The logical fallacy of logic.

[Phi for All]

 

What's the difference between disturbed dirt and concrete?

 

I want you to know I stopped reading right here, right at the first sentence. You asked this question in response to my request for information on the "dirt-disturbing" process. You immediately went Red Herring with a really obvious strawman (is anyone interested in your question, seriously? NOBODY asked for the differences between disturbed dirt and concrete, nobody had to).

 

You should have asked the more obvious, more pertinent question: What's the difference between dirt and disturbed dirt if we're talking about holes? Logic tells me a hole in the ground, filled in with more ground, is no longer a hole. In a month, you won't even know a hole had been there. But you'll always know if the hole is filled with concrete. It will always be a concrete-filled hole in the ground.

 

I'm not sure if this is just semantics. I am quite confident, however, that using time to identify a process for deciding whether dirt is just ground or if it had previously been removed to create a hole is meaningless. Next you'll be telling us how many years each type of dirt requires before it's just dirt again, and can no longer be called an accessory to creating a hole.

[Strange]

As semantics is about meaning, the phrase "just semantics" to dismiss an argument is just silly. The meaning of words and phrases is central to any discussion. (I expect cladking to come up with something about words not having any meaning, or something similar.)

[cladking]

 

 

I'm not sure if this is just semantics. I am quite confident, however, that using time to identify a process for deciding whether dirt is just ground or if it had previously been removed to create a hole is meaningless. Next you'll be telling us how many years each type of dirt requires before it's just dirt again, and can no longer be called an accessory to creating a hole.

 

The reality is that the hole can never really cease being a hole. Disturbed dirt will subside and create a "new" hole. Get away from the planet far enough with a powerful enough telescope and you can always look back in time and see the hole. When the dirt was added back to the hole it changed the orbit of the earth (and everything else) and these changes will never subside and actually reverberate and become larger in time. So long as the hole is real all its effects are real whether we define them or measure them or ponder them or not.

 

You should have asked the more obvious, more pertinent question: What's the difference between dirt and disturbed dirt if we're talking about holes? Logic tells me a hole in the ground, filled in with more ground, is no longer a hole. In a month, you won't even know a hole had been there. But you'll always know if the hole is filled with concrete. It will always be a concrete-filled hole in the ground.

 

Again. The only practical difference between the holes is the nature of what's in them.

As semantics is about meaning, the phrase "just semantics" to dismiss an argument is just silly. The meaning of words and phrases is central to any discussion. (I expect cladking to come up with something about words not having any meaning, or something similar.)

 

You addressed the point well enough I don't need to.

 

If science is not tied directly to reality, then how can the things represented by the terms defined by science be considered real?

 

They aren't any more "real" than math. But they remain truth or fact within metaphysics. They are "real" in terms of the means and definitions by which they were learned and this reality can be applied to the greater reality. It works because the greater reality affects experiment. My problem with these models and constructs isn't that they are ineffective or wrong but rather people take them as the sum total of reality.

 

 

[swansont]

They aren't any more "real" than math. But they remain truth or fact within metaphysics. They are "real" in terms of the means and definitions by which they were learned and this reality can be applied to the greater reality. It works because the greater reality affects experiment. My problem with these models and constructs isn't that they are ineffective or wrong but rather people take them as the sum total of reality.

 

If one argues that these things are not real, how is that an argument that they are the sum total of reality? That makes no sense.

[Strange]

My problem with these models and constructs isn't that they are ineffective or wrong but rather people take them as the sum total of reality.

 

You have claimed this, or something similar, many times in the past.

 

But, oddly, you have never given an example of anyone taking the model as reality or the map as the territory.

[Phi for All]

 

If one argues that these things are not real, how is that an argument that they are the sum total of reality? That makes no sense.

 

But it's a very good example of how "logic", based solely on "this makes sense to me", makes no sense to anyone else.

[cladking]

 

If one argues that these things are not real, how is that an argument that they are the sum total of reality? That makes no sense.

