Author Topic: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?  (Read 6209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2013, 03:55:51 AM »
How To Deal With the Atheist: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/57-Theses-for-the-atheist/

And after you're done with that: check out the slew of White Supremacy!

Oh, and the part where he's an advocate of violence toward other people. Can't believe this racist advocate of violence is allowed here. But I guess arguing against assholes like this (not the kind of asshole I am, thankfully) is better than nothing.
-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2013, 10:34:24 AM »
You seem to have erroneously copied your immediately prior argument. I hope this is a mistake as arrogance rarely goes down well.

GB Mod
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 02:52:21 PM by Graybeard »

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2013, 11:02:14 AM »
Olivanus,

Did you watch the video on the last page - linked here?

It would be great to hear your comments since the video is by a professional philosopher of Mathematics.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2013, 12:23:54 PM »
I did not ask what its source was. I asked what it was.
And I explained what it was.  But okay, I'll give it another go.  A sensation is the reaction of an organ that has developed to detect certain things.  For example, sensations of vision are produced by photo-sensitive cells which react to specific frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.  We commonly call those frequencies "visible light".  Sensations of hearing are produced by motion-sensitive cells which respond to the vibrations of air.  Sensations of smell or taste are produced by cells which react to the presence of specific chemical structures, and sensations of touch are produced by cells which are sensitive to pressure (and to a certain degree, the presence or lack of heat).
 
Quote from: Olivianus
You are conflating sensation with perception.
Nope.  Perception is what happens when the central nervous system receives a signal from a sensory organ.  A sensation is the initial reaction in that organ.

Quote from: Olivianus
All you are doing is substituting the word “detection” for sensation and perception.
Sensation is the detection of certain stimuli.  They are effectively synonymous in this case.  Perception is when such sensations are transmitted to the central nervous system.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are again describing the source of of perception. You are not defining perception.
Well, I trust that I've clarified this for you.

Quote from: Olivianus
You have conflated an idea with an emotion. You have not shown how emotion causes cognitive activity. The fact is, it is cognitive activity that precedes emotion as you just said,
Quote
We perceive something, so we have an emotional reaction to it.
Incorrect.  Perception is not cognitive activity.  It is the reception of sensations by the central nervous system.  An organism without any cognitive ability can still have perceptions and reactions to those perceptions.

Quote from: Olivianus
You see the cognitive activity comes before the reaction here but then later you say:

Quote
An emotional reaction causes an abstract idea (or a concrete one, depending on the circumstances).

Now this statement is also filled with error. An abstract idea is by definition something universal not particular. Thus an emotion, which corresponds to a particular event is not something universal but particular. You have thus failed to show how an emotion can produce an abstract idea.
Why do you think an abstract idea is universal?  For example, the abstract idea of beauty is not universal; different people can have different ideas of beauty, to the point where there is nothing in common between them except that both are described as beautiful.  If abstract ideas were universal, we would not need to define them; they would be something that could be understood by anyone at any time without difficulty.  Therefore, abstract ideas are particular, so there is no barrier to them being the product of emotional reactions.  A person sees something which makes them feel pleasure; they consider that thing beautiful.  The emotion defines the idea.

Quote from: Olivianus
Then you are proving your principles by your conclusions. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.
Nope.  Nice try, though.  The fact of the matter is that if something exists, logical proofs to the contrary are irrelevant and incoherent, because they assert a conclusion which is contradicted by the evidence.  In short, if something can be shown to exist despite logic saying it cannot, it is logic which must inevitably give way.

Quote from: Olivianus
And I have an explanation for that but this thread is not about me it is about you.
This thread is also about you.  For you to claim that it is only about us is disingenuous; the fact that you are arguing about it shows that you have something at stake in this argument.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are using the word “matter” ambiguously as you are with the word “understanding”. In the former you could mean “exist” in the genus of being or you could mean  “have a defined identity” in the genus of epistemology. In the latter, you could mean “operation” but seeing that you just admitted that Gill has made the endeavor impossible for an empiricist you have only asserted by ad hoc that you have this said understanding.
This is simply nitpicking semantics in an attempt to obfuscate.  By saying it does not matter, I meant that the particular language used is irrelevant.  This should have been clear from context.  If you are not capable of understanding what I meant here, then that suggests that your ability to comprehend English is lacking.  And incidentally, my point about Gill's logic was to show that I did not accept it.  Therefore your conclusion (that I admitted he was correct) is wrong.

Quote from: Olivianus
According to coherency theory, that is the way to demonstrate knowledge. Syllogisms are the paragon of knowledge, not empiricism. But again this thread is not about me but you.
So what?  Coherency theory is not the be-all, end-all of understanding things.  In actual point of fact, as I've stated, showing that something is coherent only shows that it's coherent.  It does not determine the truth or falsity of that thing.  Thus your argument is faulty, since that is precisely what you are trying to say - that coherency determines truth, or lack thereof.

Quote from: Olivianus
So then you admit then that the abstract does not exist. Aristotle took genus out of the category of substance I think you will have to admit it. Then you have admitted that abstract ideas and objects do not exist. This is just the black hole of empiricism. That means that just in the last paragraph that I am replying to these words that you typed have no justification whatsoever:

“If”, “to”, “a” “in”, “it”, “very”, “but”, “piece”, “same”, “All”, “four”, “of”, “refute”, “logic”, “good”, “exist”, “that”.

Are you starting to see the problem?
The problem is your attempt to play "gotcha".  I said that logic does not do well at refuting things that actually exist; you jumped to the conclusion that I meant abstract ideas don't exist.  That is, quite simply, false.  It's true that abstract ideas don't exist independently - they don't float around in some psychic ether waiting for someone receptive enough to discern them.  But once someone conceives of them, then they come into existence, and they stay in existence as long as the idea continues to be communicated.  So, for example, the concepts of beauty and numbers currently exist because someone conceived of them, and they continue to exist because people communicate them to each other.  Theirs is a dependent existence.

Quote from: Olivianus
The conclusion is asserted first to be representative of the whole. That is asserting the consequent.
Nope.  Your statement that it is circular logic is based on a faulty assumption - that we can know in advance whether something is representative of the whole or not.  The fact is that we cannot.  So we test it against everything we can.  If those tests check out, then we conclude that it's probably representative, but we don't assume that it is, therefore it is not circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
You did no such thing.
Your lack of comprehension in no way means I did not answer your point.  Perhaps if you would stop jumping to conclusions and attempting to obfuscate things, you would have a better chance of understanding my answer.

