BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 5:56 pm
Logic deals with relationships between truths. Following and understanding those associations requires a thought process, but for those associations to merely
be there does not need to be thought.
I understand the apparency of this assertion -- it certainly
seems to be the case -- but it's rooted in the assumption that objective reality exists independent of a thinker/observer.
It's rooted in certain assumptions of sanity.
If you believe with such conviction that objective reality does not exist, then why are you trying to have a discussion about it?
Yours is the position that there is no truth.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
The notion that logic exists independent of thought is merely just another thought.
That's an anti-knowledge assertion.
All ideas and concepts can be thoughts, that doesn't mean there are
merely thought; some of them are also true of reality.
Some concepts may also not currently be known or thought of, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid concepts, or that they aren't physically real.
The concept of matter? Energy? These are ideas/thoughts. And yet they also objectively exist (although I assume you would dispute this).
If you wanted to discuss the is-aught problem, that would be a conversation we can have.
You can't come here asking us to disprove hard solipsism or prove that reality exists and that magical thinking is false. When you completely reject the foundations of science and logic, there's nothing to discuss on a forum based on those things.
It's interesting to note that carnists have to dismiss science and logic to retreat from vegan ethics. I think this "discussion" stands as testament to that.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
If it is not an assumption (albeit so deeply rooted that it appears self-evident), then where is the proof of this assertion? Show me how logic exists objectively and independently without simply saying "it just does!"
Please see the forum rules:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2115
I'm uninterested in wasting my time trying to convince somebody that logic is true, and that objective reality exists.
That logic is a valid mechanism to reach truths is a premise we require people here to accept for sake of argument.
If you do not personally believe it, that's fine. But if you can not tentatively accept it for the purposes of having a discussion, that's a problem.
I don't need to prove it; we assume logic is true and meaningful by having a discussion.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
The same goes for pi and the falling tree. The assertions you've made in regard to these phenomena are assumptions; they cannot be proven to exist independent of a thinker.
All you're doing is convincing people you're a crazy person. Solipsism and factual relativism will get you nowhere in philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factual_relativism
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmAn arrangment cannot exist without the things to be arranged, except as an idea. There is no square without something that is square. If every thing and thinker in the universe were to disappear, where is a square? Unless you are suggesting the objective reality of Plato's forms, it is nowhere; it ceases to exist.
A square is not a thing that physically exists; it's a concept, a mathematical ideal. It tells us things about reality to the extent those real objects approach that ideal. That's why we have margins of error in science; it doesn't invalidate science, it makes it useful.
The concept of "square" can not disappear or cease to exist, because it's not a physical thing. It can cease to be known or understood, but it can always be rediscovered. You can't destroy a concept, you can only destroy knowledge of the concept.
That doesn't mean real things are caused by or reflecting a particular conceptual ideal as Plato imagined. The space of all logically consistent concepts is practically infinite and continuous/non-discrete.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmNow, logic may be a prerequisite to a rational discussion, but this is not a problem since (contrary to your accusation) I have not claimed that logic doesn't work;
You have, though.
Premises.
Argument.
Conclusion.
Given the premises are true (including about reality), if the argument is valid, then the conclusion is true. This applies not just to subjective thought, but to real and meaningful things.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmI am using thoughts to make my argument to you and influence your thoughts,
If you reject objective reality, why do you objectively believe that subjective thoughts exist? That's absurd.
Nothing in logic applies to subjective thoughts; they do not function as premises. That's not logic. Such premises don't work.
Logic applies only to things presumed to be objectively true, including but not limited to objective concepts that accurately represent real things -- and if they do, then it applies to reality.
If a concept accurately represents reality, the same applies to both the concept and the real thing.
You can reject objective reality in entirety, but that doesn't make you more reasonable: it makes any discussion all the more pointless.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmMy only objection is that logic was being cited as an effective means by which we may prove the existence of an objective standard of morality.
I demonstrated how. Do you have a problem with any of my premises?
Do you have a problem with the logical arguments that follow?
If not, then you can not reject the conclusion without rejecting logic. This is how logic is appropriately used.
If you're not using it that way, you're both failing to use logic and asserting bad definitions.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmAs for thoughts being written on paper, etc., that is simply crooked lines on a page until perceived and interpreted by a thinker, thus creating thought.
We're talking about concepts. A "thought" is also an idea or set of contextual information, I was clear about this before; again you're using deceptive language (like the creationists) to try to force your conclusion into the premise. That's not appropriate.
You may be talking about language, where the sender and receiver already have a preconceived notion of a word's meaning (possibly a different one form each other, or possibly very similar if language is working) and it's encoded then interpreted at the respective ends, but not present in the word.
This is a naive understanding of information and deduction on your part. Not all encoding is linguistically encrypted.
Symbolic representations can reflect reality through mathematics, chemistry, physics. Pure information -- without the receiver knowing anything ahead of time of their meaning from the sender -- can be deduced to have meaning as long as the receiver is a reasonably intelligent rational mind.
DNA is a good example; it is not a language, and yet it conveys functional information through its mechanics which can be deduced by an appropriately intelligent receiver.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmThoughts on paper are thoughts when written by a thinker,
They were also physically encoded information systems in the form of connected neurons in the thinker.
You could splash a map of the neurons directly on to the page if needed, and with enough intelligence it could be interpreted.
Of course a thought can be transcribed onto paper; an entire mind could be as a freeze-frame.