 

I'm not the one who believes that models and math are the sum total of reality. People in general (especially scientists) have taken the models as the sum total of reality (less a bit we don't know yet) for centuries now. Even as new knowledge is gained and old beliefs fall by the wayside (generationally) people tend to see the models as the reality itself and they don't see that the greater reality exists at all except in terms of something to be sought by science. We see what we understand so what people see is the models rather than the reality. Many people don't even really believe reality exists at all and instead believe each person experiences his own reality or that math is the only reflection of reality. As such if math shows an infinite number of ramps for an infinite number of pyramids then they have no problem accepting it as a reality even in absence of the experimental proof.

 

But this lack of reality applies only to human constructs like math, science, and words. It doesn't mean that reality itself doesn't exist, merely that the way in which we see it is highly incomplete and in some cases very kaleidoscopic.

 

I'm simply trying to speak of the reality but people get bogged down in the words and their beliefs. If you believe that one plus one equals two has any real world referent to which it can be perfectly applied you might not be able to see this. If you believe that you have a complete understanding of any event, process, or fact in the real world then you won't understand the concept that you REALLY don't. If you do understand these things then it's a tiny step to understanding that people see their world in terms of models and these models are derived from the effect of reality on experiment. It's a huge step to seeing that all human beliefs chiefly spring from language as does science itself.

 

I'm sure it's possible to speak of reality independently of scientific models of any sort. Yes, words must be defined and we must assume theory still holds true within its metaphysics. We must define reality and there isn't a lot of wiggle room in the definition. It's exactly what it appears to be outside of human constructs. It's falling on your face when you trip and it's the sun coming up in the morning even though we know the sun doesn't really come up in the morning. It's the way salt dissolves in water and has a taste to which some people are highly sensitive. These things exist outside of constructs and outside of the words I use to communicate them. The hole will forever be real even when it can no longer be seen or measured and even as soon as nobody cares whether it still exists or not. Reality always trumps perception and belief. It is this which has been excluded from science and has resulted in language and models that don't consider it. It was excluded because everyone knew at that time that everyone's perception of reality was different and nothing was really known. There was no choice but to exclude it.

 

I'm not suggesting we add it to scientific metaphysics; I'm suggesting we can talkk about it.

 

I'm suggesting another science can be (re)invented to run concurrently with existing science and they can help one another over humps. I believe it will be first necessary to discuss and define reality. It isn't necessary to invent a new language to do this but it will be necesary to invent this language in order for future generations to build on the work (probably).

[Strange]

 

I'm not the one who believes that models and math are the sum total of reality. People in general (especially scientists) have taken the models as the sum total of reality (less a bit we don't know yet) for centuries now.

 

This can be shown to be false using exactly the same level of evidence and logic that you have employed. The argument goes as follows: no they haven't.

[cladking]

 

This can be shown to be false using exactly the same level of evidence and logic that you have employed. The argument goes as follows: no they haven't.

 

 

Then how can different specialists look at exactly the same thing and see something entirely different?

 

And then each believes he understands that thing and that anything he might not understand simply requires a question to the right specialist.

[Strange]

Then how can different specialists look at exactly the same thing and see something entirely different?

 

This is so vague it is meaningless and unanswerable.

 

Q: How can a thing do a thing and see a different thing?

A: The thing is doing the thing with the wrong thing. That thing hasn't got a thing to do the thing with.

 

I also fail to see how it is relevant to your claim. Which is still false.

 

Please do not make this claim again until you have some support for it.

[swansont]

 

I'm not the one who believes that models and math are the sum total of reality. People in general (especially scientists) have taken the models as the sum total of reality (less a bit we don't know yet) for centuries now.

 

Nope. There are arguments on this very discussion board that refute your naive contention.

[Phi for All]

 

I'm not the one who believes that models and math are the sum total of reality. People in general (especially scientists) have taken the models as the sum total of reality (less a bit we don't know yet) for centuries now.