Quote from: Olivianus
A reply is not to be conflated with an  answer.
But I did so answer.  As you are asserting otherwise, it falls upon you to show how my reply was not an answer.  Otherwise you are using circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Coherency theory, not empiricism.
Which I have already shown to be invalid.  You cannot test the validity of a conclusion by showing that it is coherent, because coherency has nothing to do with truth or falsity.

Quote from: Olivianus
You think it is impossible because you think an operation is a demonstration of truth, which Kline refuted. Kline showed that both Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry had equal function. Function does not equal truth.
No, I say it is impossible because you cannot evaluate the truth value of a logical proposition simply by showing that it is coherent.  That is because a logical proposition can have different truth values depending on its premise.  What coherency theory does is show whether the logic is sound, not whether it is true.  You still have to test the logic against reality in order to determine its truth value.

Quote from: Olivianus
The coherency of the whole provides a self attestation to the postulate.
This is a fancy way of saying, "because the logic hangs together, it asserts the premise used for the logic".  In other words, circular logic, or as you're fond of putting it, affirming the consequent.

Quote from: Olivianus
Yes I can. The coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.
As I stated just above, this is circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are using the words “show” and “valid” as if I have not already admitted that my first premise is not proven. I admit it is a dogmatic affirmation, not a proven one. However, that does not mean it is an arbitrary one as the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.
It may not be arbitrary, but it is fallacious, because you are using circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Well I am trying to show you that all theories operate off of axioms or postulates.
This is true.  However, you are trying to use it incorrectly.  The fact of the matter is that we cannot use the conclusions we come up with by using axioms and postulates to "attest" them, as you put it, because that's circular logic.  It may be possible to prove those axioms and postulates sometime in the future, but if so, it will not be because of the conclusions we reach using them.

Quote from: Olivianus
It does not rely on circular logic but on the reality that all theories require axioms and postulates.
Given that you just showed that you are using circular logic to support your own arguments, you will have to forgive me for being skeptical of this statement.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are conflating the genus of being with the genus of epistemology. By verify you could be referring to experience in the historical chronological order of things, or verify in the logical order of propositions.
If you don't understand what I mean by the words I use, then ask, don't put forth a pompous statement such as "you could mean this thing, or you could mean that thing, or some other thing, and I can't be sure which you mean, so I don't accept your statement".  That calls your whole argument into question, because if you can't tell what I mean by my use of some word, then it suggests you may have the same difficulties understanding the words of others, and thus you might have come to an incorrect conclusion because of that inability to parse the definitions properly.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #91 on: January 26, 2013, 01:26:28 AM »
jaimehlers

Quote
A sensation is the reaction of an organ that has developed to detect certain things.

Reaction, to what? It appears to me to be a perception. So the perception happens first, then the sensation happens as a reaction. This has the cart before the horse. Sounds more like a reflex than a sensation.

Quote
Nope.  Perception is what happens when the central nervous system receives a signal from a sensory organ.  A sensation is the initial reaction in that organ.

But wait. Just above you said that sensation was a reaction. So sensation is a reaction to a perception that produces another reaction called perception. This is very messy. 

Quote
Sensation is the detection of certain stimuli.

Re-typing the statement does not add meaning.

Quote
They are effectively synonymous in this case. 

It appears we have an admission. So sensation is perception on your theory?

Quote
Perception is not cognitive activity.  It is the reception of sensations by the central nervous system.

Again, you seem to be conflating. Seeing you have already conflated sensation with perception, I am not surprised to see you conflating perception with reflex.

Blanchard said that perception was an inference from sensation. One wonders then, if only a few sensations give perception instead of all 5 (If 5 really is the number). Moreover, how can perception exclude cognitive activity when the brain itself is the primary organ of the nervous system?

Quote
An organism without any cognitive ability can still have perceptions and reactions to those perceptions.

We are not talking about other creatures. We are talking about humans. We are the only species with grammar books, and dictionaries. That was the hole in Empiricism that Alfred Russell Wallace could not ignore.


Quote
Why do you think an abstract idea is universal?  For example, the abstract idea of beauty is not universal; different people can have different ideas of beauty, to the point where there is nothing in common between them except that both are described as beautiful.


I never said that beauty was an abstract idea. Triangularity is an abstract idea.

 
Quote
If abstract ideas were universal, we would not need to define them; they would be something that could be understood by anyone at any time without difficulty.

You are conflating an innate idea with an abstract idea. There is overlap between the two but they are not the same.   

Quote
Nope.  Nice try, though.  The fact of the matter is that if something exists, logical proofs to the contrary are irrelevant and incoherent, because they assert a conclusion which is contradicted by the evidence.  In short, if something can be shown to exist despite logic saying it cannot, it is logic which must inevitably give way.

You are conflating a subject’s existence with its nature. Essence equals existence on your view, JUST LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE DIVINE SIMPLICITY! Oh thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you very much! See my recent thread on atheism and Rome.


Quote
This thread is also about you.  For you to claim that it is only about us is disingenuous; the fact that you are arguing about it shows that you have something at stake in this argument.

You are again conflating the historical order with the logical order. In this chronological physical world, yes I am a subject inquiring into things with sounds and sights of words etc. But this issue pertains to the meaning of your theory in a logical order, in the realm of abstraction.

Quote
Quote from: Olivianus
You are using the word “matter” ambiguously as you are with the word “understanding”. In the former you could mean “exist” in the genus of being or you could mean  “have a defined identity” in the genus of epistemology. In the latter, you could mean “operation” but seeing that you just admitted that Gill has made the endeavor impossible for an empiricist you have only asserted by ad hoc that you have this said understanding.


(You) This is simply nitpicking semantics in an attempt to obfuscate.  By saying it does not matter, I meant that the particular language used is irrelevant.  This should have been clear from context.  If you are not capable of understanding what I meant here, then that suggests that your ability to comprehend English is lacking.  And incidentally, my point about Gill's logic was to show that I did not accept it.  Therefore your conclusion (that I admitted he was correct) is wrong.

You said, “Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible” (#64). Now you are changing your response that you reject Gill, and you do so only by assertion. This is shady behavior at best.

Quote
So what?  Coherency theory is not the be-all, end-all of understanding things.  In actual point of fact, as I've stated, showing that something is coherent only shows that it's coherent.  It does not determine the truth or falsity of that thing.

But the theory states that coherency is the way to determine the truth of something. You are simply asserting that coherency theory is wrong. But that is my chosen theory.

Quote
Thus your argument is faulty, since that is precisely what you are trying to say - that coherency determines truth, or lack thereof.

