure there's more to explain/investigate regarding my own response to Zoisit.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post Jan 3 2005, 06:28 PM
Post #38


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



Basically what I was noticing with your water and snow examples was that it's showing how human ignorance made the difference between 'p & ~p' and 'p & ~q'. Am I correct on that? Is that what you were explaining with those? Or am I off? huh.gif
*asks too many questions for her own good*


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 06:32 PM
Post #39


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



You don't ask too many question Ailuro!

Anyway, the idea is that there is possibly a difference between what we know and what is (what is called metaphysically true verses epistemically true). We only know what we can through science, but science changes definitions constantly as it refines knowledge. In the end, however, there is a metaphysical truth that we are attempting to match.

It's actually a debated issue, but one way of looking at things.

I probably confused you more wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post Jan 3 2005, 06:37 PM
Post #40


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



Actually the opposite. That really cleared things up that I didn't understand enough. ^^


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 06:40 PM
Post #41


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Ailuro @ Jan 3 2005, 08:37 PM)
Actually the opposite. That really cleared things up that I didn't understand enough. ^^

Hey, I've heard that reaction before. You're just trying to humor me so I'll shut up tongue.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ailuro
post Jan 3 2005, 07:00 PM
Post #42


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,479
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Seattle
Member No.: 665
Gender: Not Telling



No, continue! I'm seriously interested. o_o


--------------------
- Ailuro "Deshi" Oz
- Moderator Emeritus -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quistis88
post Jan 3 2005, 07:16 PM
Post #43


Executive Officer (Spam Assassin)
Group Icon

Group: Moderating Admin
Posts: 8,935
Joined: 28-May 04
From: Canadia
Member No.: 16
Gender: Male



You guys are simply amazing. biggrin.gif Do continue.


--------------------
SINCERELY,
Quistis
(Forum Spam Assassin, Vice-Mother, and Queen of the Grammar Police)


This sentence says something else when you're not looking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Jan 3 2005, 07:38 PM
Post #44


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



What do you like to read Quisitis? Any favorite philosophers/philosophical ideas?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quistis88
post Jan 3 2005, 07:46 PM
Post #45


Executive Officer (Spam Assassin)
Group Icon

Group: Moderating Admin
Posts: 8,935
Joined: 28-May 04
From: Canadia
Member No.: 16
Gender: Male



I haven't read very much really (compared to you two, at least. tongue.gif ). I did read some Nietzsche and that was rather amusing. Also, existentialism and metaphysics.


--------------------
SINCERELY,
Quistis
(Forum Spam Assassin, Vice-Mother, and Queen of the Grammar Police)


This sentence says something else when you're not looking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th June 2016 - 12:46 AM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css