 

I'm not the one who believes this either. But it seems a bit ironic that you always seem to believe your observations about "people in general" are to be taken as a quasi-sum of reality. Your style is to dismiss arguments (in your mind only) with wide gestures designed to simultaneously sweep them away and lift the rug at the same time.

 

So this claim seems a bit pot/kettle-ish. Let me mix my metaphors further and remind you that if your brush is too wide, you're could be painting yourself too.

[cladking]

 

I'm not the one who believes this either. But it seems a bit ironic that you always seem to believe your observations about "people in general" are to be taken as a quasi-sum of reality. Your style is to dismiss arguments (in your mind only) with wide gestures designed to simultaneously sweep them away and lift the rug at the same time.

 

So this claim seems a bit pot/kettle-ish. Let me mix my metaphors further and remind you that if your brush is too wide, you're could be painting yourself too.

 

I'm not trying to paint myself so much differently than everyone else. There's probably only a single way to experience consciousness and just some variations on the theme. The primary thing that sets me apart is merely that I try not to form beliefs and try not to see the world in terms of beliefs. I probably succeed at the first better than at the second. I try to see the world in terms of visceral knowledge.

 

I'm well aware that the world is a complicated place and that people are in many ways the most complex thing in it. I try not to make over sweeping generalizations. Most human characteristics and the characteristics of "intelligence" all lie on continua and they come together in interesting and unique ways in individuals. Indeed, individuals aren't really even an aggregation of these characteristics anyway but are rather unique in virtually all possible ways.

 

I make a lot of absolute statements and use a lot of tautologies because I'm trying to make a point, communicate, rather than to describe reality or a logical framework for understanding reality. Somehow it just doesn't seem obvious to most people that we aren't communicating. It's more accurate to say that we are using language to teach about our perceptions of reality and then communicating through these perceptions. We are building bridges between people through language but unless we're on the same page there is very little actual communication. This wouldn't be so bad if we simply were aware that communication is failing and that communication can sometimes be critical.

 

People can't seem to see the perspective imposed on each us through language and unless this can be seen I doubt any individual can assume a different perspective of consciousness. Many individuals are quite adept at seeing from different perspectives but all of these individuals take their language and its beliefs with them when they change their vantage. It sometimes seems my task is impossible.

Edited December 10, 2015 by cladking

[swansont]

I'm not trying to paint myself so much differently than everyone else. There's probably only a single way to experience consciousness and just some variations on the theme. The primary thing that sets me apart is merely that I try not to form beliefs and try not to see the world in terms of beliefs. I probably succeed at the first better than at the second. I try to see the world in terms of visceral knowledge.

 

If we're talking about science, visceral knowledge can go pound sand. We want empirical knowledge.

 

I'm well aware that the world is a complicated place and that people are in many ways the most complex thing in it. I try not to make over sweeping generalizations. Most human characteristics and the characteristics of "intelligence" all lie on continua and they come together in interesting and unique ways in individuals. Indeed, individuals aren't really even an aggregation of these characteristics anyway but are rather unique in virtually all possible ways.

 

I make a lot of absolute statements and use a lot of tautologies because I'm trying to make a point, communicate, rather than to describe reality or a logical framework for understanding reality. Somehow it just doesn't seem obvious to most people that we aren't communicating.

Not making sweeping generalizations (which you actually did, twice, in the passage under discussion) would seem to be at odds with making absolute statements.

[Phi for All]

I make a lot of absolute statements and use a lot of tautologies because I'm trying to make a point, communicate, rather than to describe reality or a logical framework for understanding reality.

 

It seems that your style of "trying to make a point" is at odds with your desire to communicate. It hasn't been very effective for the last three years, bringing down all kinds of calls for clarity which mostly went unfulfilled (except in your mind).

 

Perhaps a change of style is needed. Isn't the point of communication to successfully learn from each other, and teach each other? Your style is keeping your probability of success low on both counts. That's not logical.