But that is what coherency theory is!

Quote
The problem is your attempt to play "gotcha".  I said that logic does not do well at refuting things that actually exist

Which is premised on a conflation between the genus of being and the genus of epistemology; a conflation of the physical world with abstraction.

Quote
It's true that abstract ideas don't exist independently - they don't float around in some psychic ether waiting for someone receptive enough to discern them.

I don’t believe that and neither did Plato.

Quote
But once someone conceives of them, then they come into existence, and they stay in existence as long as the idea continues to be communicated.

That is ad hoc. That gives no explanation of how a Universal could exist to be conceived of to begin with and one wonders:  who first communicated them?


Quote
Nope.  Your statement that it is circular logic is based on a faulty assumption - that we can know in advance whether something is representative of the whole or not.

Exactly! This is exactly why you cannot first affirm the conclusion and then validate the principles by the conclusion. 

Quote
The fact is that we cannot.  So we test it against everything we can.

But the tests are never universal and thus can never justify a law.

Quote
If those tests check out, then we conclude that it's probably representative, but we don't assume that it is, therefore it is not circular logic.

It seems then the only escape for you is to say that the conclusion is not universal and thus not a law. Thus the idea of scientific law is smoke.

Quote
Which I have already shown to be invalid.

By assertions and conflations which I have cataloged in detail for you.

Quote
You cannot test the validity of a conclusion by showing that it is coherent, because coherency has nothing to do with truth or falsity.

ASSERTION and a conflation between physical things and abstract objects.

Quote
No, I say it is impossible because you cannot evaluate the truth value of a logical proposition simply by showing that it is coherent.  That is because a logical proposition can have different truth values depending on its premise.  What coherency theory does is show whether the logic is sound, not whether it is true.  You still have to test the logic against reality in order to determine its truth value.

You completely avoided the point that Kline proved that an operation was not truth.

Quote
In other words, circular logic, or as you're fond of putting it, affirming the consequent.

Wrong. An axiom is not a conclusion. It is a posited assumption. A postulate.

Quote
As I stated just above, this is circular logic.

Your accusation of circular logic is based on your conflation between a conclusion and an axiom.

Quote
It may not be arbitrary, but it is fallacious, because you are using circular logic.

Your accusation of circular logic is based on your conflation between a conclusion and an axiom.

Quote
Quote from: Olivianus
Well I am trying to show you that all theories operate off of axioms or postulates.

[You said] This is true. 

That is damning to your position.


Quote
If you don't understand what I mean by the words I use, then ask, don't put forth a pompous statement such as "you could mean this thing, or you could mean that thing, or some other thing, and I can't be sure which you mean, so I don't accept your statement".  That calls your whole argument into question, because if you can't tell what I mean by my use of some word, then it suggests you may have the same difficulties understanding the words of others, and thus you might have come to an incorrect conclusion because of that inability to parse the definitions properly.

You clearly operate off of the historical order theory of demonstration, so why you would try to avoid it, I will leave for you to admit.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #92 on: January 26, 2013, 12:47:33 PM »
"It appears to me" -- that's all what matters, isn't it? What appears to you? And whatever anyone else says must be blatantly false because you don't see it that way, only what appears to you must actually be true.

What appears to me is that you're an idiot, and a racist propaganding one at that. Why don't you go back to youe Klan meeting and be all superiour there?

Don't forget your conehead.

-Nam
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 01:20:41 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #93 on: January 26, 2013, 01:06:13 PM »
Leaving aside the KKK comments, I have to say I am astonished that the OP won't tell us his view, especially after the excellent video by a Philosopher posted further up the thread. The guy proposed three solution to the problem of numbers from a philosophical point of view - any of which offered a reasonable view to take. I was hoping the OP would comment or even tell us which he thinks is right.

Maybe this guy is only concerned with providing annoying question to which he has no answers but with which he can frustrate us. Of course, in a way, who cares about the philosophy?Number do what we want them to do - very, very accurately. We have computed, using numbers, so many things that they are one of our most useful tools in science as well as shopping.

What more do we need?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #94 on: January 26, 2013, 01:15:28 PM »
If it's not already written on his racist/sexist/mind-numbling pathetic blog, and he can't copy/paste the "answers" he has there, here, then he is void of any intellect at all.

In his mind everything/one is wrong but him. And those exactly like him.

-Nam
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 01:17:44 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #95 on: January 26, 2013, 02:09:25 PM »
If it's not already written on his racist/sexist/mind-numbling pathetic blog, and he can't copy/paste the "answers" he has there, here, then he is void of any intellect at all.

In his mind everything/one is wrong but him. And those exactly like him.

-Nam
Is this cornball in the anglo white protestant videos him?

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #96 on: January 26, 2013, 05:46:29 PM »
I think he has a picture of himself on his blog, if him, I think he's medium set, white, with a beard if not, I don't know.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #97 on: January 26, 2013, 07:46:34 PM »
Reaction, to what? It appears to me to be a perception. So the perception happens first, then the sensation happens as a reaction. This has the cart before the horse. Sounds more like a reflex than a sensation.
Incorrect.  Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information (so a perception is therefore an organized and identified interpretation of some sensory information).  Sensations are collected sensory information.  Therefore, sensations happen first, followed by perceptions.  Your contention that perceptions are first, followed by sensations, is completely backward, in other words.  In short, what I said before is accurate; sensations are the reactions of sensory organs to stimuli they developed to detect.

Quote from: Olivianus
But wait. Just above you said that sensation was a reaction. So sensation is a reaction to a perception that produces another reaction called perception. This is very messy.
It's clear by now that your definitions are faulty, to say the least.  Stimuli produces a sensation, which produces a perception.  Or, to put it another way, perceptions are reactions to sensations, which are reactions to stimuli.  Have I made this clear enough now?

Quote from: Olivianus
Re-typing the statement does not add meaning.
No kidding.  However, given your apparent and repeated misunderstanding of what I am trying to say, restatements are unfortunately necessary.

Quote from: Olivianus
It appears we have an admission. So sensation is perception on your theory?
Hardly.  It should have been clear from context that I was saying that detection and sensation were synonymous, while perception was something else.

Quote from: Olivianus
Again, you seem to be conflating. Seeing you have already conflated sensation with perception, I am not surprised to see you conflating perception with reflex.
Given that the last so-called "conflation" you accused me of was due to your misunderstanding, I think it is a fair statement that this one is as well.  Perhaps you should stop trying to play word games with my statements in what has so far proven a futile effort to negate them without having to actually rebut them.

