Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by JPhish

 

Whenever we argue, it always comes down to these specific words and their meanings...

if we're not using the same language, we can't communicate efficiently. defining terms is essential.

I think we did this with 'faith' before... and maybe 'truth'...
Now it's 'paradox'.
Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

never claimed otherwise.

It's obvious that it seems contradictory to you, but not to me.

i said already, in a previous post that what i have been presenting is not only a paradox, but a falsidical paradox if you belief it to be true based on anything other than a feeling. I explained it in the very post you are responding to. Nice to know you are reading thoroughly.

So you call it a paradox and I do not.

It's a paradox. But i'm more than willing to hear your reasoning behind why you believe that it is no so.

Me and Mel have already made numerous arguments against it being a paradox, so there is nothing more to say

.

Quantity is not quality.

Truths are easy to defend, and lies are not. I can defend my point all day because it is logically sound. Eventually your ideological house of cards and glass will come crashing down if you entertain the truth for too long. That is why you have nothing more to say.


[edit on 3/13/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
the evidence is pretty clear??? But you’re using logic to analyze the evidence, and the evidence leads you to believe your logic is flawed. It is a falsidical paradox if you claim to know you are right based on anything other than a feeling.

Do you think human reasoning is perfect?

Did C. S. Lewis think human reasoning was perfect.

Do you think your reasoning is perfect?

No I’m not; I made it quite clear that I was personifying nature to demonstrate my analogy juxtaposed to your statement that “you decide to do things and nature does not”. In naturalism it is the opposite. Nature dictates EVERYTHING. Nature has laws, it abides by those laws. One might say that those laws are natures will. Don’t read in-between the lines, I’m being straight forward.

OK, so we are in agreement that naturalism suggests no intentions for nature. It has no intentions or desires.

I do.

because nature makes it so. Like I said, you have absolutely no way of knowing that any action or thought you have ever had or decided upon could have been any other way than the way that nature intended.

Again, nature doesn't intend.

You seem to be conceiving nature as some sort of puppet-master. That's still teleology.

I think that every decision I have ever made wouldn't have been any different in the exact same setting.

woa woa woa, are you claiming to be cleverer than nature?

Cleverer?

lol

It does seem rather promiscuous.

I’m not claiming that you need any power, but you claim to have power, when in your ideology system, that power is an illusion. Even your sense of self would be nothing but a delusion

You still never answered the question.

Real choices would certainly not be fixed choices, which is what you claim to believe in, yet deny that you have. Do I want to be able to go back into the past and make different choices? I don’t see how that is relevant.

Nope, I make decisions based on my internal state and external influences.

I'm asking you what is about choice that you think is missing in my conception. I think the bolded bit earlier is perhaps suggestive.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
the evidence is pretty clear??? But you’re using logic to analyze the evidence, and the evidence leads you to believe your logic is flawed. It is a falsidical paradox if you claim to know you are right based on anything other than a feeling.

Do you think human reasoning is perfect?

Did C. S. Lewis think human reasoning was perfect.

Do you think your reasoning is perfect?

Regardless of what I think, it wouldn’t be a falsidical paradoxical within my personal belief system at the moment. The same holds true for C.S Lewis in the later part of his life.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with human logic being perfect; it has to do with getting caught in a falsidical paradox within your own philosophy.

OK, so we are in agreement that naturalism suggests no intentions for nature. It has no intentions or desires.

but it has laws, which have a deterministic nature.

I do. [have intentions and desires]

so???

Again, nature doesn't intend.

by natures laws or dare I say it, natures NATURE you have intentions and desires.

You seem to be conceiving nature as some sort of puppet-master. That's still teleology.

No it’s not; it would only be teleology if I claimed the puppet master had reasons for doing the things she does. Again, I’m personifying nature to make an analogy.

I have not claimed that nature has any purpose or goal, I said quite clearly in one of my first posts that in naturalism the universe simply, is.

I think that every decision I have ever made wouldn't have been any different in the exact same setting.

That means that you agree your thoughts and decisions are ruled by nature . . .

It does seem rather promiscuous.

Promiscuous?

You still never answered the question.

I’m sorry, what was the question?

Nope, I make decisions based on my internal state and external influences.

your decisions, internal state, and external influences were and are never subject to change. You said so yourself

Originally posted by melatonin
I think that every decision I have ever made wouldn't have been any different in the exact same setting.

I'm asking you what is about choice that you think is missing in my conception.

Choice implies that you have alternatives to the conditions of the milieu. This does not exist within naturalism.

I think the bolded bit earlier is perhaps suggestive.

How so? You don’t have any proof, and by your philosophy the proof doesn’t exist. You claim to have choice yet according to you all the choices you made could not have been any different. Hence you have the illusion of choice.

[edit on 3/13/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Do you think human reasoning is perfect?

Did C. S. Lewis think human reasoning was perfect.

Do you think your reasoning is perfect?

Regardless of what I think, it wouldn’t be a falsidical paradoxical within my personal belief system at the moment. The same holds true for C.S Lewis in the later part of his life.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with human logic being perfect; it has to do with getting caught in a falsidical paradox within your own philosophy.

Answer the question for once. A fairly simple YES/NO would do.

My claim is evidential based, not philosophy based.

but it has laws, which have a deterministic nature.

So.

I do. [have intentions and desires]

so???

lol

by natures laws or dare I say it, natures NATURE you have intentions and desires.

And so I have the ability to act in my self-interest. Hence, self-control and as much free will as anyone would need.

No it’s not; it would only be teleology if I claimed the puppet master had reasons for doing the things she does. Again, I’m personifying nature to make an analogy.

It's bad analogy. Lewis was bad at them as well. He produced nice prose (crap and inconsistent stories - prefer Tolkein), though.

I have not claimed that nature has any purpose or goal, I said quite clearly in one of my first posts that in naturalism the universe simply, is.

Cool. Well stick to it. It's helpful. It might stop you applying erroneous reasoning like giving the universe features of intelligence and purpose in naturalism.

