For logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."h_k_s wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.creation wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:12 am
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
I have not heard of this one before.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Are any of those arguments actually sound and valid arguments?
If any are, then they are actual proofs of the God-concept.
But because of what God, Itself, actually is, then God can be proven to exist.
Magical thinking in science and philosophy
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
Something as basic as that shouldn't require even more clarification. Again: there is no known way to measure qualia and the first-person-view. Fact. There is no known measurable mechanism binding them to animal brains. Fact. People who automatically subscribe these things to animal brains and mentality, understand little about existence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 3:53 pmOkay, but why ask a question if you're not even willing to clarify it?
We don't have self-aware machines yet, so only organisms with advanced brains are capable of reporting such things, but then to make the jump and assume that therefore qualia and the first-person-view are connected to animal brains, is a big fail in logic.
We would also have to explain by the way, why certain configurations of matter would acquire such extra abilities. And I really hope someone won't scream "emergence out of complexity" now because that's what they heard from philosophically equally ignorant scientists.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
My point is that if classes/sets exist, they are abstract objects (in the platonistic sense). Whether they exist is another question.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 9:54 amThere are no abstract nonmental objects period.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
They exist as concepts. It's fine to say they're abstract objects. It's just that abstracts only occur as a particular type of mental phenomenon.Consul wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 1:13 pmMy point is that if classes/sets exist, they are abstract objects (in the platonistic sense). Whether they exist is another question.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 9:54 am There are no abstract nonmental objects period.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
What's your source for that? Sounds a bit like Aristotle, who is of course the inventor of logic.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 12:50 pmFor logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
It's as standard a definition in philosophy as "justified true belief" is for "(propositional) knowledge."h_k_s wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 4:53 pmWhat's your source for that? Sounds a bit like Aristotle, who is of course the inventor of logic.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 12:50 pm
For logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."
At any rate, here are a few places where you can check this:
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... sound.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/answers.htm
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
Classes/sets are extensional items, whereas concepts are intensional items; and no item can be both extensional and intensional, so classes/sets aren't concepts.
QUOTE
"Intensional entities are such things as concepts, propositions and properties. What makes them ‘intensional’ is that they violate the principle of extensionality; the principle that equivalence implies identity. For example, the concept of being a (well-formed) creature with a kidney and the concept of being a (well-formed) creature with a heart are equivalent in so far as they apply to the same things, but they are different concepts. Likewise, although the proposition that creatures with kidneys have kidneys and the proposition that creatures with hearts have kidneys are equivalent (both are true), they are not identical. Intensional entities are contrasted with extensional entities such as sets, which do satisfy the principle of extensionality. For example, the set of creatures with kidneys and the set of creatures with hearts are equivalent in so far as they have the same members and, accordingly, are identical. By this standard criterion, each of the following philosophically important types of entity is intensional: qualities, attributes, properties, relations, conditions, states, concepts, ideas, notions, propositions and thoughts."
("Intensional Entities," by George Bealer. In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig. London: Routledge, 2005. pp. 452-3)
/QUOTE
Abstract ideas in Locke's sense aren't platonistically abstract, because they are mental objects resulting from abstraction as a psychological act, "whereby ideas taken from particular beings become general representatives of all of the same kind; and their names general names, applicable to whatever exists conformable to such abstract ideas." (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690, Bk. II, ch. XI, §9)Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 4:27 pm It's fine to say they're abstract objects. It's just that abstracts only occur as a particular type of mental phenomenon.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
What happened to where I explained above how extensionality only obtains via mental phenomena? You didn't directly address it. So I'd need to basically write out the same thing again. But why should I have to do it again? Why not simply address it the first time I explain it?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
I do like Stanford's lists.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 5:37 pmIt's as standard a definition in philosophy as "justified true belief" is for "(propositional) knowledge."
At any rate, here are a few places where you can check this:
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... sound.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/answers.htm
I have referred to them a time or two as well, especially their fallacies list.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
If people are not interested in discovering what actual 'validity', or not, others have and hold, then so be it. But there is no use someone expressing how the validity holds up if others just believe there can not be any anyway.h_k_s wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.creation wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:12 am
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
I have not heard of this one before.
Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.
Are any of those arguments actually sound and valid arguments?
If any are, then they are actual proofs of the God-concept.
But because of what God, Itself, actually is, then God can be proven to exist.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
Enlightenment cannot be force fed. A person must be seeking truth before they can actually find it.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
True, but I do not work that way.
I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.
I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.
People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.
Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.
(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
If you want to preach about your childish hallucinations which you consider 'truth', open your own topics.creation wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 9:01 amTrue, but I do not work that way.
I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.
I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.
People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.
Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.
(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
One thing of many that Robert M. Pirsig (technical writer, author, and philosopher) wrote about in his books is that truth is always just stumbled upon.creation wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 9:01 amTrue, but I do not work that way.
I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.
I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.
People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.
Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.
(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
We then only afterwards use inductive and deductive reasoning to explain it, mostly to ourselves, as it were.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy
What brought this on?Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 9:35 amIf you want to preach about your childish hallucinations which you consider 'truth', open your own topics.creation wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 9:01 am
True, but I do not work that way.
I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.
I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.
People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.
Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.
(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
This appears to be in direct contradiction of what I actually said here, and have been saying all along.
My WHOLE point is that 'truth' is relative to the observer, if this was not noticed, or not yet already known.
I have absolutely NOTHING I want to preach. I thought I made that clear by writing that I do not want to convince anyone of anything.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023