 

Shaka, When the Walls Fell.

[studiot]

 

cladking

People can't seem to see the perspective imposed on each us through language and unless this can be seen I doubt any individual can assume a different perspective of consciousness. Many individuals are quite adept at seeing from different perspectives but all of these individuals take their language and its beliefs with them when they change their vantage. It sometimes seems my task is impossible.

 

 

Perhaps folks are just fed up with proving you wrong; then you just carry on with the same mis-statements as though the disproof had not happened.

 

I wonder if you had the same teacher that produced this GCSE drivel

 

"Food Technology and Design with Food as the Focus Material."

[Strange]

I try to see the world in terms of visceral knowledge.

 

That approach clearly isn't working. Maybe it is time to try something else.

 

I try not to make over sweeping generalizations. ... I make a lot of absolute statements and use a lot of tautologies because I'm trying to make a point ...

 

This sort of contradictory and incoherent posting style doesn't help you make any sort of point.

 

Somehow it just doesn't seem obvious to most people that we aren't communicating.

 

It is painfully obvious that you are doing a poor job of communicating.

[cladking]

 

If we're talking about science, visceral knowledge can go pound sand. We want empirical knowledge.

 

 

Yes. Exactly!

 

I'm not talking about "science". I've been talking about reality as being axiomatic. If I were talking about "science" as you percieve it, I wouldn't be saying one plus one can not ever equal exactly two. I'm talking about reality as viewed through the lenses of two sciences and my own unique understanding of generalism. Everything I'm talking about has always concerned REALITY itself rather than the means and metaphysics we now use to try to grasp it. I'm saying science understands the tiniest bit or reality and people are mostly seeing reality only in terms of this tiny bit that science understands. I'm trying to show this by proving that science is only true within its metaphysics. When science considers things outside its metaphysics then it is necessarily being misapplied. It's true that force equals mass times acceleration but this equation can never be perfectly applied in the real world. It can be applied accurately enough to be useful only in the short term and the large scale iff it's done correctly.

 

You can think of it this way; I'm not so much talking about the proper application of theory to the real world as focusing on how this application can't be perfect due to our lack of knowledge of all the forces and their quantities. We can't predict the future because the future is dependent on things that are yet to occur. It is ALWAYS dependent on things that are yet to occur and this is part of the reason that understanding and observation based on language and science can obscure seeing aspects of reality. I believe it is to every individuals benefit to understand that things look very different from a perspective where reality is axiomatic. Unfortunately it requires a different perspective and this perspective may be impossible if you approach it already knowing reality through language and scientific models or religious beliefs. If you can't grasp the concept that even in aggregate since the beginning of time (40,000 years ago) the human race knows virtually nothing at all about reality then the vantage may as well be on Alpha Centarii.

 

From the vantage where the observer is a part of reality rather than being infinitely detached through language, things look different. Some things are easier to see and some are harder. It's the ones that are easier to see that are important. Or more accurately, it's the FACT that some things are easier to see that is important and it has critical scientific and metaphysical implications, I believe.

 

 

 

By the by it feels funny to say "I believe" since it's obvious this is what I believe when I say it. Indeed, from my perspective I don't really believe it at all but rather I think there is a significant possibility that the statement is a reflection of reality. Yes, I talk different but this difference is part of the message I'm trying to communicate. The words people use tell more than the message itself but also are a window to their thoughts. For most people the blinds are down here, though. I had to look through to see the meaning of what people were saying because I think differently. I seem to be able to hear how vacuous most words are and most people don't. Without an analysis of peoples' word choice I often miss the meaning. Indeed, I often miss the meaning. I use statement and tautologies to direct the listener to my meaning. I don't know another way to talk except I can say in my opinion one apple plus one apple equals two apples in most practical applications. Ironically, It's easier to get through to infants and children than most adults.

[Strange]

Everything I'm talking about has always concerned REALITY itself

 

But it is impossible to know anything about "reality itself". All we have is our empirical observations. (And stuff you make up, apparently.)