That’s means that you agree that your thoughts and decisions are ruled by nature . . .

Nope, it suggests it would be determinstic.

Promiscuous?

Teleology.

To say 'cleverer' than the universe is certainly suggestive of an intelligent universe. You keep showing your slip.

You still never answered the question.

I’m sorry, what was the question?

Don't see the point in asking again. You're quite evasive.

What is this 'power to change things' that you think I'm missing out on?

your decisions, internal state, and external influences were and are never subject to change. You said so yourself

Not in the past, no. It would be rather incoherent to suggest such a thing.

Do you want to go back and change the past? If not, why does it matter?

Choice implies that you have alternatives to the conditions of the milieu. This does not exist within naturalism.

Yes, the choice when we look back is an illusion. We extract memories and past events, we are influenced by the current internal subjective state and desires, and react to the external. With the exact same information and setting, we would make the exact same decision. To suggest otherwise is wacky and irrational.

How so? You don’t have any proof, and by your philosophy the proof doesn’t exist. You claim to have choice yet according to you all the choices you made could not have been any different. Hence you have the illusion of choice.

Looking back, yes. But I still had control. My desires were influential and I was a causally effective agent.

What more do you want?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Answer the question for once. A fairly simple YES/NO would do.

I honestly don’t presume to know. Lewis never really makes his stance on the subject clear either. Like I said, it wouldn’t be a paradox either way, so I don’t understand the point of the question.

My claim is evidential based, not philosophy based.

but your evidence contradicts itself. Your claims eventually become based on a feeling.

So. (?)

If nature’s laws are deterministic in nature, there is no free will.

And so I have the ability to act in my self-interest. Hence, self-control and as much free will as anyone would need.

but you only act in your self interest because of nature. Also, while carrying out your self interest, every aspect of “you” is being influenced absolutely by chance and necessity. Absolute bondage to chance and necessity are hardly the attributes of something that has direct control or choice.

It's bad analogy. Lewis was bad at them as well. He produced nice prose (crap and inconsistent stories - prefer Tolkein), though.

I’m not going to disagree.

Cool. Well stick to it. It's helpful. It might stop you applying erroneous reasoning like giving the universe features of intelligence and purpose in naturalism.

I’ve been on the same course the whole time, but I’ve taken a few detours to make the path more amicable for you.

Nope, it suggests it would be determinstic.

how does that not mean that your thoughts and decisions are ruled by nature?

Teleology.

To say 'cleverer' than the universe is certainly suggestive of an intelligent universe. You keep showing your slip.

An intentional slip, hence the humorous “woa woa woa”. What I was trying to suggest is that because your thoughts and actions are the result of nature. Your intelligence is also the result of nature and nature lays claim to it. You can never be cleverer than yourself.

What is this 'power to change things' that you think I'm missing out on?

Did I ever claim that you were missing out on something? “Free will” may very well be an idealistic idea such as perfection. I’m just trying to make sure you’re showing yourself all the cards and that I myself have the hand I’ve believed.

Not in the past, no. It would be rather incoherent to suggest such a thing.

Do you want to go back and change the past? If not, why does it matter?

As a precondition, if you could not have altered your past, you can not alter your future. Ergo, everything you do is predetermined by nature.

Yes, the choice when we look back is an illusion. We extract memories and past events, we are influenced by the current internal subjective state and desires, and react to the external. With the exact same information and setting, we would make the exact same decision. To suggest otherwise is wacky and irrational.

ok, now apply that to future events.

Looking back, yes. But I still had control. My desires were influential and I was a causally effective agent.

OK but instead of saying casually, how about passively?

What more do you want?

Just for you to understand me and for I to understand you; not necessarily agree. In that regard, I think we’ve come a long way.

[edit on 3/14/2009 by JPhish]

I'm sorry.

I actually like Jphish....and others answers,


I just cannot read through the parsing of the posts!!!!

Serously....I like the context....but I simply cannot read through the baloney.


OK, my 'rant' is now over....!

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
Answer the question for once. A fairly simple YES/NO would do.

I honestly don’t presume to know. Lewis never really makes his stance on the subject clear either. Like I said, it wouldn’t be a paradox either way, so I don’t understand the point of the question.

Just to remind you...

Do you think human reasoning is perfect?

Did C. S. Lewis think human reasoning was perfect.

Do you think your reasoning is perfect?

So you have no idea about CS, two remain. In your own time...

The point is to get an answer, lol.

If nature’s laws are deterministic in nature, there is no free will.

Why?

If you define it that way, maybe.

hardly the attributes of something that has direct control or choice.

What would direct control and choice entail?

We are all influenced by other factors, be it social/cultural learning, biology, setting. But we still have the ability to be causally effective. My desires/intentions, actions, and interactions really do matter.

I’ve been on the same course the whole time, but I’ve taken a few detours to make the path more amicable for you.

Answering questions clearly would suggest amicability, lol.

I've pretty clearly outlined my own position, and I don't see anything to add to the conception of free will I have that is coherent or meaningful.

how does that not mean that your thoughts and decisions are ruled by nature?

I am just one little part of nature. A part of nature with agency.

Your intelligence is also the result of nature and nature lays claim to it. You can never be cleverer than yourself.

But I'm not nature. Just a part. The question as you posed it was incoherent. It's a bit like asking if the glass of water I have is wetter than nature.

Did I ever claim that you were missing out on something? “Free will” may very well be an idealistic idea such as perfection. I’m just trying to make sure you’re showing yourself all the cards and that I myself have the hand I’ve believed.

But, again, I've outlined what I mean by free will. I have freedom to act in my best interests. I can direct my own ship within constraints - thus, I won't be teleporting to venus any time soon or even sprouting wings and swooping around the north atlantic.

As a precondition, if you could not have altered your past, you can not alter your future. Ergo, everything you do is predetermined by nature.