Quote from: Olivianus
Blanchard said that perception was an inference from sensation. One wonders then, if only a few sensations give perception instead of all 5 (If 5 really is the number). Moreover, how can perception exclude cognitive activity when the brain itself is the primary organ of the nervous system?
A sensation is not a sense.  Sensations are produced by the senses.  There are only five known senses, but each sense produces innumerable sensations.  Many of those sensations are filtered out by the central nervous system; what is not filtered is used to produce perceptions.  By the way, organisms which do not have brains (and therefore do not have cognitive ability) can still have perceptions based on sensations.  In short, perception is not dependent on cognition (as I previously stated).  It simply requires a central nervous system to respond to and filter sensations.

Quote from: Olivianus
We are not talking about other creatures. We are talking about humans. We are the only species with grammar books, and dictionaries. That was the hole in Empiricism that Alfred Russell Wallace could not ignore.
No, we're talking about sensation and perception, which are not limited to humans.  The fact that humans have defined those terms linguistically doesn't have any real relevance, because sensation and perception would still happen in other species regardless of whether humans existed or not.

Quote from: Olivianus
I never said that beauty was an abstract idea. Triangularity is an abstract idea.
Triangles (and triangularity) are hardly abstract.  We can concretely define triangularity whereas we cannot concretely define an abstract idea.  Indeed, triangularity and other such geometric/mathematical concepts are a way to transcend language barriers, whereas abstract ideas are dependent on language and shared definitions.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are conflating an innate idea with an abstract idea. There is overlap between the two but they are not the same.
Not at all.  The problem is that for an abstract idea to be universal, it must be innate.  Yet an abstract idea is not innate, therefore it cannot be universal.  That was my point.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are conflating a subject’s existence with its nature. Essence equals existence on your view, JUST LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE DIVINE SIMPLICITY! Oh thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you very much! See my recent thread on atheism and Rome.
Please, Olivianus.  Given how frequently you've gotten things wrong, do you think this latest "gotcha" is actually going to be taken seriously?  I never said anything at all about a thing's 'essence'.  I don't even know what you mean by that.  All I said was that you can't logically refute the fact that something exists, because its existence contradicts the refutation.

Quote from: Olivianus
You are again conflating the historical order with the logical order. In this chronological physical world, yes I am a subject inquiring into things with sounds and sights of words etc. But this issue pertains to the meaning of your theory in a logical order, in the realm of abstraction.
This is a nonsensical attempt by you to try to obfuscate things.  The plain and simple fact is that logic has no independent existence.  It is dependent on the "chronological physical world", as you put it.  So is abstraction; abstract ideas do not exist in some separate realm besides the physical.  Abstract ideas are created by minds which have developed enough to conceive of them, and without those minds (and the brains which produce those minds), they could not exist at all.

Quote from: Olivianus
You said, “Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible” (#64). Now you are changing your response that you reject Gill, and you do so only by assertion. This is shady behavior at best.
Given how you just attempted to quote-mine my statement to pretend I meant something other than what I actually did, it is utterly dishonest for you to try to accuse me of "shady behavior".  My full statement was, "Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists; we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible."  It should have been evident that I rejected Gill's statement from the get-go.  If you took it some other way, then that suggests that you need to work on your ability to understand what I mean.

Quote from: Olivianus
But the theory states that coherency is the way to determine the truth of something. You are simply asserting that coherency theory is wrong. But that is my chosen theory.

But that is what coherency theory is!
In other words, it's circular logic.  You are asserting that you can determine the truth of something with coherency theory.  Yet that is the conclusion that you get from coherency theory.  You are asserting the consequent because you cannot actually provide any means to verify that coherency theory itself is true, you can only rely on what coherency theory itself states.

Quote from: Olivianus
Which is premised on a conflation between the genus of being and the genus of epistemology; a conflation of the physical world with abstraction.
Given that there is no such difference, your point is invalid.  Abstraction is produced by the physical world, the same as the mind is produced by the brain.  Without the physical structure to support it, you cannot have a mind (or abstraction).

Quote from: Olivianus
I don’t believe that and neither did Plato.
The fact that Plato believed something doesn't make him right.  And I've already shown that your belief is based on circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
That is ad hoc. That gives no explanation of how a Universal could exist to be conceived of to begin with and one wonders:  who first communicated them?
Universal ideas (such as triangles/triangularity) are natural consequences of a universe with spatial dimensions.  They exist because the universe, with its dimensions, exists.  If the universe did not exist, then universal ideas would have no meaning.  A triangle, for example, is meaningless if you cannot have straight lines and angles between those lines that add up to 180 degrees.  And while this should not need to be said again...universal ideas are not abstract ones.

Quote from: Olivianus
Exactly! This is exactly why you cannot first affirm the conclusion and then validate the principles by the conclusion.
And science does not do that.

By the way, this is exactly what you're doing with coherence theory.  You're affirming the conclusion that you can determine truth by showing coherence, then you're validating that affirmation by pointing to coherence theory.

Quote from: Olivianus
But the tests are never universal and thus can never justify a law.
Scientific laws are nothing more than mathematical expressions to begin with.  Thermodynamics, motion, gravity, whatever, they're just mathematical expressions of how those forces work, as seen from the "inside" (that is, we're affected by them too).  It's not perfect, but going into science expecting perfection is silly.

Quote from: Olivianus
It seems then the only escape for you is to say that the conclusion is not universal and thus not a law. Thus the idea of scientific law is smoke.
It seems that you don't understand what scientific laws are to begin with.

Quote from: Olivianus
By assertions and conflations which I have cataloged in detail for you.
Your catalog is of your misunderstandings and obfuscations, as I've shown.

Quote from: Olivianus
ASSERTION and a conflation between physical things and abstract objects.
This presupposes that abstractions have a separate existence from physicality.  You must show evidence to support this, otherwise you are using circular logic to justify your position.  And, by the way, not an assertion.  It is based on the fact that you can't assert a conclusion and then validate the premise with that conclusion.

Quote from: Olivianus
You completely avoided the point that Kline proved that an operation was not truth.
As I am not talking about operations (that was your assertion, you never gave any evidence to show that it was the case), that doesn't matter.

Quote from: jaimehlers
In other words, circular logic, or as you're fond of putting it, affirming the consequent.

Quote from: Olivianus
Wrong. An axiom is not a conclusion. It is a posited assumption. A postulate.
As it happens to be the conclusion of coherence theory, you will have to excuse my skepticism as to your claim that it's nothing more than an axiom/postulate.  Frankly, I don't buy it.