 

 

You can think of it this way; I'm not so much talking about the proper application of theory to the real world as focusing on how this application can't be perfect due to our lack of knowledge of all the forces and their quantities.

 

Which is of course, one reason why people don't mistake the model for reality (as you falsely claim).

 

 

We can't predict the future because the future is dependent on things that are yet to occur.

 

We may not be able to do it with 100% accuracy but we can do pretty well. Why do you keep making these blatantly false statements?

 

And, of course the future is dependent on things that are yet to occur. That is why it is called the future. Duh.

 

 

I believe it is to every individuals benefit to understand that things look very different from a perspective where reality is axiomatic.

 

What does "reality is axiomatic" even mean?

 

 

since the beginning of time (40,000 years ago)

 

Well, that's a new one. What is you evidence for this?

 

 

From the vantage where the observer is a part of reality rather than being infinitely detached through language, things look different.

 

Your arrogant claims to special knowledge or vision are getting tedious. Especially as this superpower doesn't seem to do anything but make you post nonsense.

[cladking]

 

It seems that your style of "trying to make a point" is at odds with your desire to communicate. It hasn't been very effective for the last three years, bringing down all kinds of calls for clarity which mostly went unfulfilled (except in your mind).

 

Perhaps a change of style is needed. Isn't the point of communication to successfully learn from each other, and teach each other? Your style is keeping your probability of success low on both counts. That's not logical.

 

Shaka, When the Walls Fell.

 

 

You may well be right but I doubt I can employ any other language.

 

Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel [can never step on the same planet again].

 

The river Temark is never the same river from one winter to another and as Rod Serling often made clear you can't go home again even when it's in Walking Distance or you're Booth Templeton at Freddy iachinoes'.

 

Darmok on the ocean.

 

But it is impossible to know anything about "reality itself". All we have is our empirical observations. (And stuff you make up, apparently.)

 

 

 

 

Perhaps we're getting somewhere now.

 

The reason we can't know about reality itself is that it is excluded from metaphysics except as it affects experiment. This is why we are building models and believing 1 + 1 = 2. These concepts fit the results of experiment. So we are studying reality indirect. This is consistent with the way we think and percieve which is a product of language. Due to the nature of modern language each person percieves things differently necessitating the removal of the concept of reality from metaphysics.

 

But reality doesn't cease to exist when we cease to see it or employ it metaphysically. It doesn't cease to exist when we see our beliefs and models preferentially to it. It's as real as a heart attack. If we look at reality from the inside we have to leave language and models behind. Only your experience is relevant here.

 

No, you're right. There's almost nothing known about reality itself but when you visit you'll see that this appies to everything else as well. We don't know nuch about reality from the inside or the outside. It's the perspective from the inside that I believe is critical and might solve not only the problem with modern science but some of the problems with modern language. The repercussions can be very far reaching.

[Ophiolite]

 

You may well be right but I doubt I can employ any other language.

You could give it a try.

 

After careful reading of many of your posts and occasional limited exchanges with you, over many months and probably years, I tend to a provisional conclusion. I say this, not in order to flame, or insult, but I have placed you in a box carrying the label "self-deluded, egotistical nutter".

 

The walls of the box are paper thin and could be easily breached by the change of style recommended by Phi. Perhaps you are indifferent to which box people put you in, or at least indifferent to the views of people who inhabit the box you may have placed me in. But if you wish your views to be seriously entertained, then following Phi's advice would be a valuable step towards that.

 

As is so often the case, the choice is yours.

[Strange]

So we are studying reality indirect.

 

Exactly. And that's all you ever can do.

 

 

If we look at reality from the inside

 

You can't. You can, as you say, only look at it indirectly via our senses.

 

And please stop pretending you have some special insight or knowledge. As Ophiolite so succinctly put it, you don't.

 

 

Only your experience is relevant here.

 

Your experience tells you nothing about reality.