The future hasn't yet happened. I can alter my future. I outlined earlier how I did/do so - I represented the potential consequences of certain plans and responsibilities I had for next week, changed them, and now it will all (hopefully) run a little smoother.

ok, now apply that to future events.

Above.

OK but instead of saying casually, how about passively?

Sometimes I might be passive, but even then it's generally under my control. I can be passive or active, depends on my desires and intentions.

Is that what you meant?

What more do you want?

Just for you to understand me and for I to understand you; not necessarily agree. In that regard, I think we’ve come a long way.

That's cool, J. Don't take me wrong, I'm just bouncing new ideas round my head and honing them. And I think that the idea that free will is not possible with determinism is wrong. Adding indeterminism into our behaviour doesn't really give anything like free will. How can I control (or be responsible for) something that poofs from nowhere and is completely uncorrelated to anything - my desires/intentions, setting, personality etc etc?

I'm not sure I do really understand you, though, I see glimpses. You are being a bit guarded and evasive, IMO.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by JPhish
if we're not using the same language, we can't communicate efficiently. defining terms is essential.

That is what the dictionary is used for.
Which is why I have been using it .

Originally posted by JPhish

I think we did this with 'faith' before... and maybe 'truth'...
Now it's 'paradox'.
Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

never claimed otherwise.

Well then that makes my job that much easier.
You admit that a paradox is something which seems contradictory but may not be.

So my counterargument is simple:
It seems contradictory to you but not to me.
You call it a paradox and I do not.

And why does it not seem contradictory to me?
Because it is not contradictory, and I understand that.


dictionary.reference.com...

contradiction - direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.


1. My logic is imperfect
2. I accept the above as true through logical means

Where is the contradiction?
If both can be true at the same time, then there is no contradiction.
Can both be true at the same time? Yes.
Because 'imperfect' doesn't mean 'always flawed'.

My logic can be imperfect AND I can be aware of it at the same time.
There is no contradiction.

That's the bottom line.

To you, there seems to be a contradiction.
To me, there is no contradiction.
You call it a paradox.
I do not.

Originally posted by JPhish
i said already, in a previous post that what i have been presenting is not only a paradox, but a falsidical paradox if you belief it to be true based on anything other than a feeling. I explained it in the very post you are responding to. Nice to know you are reading thoroughly.

A falsidical paradox is an illusion.
It is not contradictory in nature, only seems to be to some people.
But I'm not arguing against that - I already said it may seem contradictory to some, but is not contradictory in reality.
And to those who understand it is not contradictory, it is not a paradox (the definition I used prior), as that goes against the meaning of a paradox.

Originally posted by JPhish
It's a paradox. But i'm more than willing to hear your reasoning behind why you believe that it is no so.

No you're not.
You're more than willing to argue things that don't matter.
You're more than willing to be right at all costs.
You're more than willing to not look at the other side of the argument.

You admitted above that a paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement.
It is not seemingly contradictory to me, so your idea that it is a paradox will only be accepted by those who hold that view.

An imperfect system can be aware that it is imperfect.
It does not contradict itself.

Originally posted by JPhish
Truths are easy to defend, and lies are not. I can defend my point all day because it is logically sound. Eventually your ideological house of cards and glass will come crashing down if you entertain the truth for too long. That is why you have nothing more to say.

lol...
I had nothing more to say because it's already been said.
The fool chatters whilst the wise man listens.
I advise you to listen rather than spout more arguments.
It's really very simple.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by melatonin
My claim is evidential based, not philosophy based.

And there is the difference.
At the heart of this argument is the belief that we can not know anything 100%, as anything could be possible.
I hold that to be true, in a sense, but that does not mean that we should doubt the evidence we do have.
This is why science and philosophy will always clash.
One based on evidence and the other based on the Devil's advocate system of no evidence being sufficient.

I can hold something as true while still knowing that there is a possibility that it is false.
People such as JPhish seem to hold nothing as true to begin with... except their own philosophical arguments of course .
And that seems to be the most ironic thing of all...

To know that no one can know.

Paradox, anyone?

Originally posted by melatonin
So you have no idea about CS, two remain. In your own time...

The point is to get an answer, lol.

I don’t claim to know what is true, but I do try to rule out what I can deduce to be false. The word “perfect” as everyone uses it, may very well be an idealistic term for something that does not really exist. However I have no grounds to believe that human logic is or isn’t perfect. It’s my understanding that naturalism does not entertain the idea of something being flawless. For if there was something flawless it would not only suggest perfection of form but perfection of function. This could not be attributing to entities or objects that evolve. Perhaps it could be for Atoms and Sub-matter? I’m not sure; I think it would be subjective at that point.

Originally posted by JPhish
If nature’s laws are deterministic in nature, there is no free will.

Originally posted by melatonin
Why?

If you define it that way, maybe.

May be because free will, like perfection, is an idealistic term; there is no proof that either ever existed before we birthed them. But within a universe where those ideas are birthed by nature, everything is “perfect” because nature is objective, and nothing has “will” outside of its’ natural stimuli. Free will implies freedom from somethings’ will whether it is nature or an omnipotent deity. In “creation” universes the term was coined because some claimed that they were free from the will of G*d. But there is a paradox within the bible because it says that you have free will, yet it makes prophecies. If you are bound by compulsions or predestination, free will can not be had. It would appear that prophecies can only be made within a predetermined universe. In which case, you really don’t have free will in any of our standard universes.

What would direct control and choice entail?

The situation is a bit grayed, because like I said, when you draw a card from a magicians deck, you have the illusion of choice, water in its versatility gives the illusion of control. For me, control implies having power over the controlling force of the universe and choice implies control of the power you have. What a mind job.

We are all influenced by other factors, be it social/cultural learning, biology, setting. But we still have the ability to be causally effective

It seems to be true.

My desires/intentions, actions, and interactions really do matter.

but they really don’t. Or at least, I don’t see how they do.

I am just one little part of nature. A part of nature with agency.