Quote from: Olivianus
Your accusation of circular logic is based on your conflation between a conclusion and an axiom.
Given that your 'axiom' happens to be the same as the conclusion of coherence theory...

Quote from: Olivianus
That is damning to your position.
Not at all.  You can't simply say that something is an axiom and then expect everyone else to blithely accept it.

Quote from: jaimehlers
If you don't understand what I mean by the words I use, then ask, don't put forth a pompous statement such as "you could mean this thing, or you could mean that thing, or some other thing, and I can't be sure which you mean, so I don't accept your statement".  That calls your whole argument into question, because if you can't tell what I mean by my use of some word, then it suggests you may have the same difficulties understanding the words of others, and thus you might have come to an incorrect conclusion because of that inability to parse the definitions properly.

Quote from: Olivianus
You clearly operate off of the historical order theory of demonstration, so why you would try to avoid it, I will leave for you to admit.
This has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2013, 06:56:39 AM »
jaimehlers

Quote
Incorrect.  Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation

Which all require cognitive activity and you admitted that perception contains no cognitive activity.

Quote
It's clear by now that your definitions are faulty, to say the least.  Stimuli produces a sensation, which produces a perception.  Or, to put it another way, perceptions are reactions to sensations

But you already said that sensation itself was a reaction .

Quote
which are reactions to stimuli.  Have I made this clear enough now?

No.

Quote
Hardly.  It should have been clear from context that I was saying that detection and sensation were synonymous, while perception was something else.

But detection involves cognition and perception which you have already admitted requires organization and interpretation. All cognitive activity.

Quote
Given that the last so-called "conflation" you accused me of was due to your misunderstanding, I think it is a fair statement that this one is as well.  Perhaps you should stop trying to play word games with my statements in what has so far proven a futile effort to negate them without having to actually rebut them.

I am showing you huge holes in your definitions and you keep on in your obstinacy. You don’t have a theory. Just come to grips with this.   

Quote
A sensation is not a sense.  Sensations are produced by the senses.

You said above,

Quote
A sensation is the reaction of an organ that has developed to detect certain things

So then a sense is an organ and a sensation is that which the sense produces. So then the sensation is not in the external object but in the organ.

 
Quote
There are only five known senses

So only five organs produce sensations? Could you delineate those for me and tell me which organs do not produce sensations?

 
Quote
By the way, organisms which do not have brains (and therefore do not have cognitive ability) can still have perceptions based on sensations.
We are not talking about other organisms.  You didn’t answer the question.

Quote
No, we're talking about sensation and perception, which are not limited to humans.

Notice the OP:

“How do WE account for the existence of numbers? ”

The operation of other creatures is irrelevant and seeing that I have already shown a clear distinction between humans and other creatures in that we are the only species with grammar and dictionaries and mathematics, I am chalking this up to your obstinancy. 

Quote
Triangles (and triangularity) are hardly abstract.  We can concretely define triangularity whereas we cannot concretely define an abstract idea.

In order for a triangle to be drawn you must locate a distinct point which I have proven impossible because you can show no distinction at in the material world.


Quote
Not at all.  The problem is that for an abstract idea to be universal, it must be innate.

Triangularity is universal but not innate. That was created by men.

 
Quote
  I don't even know what you mean by that.

I know you don’t among many other things said here.

Quote
This is a nonsensical attempt by you to try to obfuscate things.

This is just another way to say what I quoted you saying above. As soon  as I take you out into water too deep for you, you blame me for your incapability.

Quote
The plain and simple fact is that logic has no independent existence.  It is dependent on the "chronological physical world", as you put it.  So is abstraction; abstract ideas do not exist in some separate realm besides the physical.

Ad hoc

Quote
Abstract ideas are created by minds which have developed enough to conceive of them, and without those minds (and the brains which produce those minds), they could not exist at all.

Ad hoc. How could particular experience ever produce a universal in a mind? We are right back to the initial questions that you cannot answer.

Quote
Given how you just attempted to quote-mine my statement to pretend I meant something other than what I actually did, it is utterly dishonest for you to try to accuse me of "shady behavior".  My full statement was, "Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists; we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible."  It should have been evident that I rejected Gill's statement from the get-go.

I will repeat: ad hoc. You rejected her not logically with any arguments but ad hoc, you justify the existence by the results thus proving the principles by the conclusion. 

Quote
In other words, it's circular logic.

No it is not because an axiom is not a conclusion.

Quote
Given that there is no such difference, your point is invalid.  Abstraction is produced by the physical world, the same as the mind is produced by the brain.

Ad hoc

Quote
Without the physical structure to support it, you cannot have a mind (or abstraction).

Ad hoc. You have yet to explain how something physical could produce abstraction.

 
Quote
Universal ideas (such as triangles/triangularity) are natural consequences of a universe with spatial dimensions.

Ad hoc. I have already shown that you have no definition of space and you cannot individuate anything. You just assert it.

Quote
A triangle, for example, is meaningless if you cannot have straight lines and angles between those lines that add up to 180 degrees.

Everything you just said depends on the existence of distinct points which you only assert exist by ad hoc. Moreover, with a line segment you need a fixed point and that does not exist. There are no such things as fixed points.

Quote
And science does not do that.

On the contrary: Bertrand Russell said,

“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” (The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell, page, 51)

Quote
By the way, this is exactly what you're doing with coherence theory.  You're affirming the conclusion

I have already answered this. An axiom is not a conclusion.

Quote
Scientific laws are nothing more than mathematical expressions to begin with.  Thermodynamics, motion, gravity, whatever, they're just mathematical expressions of how those forces work, as seen from the "inside" (that is, we're affected by them too).  It's not perfect, but going into science expecting perfection is silly.

If the possibilities are infinite, then not only is science not perfect, its theories carry the probability of 1/infinity which equals zero.

Quote
It seems that you don't understand what scientific laws are to begin with.

Tu quoque

Quote
Your catalog is of your misunderstandings and obfuscations, as I've shown.

As I have shown, the reader may substitute your use of “obfuscation” with “I don’t have the ability to follow”.

Quote
This presupposes that abstractions have a separate existence from physicality.

Which you have only asserted ad hoc.

Quote
You must show evidence to support this, otherwise you are using circular logic to justify your position.  And, by the way, not an assertion.  It is based on the fact that you can't assert a conclusion and then validate the premise with that conclusion.

From my axiom, not my conclusion, that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge, I can deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts. This God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man (Col 3:10). I can also deduce that persons can be considered outside of a physical body. (2 Cor 12:3).