[cladking]

 

 

 

 

We may not be able to do it with 100% accuracy but we can do pretty well. Why do you keep making these blatantly false statements?

 

 

Great!!! Then tell me who's winning the next election. What's the date and time that man sets foot on Mars? Should Joe marry Shiela or Anne? Are any robins left in Indiana or are all of them already south for the winter. What's the weather next Tuesday? Should the government endanger the lives of billions to combat global warming? Will the educational system in the US continue to destroy the lives of countless millions of people in the inner city? What empiracal evidence do you have to predict the best means of saving these people from prison and drugs?

 

It's knowing everything that got us tothe point that we now have an economy based on waste and finding ever more efficient means to dsestroy products and shovel them back into the earth.

 

Science can answer none of the important questions and when math is applied they come up with an infinite number of ramps building an infinite number of pyramids at worst and calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at best.

 

It's not science failing it's the people who wear blinders and can't see that a reality exists.

 

There are seven billion people on an unsustainable course and this implies great suffering in the future unless we first change course. Science could be the solution. Technology could arise to create energy from fusion and it would take us decades to dehydrate the planet by means of escalating waste. There are more certaing ways to change course.

 

 

 

What does "reality is axiomatic" even mean?

 

 

Better to ask late than never. Simply stated it is the simple assumption that a single reality exists that we each experience differently.

 

Well, that's a new one. What is you evidence for this?

 

 

Logic. My unique understanding of the nature of language. And Anthropology.

 

Your arrogant claims to special knowledge or vision are getting tedious. Especially as this superpower doesn't seem to do anything but make you post nonsense.

 

 

You are attaching way more significance to this than is warranted. There are far smarter people than me and this isn't one man job. I'm merely claiming to be a generalist who has (re)discovered another kind of science used by animals. I have no superpowers or even special insights, merely a different perspective.

You could give it a try.

 

After careful reading of many of your posts and occasional limited exchanges with you, over many months and probably years, I tend to a provisional conclusion. I say this, not in order to flame, or insult, but I have placed you in a box carrying the label "self-deluded, egotistical nutter".

 

The walls of the box are paper thin and could be easily breached by the change of style recommended by Phi. Perhaps you are indifferent to which box people put you in, or at least indifferent to the views of people who inhabit the box you may have placed me in. But if you wish your views to be seriously entertained, then following Phi's advice would be a valuable step towards that.

 

As is so often the case, the choice is yours.

 

Your opinion does mean something to me but I'm unconcerned with whom I inhabit the box.

 

Perhaps a change in tactics will be possible where a change in "style" is not.

 

Perhaps I can just wait until events catch up with me. It should be soon, I believe.

 

In either case I'm going to try to bow out of this thread. I will keep up and post as necessary.

 

Just to be sure people understand my position I will reiterate that reality is natural logic. It is the same natural logic that underlies math. There is nothing at all logical about modern language.

[Strange]

 

Great!!! Then tell me who's winning the next election. What's the date and time that man sets foot on Mars? .

 

Another of your idiotic straw man arguments. Don't you ever get tired of this?

 

What's the weather next Tuesday?

 

That was one of the examples I had in mind. We can predict the weather within about 5 days to pretty high levels of accuracy. The other one I was thinking of is the time that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

Should the government endanger the lives of billions to combat global warming?

 

Who suggest they should? Yet more of your tedious straw men.

 

Better to ask late than never. Simply stated it is the simple assumption that a single reality exists that we each experience differently.

 

That is quite a common assumption. It is hard to see how the phrase "reality is axiomatic" can be related to that concept. You might as well have said "bananas are tired".

 

Logic. My unique understanding of the nature of language. And Anthropology.

 

So no evidence then?

 

And, from past exchanges, I know that your "unique understanding of the nature of language" is almost complete ignorance of the subject. But you won't let that get in the way of your fantasies.

 

 

There is nothing at all logical about modern language.

 

No one claims there is.