Not following you here.

But I'm not nature. Just a part. The question as you posed it was incoherent. It's a bit like asking if the glass of water I have is wetter than nature.

Sounds good to me.

But, again, I've outlined what I mean by free will. I have freedom to act in my best interests. I can direct my own ship within constraints - thus, I won't be teleporting to venus any time soon or even sprouting wings and swooping around the north atlantic.

it’s more about freedom of will. Not the freedom to be The Green Lantern.

Originally posted by JPhish
As a precondition, if you could not have altered your past, you can not alter your future. Ergo, everything you do is predetermined by nature.

Originally posted by melatonin
The future hasn't yet happened. I can alter my future.

Can you?

I outlined earlier how I did/do so - I represented the potential consequences of certain plans and responsibilities I had for next week, changed them, and now it will all (hopefully) run a little smoother.

but you didn’t actually change anything, because it never actually happened. Have you ever seen Minority Report? If so, think of how the moral paradoxes in that movie apply to this scenario.

Sometimes I might be passive, but even then it's generally under my control. I can be passive or active, depends on my desires and intentions.

Is that what you meant?

Not really, when I said passive I was alluding to how we would be submissive to necessity.

That's cool, J. Don't take me wrong, I'm just bouncing new ideas round my head and honing them. And I think that the idea that free will is not possible with determinism is wrong.

I just defined “free will” in my terms above. After reading what I’ve wrote tell me if you still feel the same way.

Adding indeterminism into our behaviour doesn't really give anything like free will.

never said it would. If it’s not hot out it doesn’t mean it is cold.

How can I control (or be responsible for) something that poofs from nowhere and is completely uncorrelated to anything - my desires/intentions, setting, personality etc etc?

As I said before, the natural and supernatural might be conceptually in a ven diagram. There might be a meshing of the two; A median of sorts.

I'm not sure I do really understand you, though, I see glimpses. You are being a bit guarded and evasive, IMO.

I’d like to think of myself as thorough while precautious.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
That is what the dictionary is used for.
Which is why I have been using it

.

Ewwww. Most of the words in the dictionary are watered down.
What’s bigger?
Humongous, titanic, colossal, enormous, monumental or gigantic?

This is one example of why I believe words must be defined.

Another reason is because many words have multiple definitions, archaic definitions and definitions that are only used with certain scientific/philosophical/religious/etc jargon.

Well then that makes my job that much easier.
You admit that a paradox is something which seems contradictory but may not be.

some paradoxes yes, but not falsidical paradoxes.

So my counterargument is simple:
It seems contradictory to you but not to me.
You call it a paradox and I do not.

I call it a falsidical paradox under the appropriate circumstances. It’s a paradox, there’s nothing subjective about it.

1. My logic is imperfect
2. I accept the above as true through logical means
Where is the contradiction?

The sentence itself is illogical, which is why it becomes a paradox.

You might as well say

“I believe that dragons exists, because a dragon told me it exists”

Or

“I believe John sometimes tells the truth, because John told me he does.”

Your beliefs in all three cases are based off of intuition, not logic.

If both can be true at the same time, then there is no contradiction.
Can both be true at the same time? Yes.

The sentence itself is illogical, but it is being posed as a logical proposition; that is the paradox. The sentence contradicts itself.

Because 'imperfect' doesn't mean 'always flawed'.

I’ve said it a few times already that it doesn’t matter whether it is perfect or imperfect, flawless or flawed. The sentence itself is a paradox.

My logic can be imperfect AND I can be aware of it at the same time.
There is no contradiction.

The sentence itself is a contradiction . . . the sentence is a paradox.

To you, there seems to be a contradiction.
To me, there is no contradiction.
You call it a paradox.
I do not.

you’re looking for a paradox within the sentence, when the sentence itself is a paradox. I guess it’s true that sometimes you can’t see the forest from the trees.

A falsidical paradox is an illusion.
It is not contradictory in nature, only seems to be to some people.
But I'm not arguing against that - I already said it may seem contradictory to some, but is not contradictory in reality.
And to those who understand it is not contradictory, it is not a paradox (the definition I used prior), as that goes against the meaning of a paradox.

are you telling me you don’t believe anything is a paradox? Oh no . . .

Originally posted by JPhish
It's a paradox. But i'm more than willing to hear your reasoning behind why you believe that it is no so.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
No you're not.

yes I am!

You're more than willing to argue things that don't matter.

In your opinion

You're more than willing to be right at all costs.

In your opinion

You're more than willing to not look at the other side of the argument.

In your opinion

You admitted above that a paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement.

yes and a falicidiccal paradox IS a contradictory statement.

It is not seemingly contradictory to me, so your idea that it is a paradox will only be accepted by those who hold that view.

a sentence that claims to be logical yet is illogical isn’t contradictory? OK then.

An imperfect system can be aware that it is imperfect.
It does not contradict itself.

THE SENTENCE ITSELF IS THE PARADOX.

lol...
I had nothing more to say because it's already been said.
The fool chatters whilst the wise man listens.
I advise you to listen rather than spout more arguments.
It's really very simple.

I don’t like to abandon people when they appear to be lost. The sentence itself is a paradox TP. But I really was hoping you’d figure that out on your own.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by melatonin
My claim is evidential based, not philosophy based.

And there is the difference.
At the heart of this argument is the belief that we can not know anything 100%, as anything could be possible.
I hold that to be true, in a sense, but that does not mean that we should doubt the evidence we do have.

in a sense???
“I think therefore I am”
I know that one thing 100%
Your belief is wrong.

Wait . . . now I know that you belief is wrong 100%

Fun how that works.

This is why science and philosophy will always clash.
One based on evidence and the other based on the Devil's advocate system of no evidence being sufficient.

Philosophy ^ logic = mathematical reasoning ^ math = truth
Science = external inferences + applied logic = pursuit of truth

Good luck in your pursuit.