Thus the arche of all knowledge, in the genus of being, are divine ideas within a divine mind and this divine mind has no physical brain.  I speak to this issue in detail here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/eighteen-theses-against-behaviorism-by-drake/

Quote
As I am not talking about operations (that was your assertion, you never gave any evidence to show that it was the case), that doesn't matter.

Your view clearly sees truth as a demonstration of physical objects in the chronological/historical order. That is contrasted with my view of propositional demonstration which is what you were rejecting when I replied at #91.

Quote
As it happens to be the conclusion of coherence theory, you will have to excuse my skepticism as to your claim that it's nothing more than an axiom/postulate.  Frankly, I don't buy it.

The conclusion of coherency theory is yes, it is coherent or no its not. My axiom is the Protestant canonical list.  Don’t confuse them.

Quote
This has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.

Asserting a confusion is not the same thing as explaining it. Notice how I consistently explain your conflations all throughout this dialogue.

It appears we have reached a road block as I have a strong inclination that you are not able (At this time) to understand quite a number of issues here so continuing  would be a waste of my time.  I hope the best for you. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #99 on: January 27, 2013, 12:26:08 PM »
Which all require cognitive activity and you admitted that perception contains no cognitive activity.
This statement betrays your fundamental miscomprehension of how cognition and perception work.  Organisms with no demonstrated cognitive ability, such as insects, still have the ability to perceive their surrounding environment.  Therefore, cognition is not necessary for perception.

Quote from: Olivianus
But you already said that sensation itself was a reaction .
With this, you've made it clear that you're arguing in terms of semantics and linguistics, rather than based on actually understanding the subject matter.  And even then, your arguments are faulty.  There is no reason that one reaction cannot cause a second, more complicated reaction.  This is essentially what the term "chain reaction" means.  Therefore, there's no reason that a stimuli can't cause a sensation, which then causes a perception.

Quote from: Olivianus
No.
That much is evident by now.

Quote from: Olivianus
But detection involves cognition and perception which you have already admitted requires organization and interpretation. All cognitive activity.
This is another argument based on pure semantics, but it's still quite faulty.  First off, perception does not require cognition, as I showed above.  Second, detection at its heart simply means the detection of something.  For example, a sensory organ detects a stimuli, which is synonymous with saying that it sensed the stimuli.  I suppose you could use it some other way, but you shouldn't conflate that with the way that I'm using it, because it causes problems for you and your argument.

Quote from: Olivianus
I am showing you huge holes in your definitions and you keep on in your obstinacy. You don’t have a theory. Just come to grips with this.
No, what you are doing is showing your poor understanding of the subject we're discussing.  Your arguments essentially consist of "I've defined this a certain way, and the way you're using it doesn't match that definition, therefore your statements are wrong".  That's one of the more pointless ways to argue, as it only results in people restating their same positions over and over again.

Quote from: Olivianus
You said above,

Quote from: jaimehlers
A sensation is the reaction of an organ that has developed to detect certain things

So then a sense is an organ and a sensation is that which the sense produces. So then the sensation is not in the external object but in the organ.
This is nothing but more of your word games, and I'm frankly getting tired of them.  Or did you really think I wouldn't notice your attempt - again - to conflate a sense and the sensations it produces?

Quote from: Olivianus
So only five organs produce sensations? Could you delineate those for me and tell me which organs do not produce sensations?
I will be happy to state which organs produce senses (the eyes for vision, the ears for hearing, the nose for smell, the tongue for taste, and the skin for touch; I suppose it's possible that the inner ear that provides for balance would also be considered a sense, though I don't consider it one), but I see no point in stating all the other organs, as it would be time-consuming for no real purpose.  If you have evidence of other organs which produce senses, feel free to elaborate.

Quote from: Olivianus
We are not talking about other organisms.  You didn’t answer the question.
I was demonstrating that other organisms which do not have complicated brains - or brains at all - and thus do not have any cognitive ability still have sensations and perceptions.  This undercuts and contradicts your statements about detection, perception, sensation, and cognition.  I can see why you might want to call foul rather than having to address this problem, given your contention that cognition is required for perception, but it's quite evident that you're only making this claim (that we're just talking about humans) as a transparent attempt to try to 'prove' your claim by fiat.

And, by the way, I did answer the question.  Organisms which do not have brains still have sensations and perceptions.  Therefore the brain is not necessary for them, and therefore cognition is not either.  By definition, if perceptions can happen in an organism without a brain, then perception must necessarily exclude cognition, as cognition requires a brain capable of it.

Quote from: Olivianus
Notice the OP:

“How do WE account for the existence of numbers? ”

The operation of other creatures is irrelevant and seeing that I have already shown a clear distinction between humans and other creatures in that we are the only species with grammar and dictionaries and mathematics, I am chalking this up to your obstinancy.
Do you seriously think this bit of chicanery is going to fool anyone?  Frankly, every time you pull a stunt like this, you lower my opinion of your ability to argue and to reason even further.  The fact that humans are different from other organisms in that we have linguistics, math, etc, has no bearing at all on things like sensation and perception.  The one has nothing to do with the other.

Quote from: Olivianus
In order for a triangle to be drawn you must locate a distinct point which I have proven impossible because you can show no distinction at in the material world.
This again?  You can't use logic to disprove something that exists in the real world.  Attempting to do so just makes you look silly, like King Canute trying to command the tides.  No matter how often you bleat about how you've "proven something impossible" that actually exists, the fact of the matter is that reality itself contradicts your misuse of logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Triangularity is universal but not innate. That was created by men.
Triangularity is innate to the universe; if it was not innate, it could not be universal.  Abstract ideas are not innate to the universe (nor do they have a separate existence), therefore they cannot be universal.

Quote from: Olivianus
I know you don’t among many other things said here.
Another attempt at a "gotcha"?  You arbitrarily introduced this idea of a thing's "essence", and then attempted to make a claim about how I was talking about it.  Except that I wasn't, because you introduced it.  That's why I don't know what you mean by it.  The fact of the matter is that I have a much better understanding of the subject we're discussing than you do.  Indeed, you've amply shown that your own understanding of things is tremendously flawed.

Quote from: Olivianus
This is just another way to say what I quoted you saying above. As soon  as I take you out into water too deep for you, you blame me for your incapability.
Hardly.  But now it's clear why you're constantly trying to obfuscate things.  It's because you believe if you can get the people you're arguing snarled up in your illogic and obtuse reasoning, then you can win any argument by default.  The fact of the matter is that the only thing you're actually showing is how poor your ability to argue and understand things truly is, and thus you're losing by default.