If you don't call that a thought because it's frozen in time, then call it an idea or a concept instead.
Trying to imply that these things can only exist within an active and thinking mind is deceptive use of language to push your conclusion into the premise.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmthoughts when read by a thinker, and nothing in the space between these two occurrences.
Only if there's inadequate information to deduce the concept, or the necessary information has been lost.
Ideas, however, properly written can be recorded on paper and then not merely interpreted on the other end, but deduced.
Radio waves or other media would be fine too.
They're deduced through accurate correlation with basic concepts in logic.
We could send a signal, and get back something we could understand that gives us unified field despite no prior contact.
Most of the work on this kind of encoding is being done by mathematicians and linguists to send messages to the stars.
https://www.wired.com/2009/11/better-seti-code/ That kind of stuff.
But even if you're talking about linguistic encoding, it's incorrect to say ideas can't be held on paper; unique combinations of concepts as symbols (which were known ahead of time) can convey ideas previously unknown to the receiver. Of course this requires a Rosetta stone to decode, but there can still be "new" information there not included in the decoder. Linguistic constructs mirror mental ones.
Ideas don't need to be transmitted in anything, though; they can be discovered through mere deduction from reason alone.
Look at calculus; not invented, but independently discovered by Newton and Leibniz.
It's absurd to believe that calculus wasn't valid before it was "made up" and then worked only because people believed it did, or whatever nonsense you believe about mathematics. Like the world is made of fairies born of our subjective beliefs to become real, but only for people who believe.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmbut to define the universe as a creation is an unfounded assertion.
To define conceptual models like calculus as subjective thought is unfounded. Yours is a far more ridiculous belief than anything I see in theism.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmWe are not debating the definition of thought, only whether it can exist without a thinker. The two arguments differ in this critical regard.
You're defining all concepts as only existing subjectively in a thinker. You're precisely as deceptive here in shoehorning your conclusion into the premise. Your conclusions are more transparently absurd, though.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
We can have knowledge -- certain knowledge -- of our subjective experience.
Prove it.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pmOur experience is true
as such.
Now you're just asserting this.
If it is not an assumption (albeit so deeply rooted that it appears self-evident), then where is the proof of this assertion? Show me how certain knowledge of subjective thought exists objectively and independently without simply saying "it just does!"
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
When we experience something, that experience is certain and true,
You sound like some SJW snowflake.
Experiences are very prone to bias, delusion, false memory. They're also prone to be lied about or invented on the spot, we even lie to ourselves about experiences. Your cognition could be fried, you may have a split personality, or a thought incomprehensible to you, something in flux from instant to instant or innately contradictory.
You can't absolutely trust anything in your mind.
Again, I'll ask for proof, not another assertion.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
If I go check on the fish and report back to you, you know the experience of my words and the ideas they produce with certainty,
No I don't. I assume it because it's required for sanity. The same way we must assume the consistency of our own logical reasoning unless demonstrated otherwise, and the same way we must assume we have some glimpse into reality (however imperfect due to error in perception) and aren't in a solipsistic state.
You're asking for one assumption without proof, and then denying others that are every bit as essential for no reason other than you don't like the logical conclusions you can be brought to if you accept them.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
The claim that science, logic, and mathematics lead us to objective truths could only be proven by the submission of an objective truth which has been derived via these methods.
Logic does so, provided the premises are accepted as credible; and not all premises are empirical. It can also provide proof by contradiction, which doesn't rely on unique premises at all. The only "uncertainty" there is your own internal reasoning, which again as I said must be trusted as a prerequisite for sanity.
If you want an example: the incompatibility of omniscience and "free will", or the internal contradiction of omnipotence.
Empirical science is provisional and gives us answers with various degrees of confidence. That's a little different, but it doesn't make them subjective. Uncertainty does not poison the knowledge to the point of uselessness. It only becomes 99% useful, or 95% useful, or whatever the confidence interval is.
There are two boxes, A and B. You have to choose one to save with the other being incinerated with its contents, and you know there's a 99% chance your family is in box A and a 1% chance they're in box B. Assuming you want to save your family and have no other means the rational choice to make is to save box A.
That's what's called a moral certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_certainty
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
Show me an objective truth.
I gave you several above.
Proof by contradiction.
Empirical confidence as probability (although you can criticize methodology, this is based in mathematics, particularly for hard sciences).
Moral certainty in decision making based on empirical probability.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
Show me a fact that has not been passed through the filter of subjectivity and thus had its claim to objectivity irrevocably marred.
Any non-empirical matters that can be logically deduced.
But again, lacking perfect certainty doesn't make empirical knowledge useless.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
Millions of people seeing the sun does not prove that the sun exists independent of a perceiver. In fact, noting that millions of people see the sun is merely a single instance of perception being experienced by you, as you have no access to the experience of others.
That's not how science works; it's not an appeal to a large number of anecdotes. We have methodology to control for bias.
We do have to have some trust in our senses to avoid complete insanity, though.
Again: moral certainty is what matters.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
I asked how you suppose that logic is an effective means by which objectivity can be determined, to which you replied that you don't, because that's not what logic does.
For empirical data we rely on scientific methodology.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 7:13 pm
But you explicitly claimed that morality is objective, as proven by logic, in a previous post. How does logic prove objective morality?
I presented a proof earlier. If you accept the premises and find no flaw in the validity of the argument, that's how.