I can hold something as true while still knowing that there is a possibility that it is false.

what do you believe to be true? It doesn’t matter. What matters to me is WHY you believe it to be true; don’t say you believe it because it is scientific or logical when you are being everything but scientific or logical.

People such as JPhish seem to hold nothing as true to begin with... except their own philosophical arguments of course

.

mirror much?

And that seems to be the most ironic thing of all...

Nothing in this thread is more ironic than your name.

To know that no one can know.

Paradox, anyone?

Clever, and yes a paradox.

Originally posted by JPhish

So my counterargument is simple:
It seems contradictory to you but not to me.
You call it a paradox and I do not.

I call it a falsidical paradox under the appropriate circumstances. It’s a paradox, there’s nothing subjective about it.

The very definition of Paradox I am arguing IS subjective.
That's my whole point!
It's something which seems contradictory but may not be.
To you it seems contradictory. Great.
To me it doesn't.
Why are you saying that I must see the illusion you see?

It neither seems contradictory (to me) nor is it contradictory.

Originally posted by JPhish

1. My logic is imperfect
2. I accept the above as true through logical means
Where is the contradiction?

The sentence itself is illogical, which is why it becomes a paradox.

How is it illogical?

Originally posted by JPhish
You might as well say

“I believe that dragons exists, because a dragon told me it exists”

That's not a paradox either, nor is it illogical.
A dragon saying it exists does not contradict the fact that it may exist.

Originally posted by JPhish
“I believe John sometimes tells the truth, because John told me he does.”

That is not a paradox either.
John saying that he tells the truth does not contradict the fact that he may tell the truth.

Originally posted by JPhish
Your beliefs in all three cases are based off of intuition, not logic.

The one with John, yes.
The others, no.
Because there is evidence that logic may not always be accurate, just as there is (in your example) evidence that the dragon exists.
But again, the fact that logic is not always accurate does not contradict the fact that it may be accurate about the idea of it not always being accurate.
The two can be true at the same time, and so there is no contradiction.
And if there is no contradiction, there is no paradox.

Originally posted by JPhish
The sentence itself is illogical, but it is being posed as a logical proposition; that is the paradox. The sentence contradicts itself.

How is the sentence itself illogical?
The sentence itself is very logical - to base opinion off evidence.
But if you do conclude that it is illogical, while I conclude that it is logical, then you just proved the point that logic is not always perfect, and thus also proving the point that it is not illogical to base your opinion off of that.

Originally posted by JPhish
I’ve said it a few times already that it doesn’t matter whether it is perfect or imperfect, flawless or flawed. The sentence itself is a paradox.

If it seems contradictory to you than you may label it a paradox.
But it is not contradictory.
An imperfect system can be aware of its imperfection - there is no contradiction.
A paradox would be if a perfect system believed it wasn't perfect, or if an always flawed system believed it was imperfect.

Originally posted by JPhish

My logic can be imperfect AND I can be aware of it at the same time.
There is no contradiction.

The sentence itself is a contradiction . . . the sentence is a paradox.

How does the sentence contradict itself?
Yes, you use logic to come to the conclusion of your logic not being perfect.
However, there is no contradiction if both statements may be accurate.

If a computer (which is imperfect) comes up with a system alert saying it has a flaw (which is to say that it is imperfect), is that a paradox?
The computer gets this alert from within itself, which is imperfect.
But there is no contradiction, so there is no paradox.

Originally posted by JPhish
are you telling me you don’t believe anything is a paradox? Oh no . . .

Not at all. I'm saying that a true paradox contradicts itself or seems to contradict itself (according to human logic).

1. This statement is false.2a. Suppose 1 is true.Contradiction: If it’s true that it’s false then it isn’t false.

1. This statement is false.2b. Suppose 1 is false.3b. Invoke the opposite of 1: This statement is true.Contradiction: A statement can’t be both true and false.

Both those examples contradict themselves. They are paradoxes.

But I'm asking you:
Where is the contradiction of an imperfect system being aware of it's imperfection?
Can not both be true?

Originally posted by JPhish

It is not seemingly contradictory to me, so your idea that it is a paradox will only be accepted by those who hold that view.

a sentence that claims to be logical yet is illogical isn’t contradictory? OK then.

Lol... you keep saying that but never explain how it's illogical.
Is it illogical for a computer to alert you to an internal flaw?

There's nothing illogical about it.
An imperfect system may be aware of its imperfection.

Originally posted by JPhish
in a sense???
“I think therefore I am”
I know that one thing 100%
Your belief is wrong.

Good. I was starting to think that you didn't believe anything 100% .

Originally posted by JPhish
Wait . . . now I know that you belief is wrong 100%

My assumptions about you may be wrong.
But I doubt all of them are .
Even in a false statement there is usually truth.

Originally posted by JPhish
Fun how that works.

Indeed.

Originally posted by JPhish
Philosophy ^ logic = mathematical reasoning ^ math = truth
Science = external inferences + applied logic = pursuit of truth

I suppose it depends on the philosophy and logic applied.
Though both seem to be saying that they may very well be flawed, and that the truth is an unattainable goal.
Nice signature, by the way .

Originally posted by JPhish

I can hold something as true while still knowing that there is a possibility that it is false.

what do you believe to be true? It doesn’t matter. What matters to me is WHY you believe it to be true; don’t say you believe it because it is scientific or logical when you are being everything but scientific or logical.

I hold things to be true that seem most likely to be true (yes, based on my limited perspective and understanding of the Universe).
But the truth is that no one can know what is true.
Again, anything is possible. I'm interested in what is probable.

Originally posted by JPhish

People such as JPhish seem to hold nothing as true to begin with... except their own philosophical arguments of course

.

mirror much?

I believe many things are true.
The fact that they could be false does not stop me from believing they are true.
I have no reason to believe that this world is an illusion, though I know that it's possible. But I'm not interested in what's possible - that's an infinite hole.