Quote from: Olivianus
Ad hoc
This term does not mean what you think it means.

I'll restate what you attempted to dismiss:  Logic has no independent existence.  If you wish to prove otherwise, then you must demonstrate evidence to support it.  Not simply concoct a logical proof.

Quote from: Olivianus
Ad hoc. How could particular experience ever produce a universal in a mind? We are right back to the initial questions that you cannot answer.
This depends on your assertion that abstract ideas are universal, except that you have not proven that this is the case.  Indeed, as you showed by attempting to use triangularity as an example of an abstract idea, it's probable that you are doing nothing more than using semantic definitions to try to 'prove' your arguments by fiat.

Quote from: Olivianus
I will repeat: ad hoc. You rejected her not logically with any arguments but ad hoc, you justify the existence by the results thus proving the principles by the conclusion.
This is nothing more than you making an assertion that you cannot possibly prove, and repeating your tiresome attempts to claim that I'm using circular logic, even though I've rebutted them repeatedly.  Simply repeating your assertion does not prove it.  I rejected Gill's argument because logic which asserts something contrary to reality is nonsense.  It is impossible to disprove something that can be shown to exist with logic.  And trying to pretend that it does anyway is unsane, at the least.

Quote from: Olivianus
No it is not because an axiom is not a conclusion.
This is just more word games, and thus has no relevance.

Quote from: Olivianus
Ad hoc
Is this your new catch-accusation?  Last time, it was "asserting the consequent".

Quote from: Olivianus
Ad hoc. You have yet to explain how something physical could produce abstraction.
I already have.  The problem is that you have redefined abstraction to mean something that is different than what it actually means and thus are playing word games.

Quote from: Olivianus
Ad hoc. I have already shown that you have no definition of space and you cannot individuate anything. You just assert it.
Really?  Funny how that is completely failing to stop me from defining space and individuating things.  Once again, you cannot logically disprove something that can be shown to exist anyway and expect it to actually matter.

Quote from: Olivianus
Everything you just said depends on the existence of distinct points which you only assert exist by ad hoc. Moreover, with a line segment you need a fixed point and that does not exist. There are no such things as fixed points.
You claim that lots of things don't exist which actually do, and you claim that things which actually don't exist really do exist.  Haven't you realized by now that you've only succeeded in demolishing your own credibility and made yourself look like a fool?

Quote from: Olivianus
On the contrary: Bertrand Russell said,

“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” (The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell, page, 51)
By now, if you said that the sun would rise in the east, I would have to check to confirm that it did.  I have little doubt that you can find quotes to support your beliefs, but the fact of the matter is is that you've consistently demonstrated that you believe things which are demonstrably not true, and believe that things which are demonstrably true can be proven false by logic.  So all you have actually accomplished is to demonstrate exactly why your beliefs are not accepted.

Quote from: Olivianus
I have already answered this. An axiom is not a conclusion.
Claiming that something can't be a conclusion because you've stated it is an axiom is nothing more than word games.

Quote from: Olivianus
If the possibilities are infinite, then not only is science not perfect, its theories carry the probability of 1/infinity which equals zero.
Except that the possibilities are not infinite.  Infinity does not exist in reality.  And this is ample proof that you don't really understand science to begin with.

Quote from: Olivianus
Tu quoque
That doesn't mean what you think it means either.

Quote from: Olivianus
As I have shown, the reader may substitute your use of “obfuscation” with “I don’t have the ability to follow”.
Incorrect.  The two are not equivalent.  There is a difference between deliberately making an argument hard to follow, which is what obfuscation means, and someone lacking the ability to follow an argument which is generally comprehensible.  When I accuse you of obfuscation, it is disingenuous for you to claim that the problem is with me.  Especially as I've shown that I do understand your arguments.  When I accuse you of obfuscation, it is not because I do not understand what you are trying to say, it's because you are deliberately trying to make things difficult for other people.

Quote from: Olivianus
Which you have only asserted ad hoc.
Actually, you're the one asserting that your "abstract realm" exists without any evidence whatsoever.  All you can do is say "my beliefs are coherent, therefore they're the truth".  As I've stated repeatedly, showing that something is coherent in no way shows what it's truth value is.

Quote from: Olivianus
From my axiom, not my conclusion, that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge, I can deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts. This God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man (Col 3:10). I can also deduce that persons can be considered outside of a physical body. (2 Cor 12:3).
This is circular logic, obfuscated to make it look superficially plausible if you don't think about it too hard.  You've claimed as your axiom that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge.  So this is an assertion - not something you can prove.  From there, you deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts (and therefore represents the rational faculty of humans).  How do you know this?  Because he provided the Protestant Canonical list that you used as your axiom.  Now, you didn't actually state as much.  You left it unsaid in the hopes that it wouldn't be noticed.  Nonetheless, it is part of the conclusion and thus shows that your argument is based on circular logic.  Furthermore, you can in no way prove that the actual source of the Protestant Canonical list was "God", therefore this is nothing more than an assumption based on your preexisting belief that God exists.  In other words, more circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Thus the arche of all knowledge, in the genus of being, are divine ideas within a divine mind and this divine mind has no physical brain.  I speak to this issue in detail here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/eighteen-theses-against-behaviorism-by-drake/
No matter how well-spoken they are, arguments based on circular logic are necessarily invalidated.

Quote from: Olivianus
Your view clearly sees truth as a demonstration of physical objects in the chronological/historical order. That is contrasted with my view of propositional demonstration which is what you were rejecting when I replied at #91.
Nope.  You don't actually know what I see truth as.  This is simply a bad assumption on your part.

Quote from: Olivianus
The conclusion of coherency theory is yes, it is coherent or no its not. My axiom is the Protestant canonical list.  Don’t confuse them.
I don't deny that you can determine whether something is or isn't coherent.  What I do deny is that you can determine whether it's true based on that.  Furthermore, this Protestant Canonical stuff is not coherent to begin with.  It is simply cherry-picked Biblical scriptures, selected by Protestants in order to present the appearance of coherence, when in fact it is fundamentally arbitrary, nothing more than saying "I believe these scriptures are true" without any evidence to support those versus other scriptures that weren't picked.  It makes the whole thing little more than a farce, a claim that one set of unsupported beliefs is true while all other sets of unsupported beliefs are false.

Quote from: Olivianus
Asserting a confusion is not the same thing as explaining it. Notice how I consistently explain your conflations all throughout this dialogue.
The only thing you've done consistently is play word games in order to make your own arguments look good and other people's look bad.  This is not convincing.