Originally posted by JPhish
Nothing in this thread is more ironic than your name.

Lol.. maybe.
But what about your name?
Is it first name/last name J----- Phish?
Or is it like J Fish or Jesus Fish?
I'm guessing that's just a coincidence...

[edit on 16-3-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by JPhish
I don’t claim to know what is true, but I do try to rule out what I can deduce to be false. The word “perfect” as everyone uses it, may very well be an idealistic term for something that does not really exist. However I have no grounds to believe that human logic is or isn’t perfect. It’s my understanding that naturalism does not entertain the idea of something being flawless. For if there was something flawless it would not only suggest perfection of form but perfection of function. This could not be attributing to entities or objects that evolve. Perhaps it could be for Atoms and Sub-matter? I’m not sure; I think it would be subjective at that point.

It's an answer, I guess. A pretty obfuscatory one, IMO. It was a fairly simple question. If you wanted grounds to base a perspective on, perhaps check the evidence - psychology is the area of interest, and it has well-investigated the common problems in human reasoning - we are good at some stuff, bad at others.

So the idealised term 'perfect logic' doesn't really exist in the real-world. Therefore human logic is imperfect. It can still be reliable, just not perfect.

So what's the beef? You're really not in any better position than anyone else for your supposed paradox - invoking a magical flawless thing is no real answer.

Originally posted by JPhish
May be because free will, like perfection, is an idealistic term; there is no proof that either ever existed before we birthed them. But within a universe where those ideas are birthed by nature, everything is “perfect” because nature is objective, and nothing has “will” outside of its’ natural stimuli. Free will implies freedom from somethings’ will whether it is nature or an omnipotent deity. In “creation” universes the term was coined because some claimed that they were free from the will of G*d. But there is a paradox within the bible because it says that you have free will, yet it makes prophecies. If you are bound by compulsions or predestination, free will can not be had. It would appear that prophecies can only be made within a predetermined universe. In which case, you really don’t have free will in any of our standard universes.

But nature doesn't have a will. It just is. Will and intentions are chracteristics of agents. And so it could be a problem for theistic conceptions - as they conceive of agents with their own intentions with the potential to direct the will of man. Indeed, in many stories the supernatural agent does take people's will and compel action. And we see the same thinking in modern theism - people thanking a magical agent for all sorts of interventions in the natural world.

Again, the notion of the human mind/brain/behaviour as a sort of black box is a fantasy. So if you define 'free will' as the ability for 100% freedom from the influences of any drives, internal or external, then it doesn't exist. But in which case it's a vacuous concept.

What do we want free will for? I just want the ability to have self-control and to direct my own ship - and, to an extent, I do.

The situation is a bit grayed, because like I said, when you draw a card from a magicians deck, you have the illusion of choice, water in its versatility gives the illusion of control. For me, control implies having power over the controlling force of the universe and choice implies control of the power you have. What a mind job.

Power of the 'controlling force of nature'? We have the ability to mould nature to our will, to an extent. We can use parts of nature to protect us, we can challenge the actions of other organisms (disease etc) etc etc.

And I do have control of the 'power I have'. As long as I'm a causally effective agent, my intentions and actions matter - that's enough free will to me. If someone implants a chip that takes away such control, then I'll have a problem and my will and intentions will lack influence.

My desires/intentions, actions, and interactions really do matter.

but they really don’t. Or at least, I don’t see how they do.

Because to remove me would remove my causal influence. It would be like taking Nando Torres out of the Liverpool team - his actions and intentions matter to the team and game. And mine do to.

Not following you here.

You seem to be conflating a part of nature (me) with the whole of nature.

Sounds good to me.

I would think nature would be drier. As it contains both dry and wet substances, lol. We might add it all up and find that the overall wetness index is less than 0.

It's a silly question.

it’s more about freedom of will. Not the freedom to be The Green Lantern.

lol, yeah. But just a mo' ago you were invoking control of nature

For me, control implies having power over the controlling force of the universe

In which case, the Green Lantern has more free will than most.

Can you?

Yes, I just told you how. Because it hasn't happened I can change my directions and outcome. I can even update as time passes as I move through time towards a goal.

but you didn’t actually change anything, because it never actually happened. Have you ever seen Minority Report? If so, think of how the moral paradoxes in that movie apply to this scenario.

I did. I changed my plans and intentions. The future only exists in a representation in our minds and unfolds before us, as the 'present' moves through time, leaving a fixed past behind.

But minority report is just a film. Even if we invoke a sort of impossible Laplace's demon, it doesn't take away free will. We would still be active intentional agents who can be causally effective. It would just mean that the demon could make idealised predictions of future events, but that would depend on other aspects, such as deterministic chaos - the demon would have to have infinite accuracy in such massively complex calculations - all but impossible in reality.

Not really, when I said passive I was alluding to how we would be submissive to necessity.

In some ways we are. So it doesn't matter how much freedom I have, it is still almost certain that I'll pop my clogs. But those are still the constraints that would apply to any sort of free will.

I just defined “free will” in my terms above. After reading what I’ve wrote tell me if you still feel the same way.

I do. I just think because of the theistic influences and cartesian dualism people have been forced into intellectual knots to justify some sort of free will.

I noted the sorts of things that take away free will, or are not willed behaviour. For example, a Tourette's sufferers tics are not willed. The reflex after the quack whacking my knee isn't a willed behaviour (but the quack's is). You pumping me full of barbs wouldn't allow me free will in gaining slumber (but yours is).

Me posting this post is as willed freely as any behaviour can be. But it was influenced by your response, of course. But I can answer or not.

never said it would. If it’s not hot out it doesn’t mean it is cold.

Okie doke.

As I said before, the natural and supernatural might be conceptually in a ven diagram. There might be a meshing of the two; A median of sorts.

So something apart from nature causes things? Just more determinism?

Or is it some random noncausal thing that can't really underpin free will?

I'm not sure I do really understand you, though, I see glimpses. You are being a bit guarded and evasive, IMO.

I’d like to think of myself as thorough while precautious.

lol

[edit on 16-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
But again, the fact that logic is not always accurate does not contradict the fact that it may be accurate about the idea of it not always being accurate.
The two can be true at the same time, and so there is no contradiction.
And if there is no contradiction, there is no paradox.

I don't think J. actually gets the problem. Indeed, his argument could well be a fallacy itself. Essentially we are saying that human reasoning is less than perfect, there is a massive amount of evidence that this is the case. And so it's a very, very reasonable conclusion.

However, that does not mean all human reasoning is not accurate. Which is what he's trying to suggest, really. I can just as easily claim that human reasoning is reliable, it's just not perfect. And unless J. is the most hubristic individual I've ever come across, he would accept that his reasoning and logic is not perfect.

Some sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.

The funny thing is that logic is just a mechanism, when dissociated from the real-world it's not really much more than vacuous crap. I can make all sorts of logically sound arguments that are completely inconsistent with the real-world.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Einstein

And human reasoning and logic can be viewed in the same sense. Which is why any knowledgeable student of science and philosophy of science calls for humility and tentative inferences (otherwise, we'd be inductive turkeys).

But the notion of perfect human reasoning is a quaint idea. Completely incongruent with the evidence, of course.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
And unless J. is the most hubristic individual I've ever come across, he would accept that his reasoning and logic is not perfect.

I don't think he will now. It would be hypocritical to say that his logic isn't perfect, after the arguments he's made.
The funny thing to me is the fact that even if you claim to not know if your logic is perfect, that in itself is proof that it's not perfect, as perfect logic would know that it's perfect (based on our definition/understanding of the word 'perfect').
It's almost a paradox .

Originally posted by TruthParadox
The very definition of Paradox I am arguing IS subjective.
That's my whole point!
It's something which seems contradictory but may not be.
To you it seems contradictory. Great.
To me it doesn't.
Why are you saying that I must see the illusion you see?

I’m not saying you must, but this is almost as odd as when my friend told me he didn’t believe that he exists. That’s why I brought the story up before. There are certain things that I’d like to think of as apparent to everyone. One of those things for certain is that you can acknowledge your own existence.

If it seems logical to you, I can never expect you to see the paradox. But it is very apparent to me and many others I’ve spoken to.

It neither seems contradictory (to me) nor is it contradictory.

What is the point of the prefix of this sentence? Just say “it’s not contradictory to me.” no?

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TruthParadox
1. My logic is imperfect
2. I accept the above as true through logical means
Where is the contradiction?

The sentence itself is illogical, which is why it becomes a paradox.

Originally posted by JPhish
How is it illogical?

because beliefs are based on intuition. Possible known truths are based on logic. To believe that logic is flawed would be based on intuition, not based on any form of logic, faulty or otherwise. That’s why the sentence is illogical and contradicts itself.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by JPhish
You might as well say

“I believe that dragons exists, because a dragon told me it exists”

That's not a paradox either, nor is it illogical.
A dragon saying it exists does not contradict the fact that it may exist.

Never said it was a paradox, but it is certainly illogical. It would be intuition that leads me to believe that the dragons exist; not logic.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by JPhish
“I believe John sometimes tells the truth, because John told me he does.”

That is not a paradox either.
John saying that he tells the truth does not contradict the fact that he may tell the truth.

Never said it was a paradox. But it is illogical to believe something just because some one said it. If you believe or disbelieve John, it is because of intuition, not logic.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by JPhish
Your beliefs in all three cases are based off of intuition, not logic.

The one with John, yes.
The others, no.
Because there is evidence that logic may not always be accurate, just as there is (in your example) evidence that the dragon exists.
But again, the fact that logic is not always accurate does not contradict the fact that it may be accurate about the idea of it not always being accurate.
The two can be true at the same time, and so there is no contradiction.
And if there is no contradiction, there is no paradox.

See now you are in a falsidical paradox. You said “it’s a fact that logic is not always accurate.” How do you know this fact? If it is a fact it must be from evidence that everyone can readily test and observe. We must interpret that evidence with our logic. If our logic is flawed it can not be a fact that our logic that lead us to know that are logic was flawed was not flawed. You are in the paradox again . . .

Originally posted by JPhish
The sentence itself is illogical, but it is being posed as a logical proposition; that is the paradox. The sentence contradicts itself.

How is the sentence itself illogical?
The sentence itself is very logical - to base opinion off evidence.

No, it’s not, because you interpreted the evidence with your logic.

But if you do conclude that it is illogical, while I conclude that it is logical, then you just proved the point that logic is not always perfect, and thus also proving the point that it is not illogical to base your opinion off of that.

No, it only proves my point that you are basing everything you say off of intuition and not logic.

If it seems contradictory to you than you may label it a paradox.
But it is not contradictory.

It’s a double paradox if you use flawed logic to know logic is flawed within a logical pretense. It is also a paradox if a logical pretense contradicts itself by stating a belief that logic is flawed through logic. Because that is illogical.

An imperfect system can be aware of its imperfection - there is no contradiction.
A paradox would be if a perfect system believed it wasn't perfect, or if an always flawed system believed it was imperfect.

These aren’t even the same. This is about an illogical logical pretense, discussing logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic. Not something being perfect or imperfect, you’re obviously still missing what makes the sentence a paradox.

How does the sentence contradict itself?
Yes, you use logic to come to the conclusion of your logic not being perfect.

No, you can’t. You use intuition for that.

However, there is no contradiction if both statements may be accurate.

Logic does not deal in beliefs. An inference/inferences are listed within a logical pretense and then truths within that pretense are derived. If there are no truths within the pretense that can prove themselves even within the pretences parameters, it is not logical. That’s what makes it a paradox. “This statement is false”
That is a paradox
“I believe this statement is false”
Not a paradox, but not logical

However, if the statement was posing as a logical pretense about logic, it would be a paradox because it is illogical.