Quote from: Olivianus
It appears we have reached a road block as I have a strong inclination that you are not able (At this time) to understand quite a number of issues here so continuing  would be a waste of my time.  I hope the best for you.
I understand much better than you seem to think I do.  What you're actually doing here is attempting to "declare victory and withdraw", so you can continue to claim that your beliefs are correct.  Kind of sad, really; for all that you claim to have the "embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge" on your side, you sure are clueless when it comes to actually arguing your case.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #100 on: January 27, 2013, 11:59:57 PM »
I have to say I am astonished that the OP won't tell us his view, ...

He has.  Here --> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24348.msg542174.html#msg542174
and at his funny blog where he reviews a book by a man who, in reality, almost certainly would have cringed at Oli's conclusions. 

You see, Oli is not stupid.  He's just... undereducated and misguided.  He read a book and did a book report on it.  It is meritable that, given his background, he understood any of it.  However, he cherry picked what he was looking for and now thinks he has comprehensive command of the philosophy of math.  He did not read other sources, as actual academics would.  He apparently has not bothered to consider the opposite conclusions.  Only his own narrow and dearly held beliefs. 

And so, he comes here armed with enough information to be dangerous.  I mean, who the flip has heard of Morris whatshisface?  Not me, not until Oli brought him up.  +1 to Oli for obscure thinkers.

It is kind of sad, really, that he could not find a positive message in the jesus thing.  Instead, he uses it as a blunt instrument to exact some kind of revenge for perceived slights.  Everything is ugly in Oli's world.  He does not see that jesus H, were he real, would not approve.

I actually wish I could help him.  His life must be a kind of hell.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #101 on: January 28, 2013, 09:11:37 AM »
That's why I keep trying to argue with him, even though it's probably futile.  He isn't stupid by any means, just narrow-minded.  So narrow-minded that it's hobbling his intelligence.  If he could get out of that mental trap, he'd be much more formidable in an argument.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +552/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2013, 08:30:04 PM »


From my axiom, not my conclusion, that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge, I can deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts. This God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man (Col 3:10). I can also deduce that persons can be considered outside of a physical body. (2 Cor 12:3).

Thus the arche of all knowledge, in the genus of being, are divine ideas within a divine mind and this divine mind has no physical brain. 

So there is something that has no physical being, has no brain and thinks thoughts and these thoughts are capable of the creation of extremely organised physical matter in defiance of known laws?

Now, normally, a person having reached that conclusion would have the decency to say, “So, I must be wrong, as this is clearly ridiculous.”

However, you really seem to believe that you have solved a problem.

I suggest that, in your mind you have solved that problem; it must seem so very, very clear to you. But, in everyone else’s mind, there is mere curiosity at the wonder of the intricate nature of delusion.

Quote
This God created the world and human beings

1.   I must have missed that bit. How do we know this?
2.   How do we know it is the Judeo-Christian god? I note you use the upper case, or were you slipping that in, in the hopes it would pass scrutiny?

Quote
God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man

So you are suggesting that bronze age tribesmen, who believed in witches, and actually saw Yahweh’s physical being, thought that God “is essentially the rational faculty of man.”?

Do you consider that to be a sustainable thought?

I, for one, readily admit to having difficulties seeing them thinking that as they squatted shitting in a shallow hole outside the camp and under the stars that they thought were little dots of light in a solid sky.

PS
Oh, and you were asked for your comments on the video of the philosopher explaining numbers: that would still be very helpful.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #103 on: January 30, 2013, 12:11:49 AM »
Graybeard,

Apparently he's not coming back until we all agree black people are animals[1]. Okay he didn't say that exactly but it was close enough.

-Nam
 1. in the sense that they are not human even though the first black person was born from a human. Yeah, I know...
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #104 on: January 30, 2013, 02:53:49 AM »
Would it be acceptable if I made an on topic post? ;)

Came across this in a popular science magazine yesterday.
The Piraha are a tribe from the Amazon. They make up some half a dozen villages, though a Piraha could never tell you that in his own language.
There is no half a dozen in Piraha, nor does "six" exist, or any number for that matter. Not zero, not one, not a single word for any amount.
Many, few, none, more, less, as many as ... none of it exists in Piraha. Linguists have attempted to teach adults of this tribe, with their consent, to count.
But the concept just won't take hold. For all intents and purposes, numbers don't exist as far as the Piraha are concerned.
Now, it would be interresting to see if Piraha children can be taught to count but the adults see no value in the lessons and thus won't allow it.
So, do they lack numbers because of culture or because of a difference in brain structure? We don't know. Still there it is, for at least part of humanity, numbers don't exist.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #105 on: January 30, 2013, 08:47:50 AM »
So, do they lack numbers because of culture or because of a difference in brain structure? We don't know. Still there it is, for at least part of humanity, numbers don't exist.

It's because jesus H hasn't told them about numbers.  You cannot know anything unless jesus H tells you. There is just no other way.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13044
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #106 on: January 30, 2013, 06:06:39 PM »
I want to know when Jesus h is going to tell me about foreplay...no wait..

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +552/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2013, 06:36:10 PM »
Graybeard,

Apparently he's not coming back until we all agree black people are animals[1]. Okay he didn't say that exactly but it was close enough.

-Nam
 1. in the sense that they are not human even though the first black person was born from a human. Yeah, I know...
I’m quite happy to say that; all homo sapiens are animals and somewhere there was probably the first of our species who, by definition, was not born of a homo sapiens. In fact, I am related to him/her.

Would it be acceptable if I made an on topic post? ;)

Now, it would be interesting to see if Piraha children can be taught to count but the adults see no value in the lessons and thus won't allow it.
This is not quite so. Some Piraha children have been cared for by Brazilians and live in ordinary settlements; they do grasp numbers (well, some do - others aren't bothered.)

May I recommend "Don't Sleep There are Snakes"[2] by Dan Everett? (It must be published in Dutch.) It is the story of the author's experiences with the Piraha - he is one of maybe 2 or three non-Piraha who speak Piraha, and he speaks it almost fluently. It takes the entire book to describe how unusual the Piraha are. They have no gods or leaders, they do not believe in anything that they have not seen; their language proved Noam Chomsky theory of language wrong. It is my favourite book - the insight into the human condition and the evolution of society is more than amazing.
 2. http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1846680409/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 06:40:10 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #108 on: January 31, 2013, 03:11:20 AM »
Well, that's what you get when you only read one article.
Don't recall ever coming across Everett at the local library, but I'll have a look, thanks Graybeard.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.