If a computer (which is imperfect) comes up with a system alert saying it has a flaw (which is to say that it is imperfect), is that a paradox?

no it’ss not. I’ve said it at least 5 times already that I t has nothing to do with things being perfect or imperfect at this point. The original paradox is a double paradox. The statement based on belief/intuition is a normal paradox.

Not at all. I'm saying that a true paradox contradicts itself or seems to contradict itself (according to human logic).

An illogical logical pretense, evaluating logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic, is paradoxical.

But I'm asking you:
Where is the contradiction of an imperfect system being aware of it's imperfection?
Can not both be true?

I’ve said this at least 6 times now, It’s not about that. An illogical logical pretense, evaluating logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic, is paradoxical.

Lol... you keep saying that but never explain how it's illogical.

It’s illogical for a logical pretense, to evaluate logic, based on intuition, yet claim to be logical.

Is it illogical for a computer to alert you to an internal flaw?

NO. It’s illogical for a logical pretense, to discuss logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic.

There's nothing illogical about it.
An imperfect system may be aware of its imperfection.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPERFECTION OR PERFECTION.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I suppose it depends on the philosophy and logic applied.
Though both seem to be saying that they may very well be flawed, and that the truth is an unattainable goal.
Nice signature, by the way

.

I kind of threw that formula together sloppily. Even though, there are very few truths that can be derived from philosophy, I was trying to illustrate that philosophy is the purist medium for deducing the truths; then comes math, then physics, then chemistry, then biology, then psychology, then sociology etc. etc. etc.

I hold things to be true that seem most likely to be true (yes, based on my limited perspective and understanding of the Universe).
But the truth is that no one can know what is true.
Again, anything is possible. I'm interested in what is probable.

Well said.

I believe many things are true.
The fact that they could be false does not stop me from believing they are true.
I have no reason to believe that this world is an illusion, though I know that it's possible. But I'm not interested in what's possible - that's an infinite hole.

Again, well said; I agree very much.

Lol.. maybe.
But what about your name?
Is it first name/last name J----- Phish?
Or is it like J Fish or Jesus Fish?

I'm guessing that's just a coincidence...

yup

[edit on 3/17/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by melatonin
It's an answer, I guess. A pretty obfuscatory one, IMO. It was a fairly simple question. If you wanted grounds to base a perspective on, perhaps check the evidence - psychology is the area of interest, and it has well-investigated the common problems in human reasoning - we are good at some stuff, bad at others.

but psychology is only applied biology, biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math and math is applied logic. You can’t use psychology to analyze logic.

So the idealised term 'perfect logic' doesn't really exist in the real-world. Therefore human logic is imperfect. It can still be reliable, just not perfect.

but you can’t say that it really doesn’t exist because all inferences which lead you to that conclusion were based on LOGIC. You can say that you believe it doesn’t because it is something you could only know by intuition. It’s illogical to say otherwise.

So what's the beef? You're really not in any better position than anyone else for your supposed paradox - invoking a magical flawless thing is no real answer.

No beef. I just enjoy debating things because I learn a lot. I’ve learned many things from you and TP from our discussion. Instead of looking into dictionaries or paying for information, I think it’s much more opportunistic to teach each other.

But nature doesn't have a will. It just is. Will and intentions are chracteristics of agents. And so it could be a problem for theistic conceptions - as they conceive of agents with their own intentions with the potential to direct the will of man. Indeed, in many stories the supernatural agent does take people's will and compel action. And we see the same thinking in modern theism - people thanking a magical agent for all sorts of interventions in the natural world.

when I said “natures will” it was short hand for necessity/laws of nature. It's simply easier to write in context and i thought you’d see the connection without me having to really get into it, pay no mind.

Again, the notion of the human mind/brain/behaviour as a sort of black box is a fantasy. So if you define 'free will' as the ability for 100% freedom from the influences of any drives, internal or external, then it doesn't exist. But in which case it's a vacuous concept.

No not 100% freedom, freedom of will.

What do we want free will for? I just want the ability to have self-control and to direct my own ship - and, to an extent, I do.

I’m not even sure I do. Though, the idea of taking true responsibility for my actions might be a start.

Power of the 'controlling force of nature'? We have the ability to mould nature to our will, to an extent. We can use parts of nature to protect us, we can challenge the actions of other organisms (disease etc) etc etc.

we build houses, dams, roads, etc. this is where I was leading you. If we have the ability to build cities and “apparently” “defy” nature, does that not suggest to you that we have free-will already?

And I do have control of the 'power I have'. As long as I'm a causally effective agent, my intentions and actions matter - that's enough free will to me. If someone implants a chip that takes away such control, then I'll have a problem and my will and intentions will lack influence.

but if you are unaware of that chip, you would be none the wiser.

You seem to be conflating a part of nature (me) with the whole of nature.

If 92837574837563828 grains of sand is a beach and you remove one grain. Is it still a beach?

lol, yeah. But just a mo' ago you were invoking control of nature

Not the ability to control nature, the ability to operate independent of nature on at least some level.

In which case, the Green Lantern has more free will than most.

I don’t think so.

Yes, I just told you how. Because it hasn't happened I can change my directions and outcome. I can even update as time passes as I move through time towards a goal.

This might sound familiar to you. . . If I role a ball on a table and you stop it as it reaches the edge of the table. Does that mean that you prevented it from falling off the edge of the table?

I did. I changed my plans and intentions. The future only exists in a representation in our minds and unfolds before us, as the 'present' moves through time, leaving a fixed past behind.

Although that is an interesting way of looking at it, which seems viable, my intuition tells me otherwise. You’re thinking of time as linear and I’ve always had qualms with that. I do like the way you said that “the future only exists in a representation in our minds and unfolds before us.” It’s excellent imagery which conveys the concept well.

But minority report is just a film. Even if we invoke a sort of impossible Laplace's demon, it doesn't take away free will. We would still be active intentional agents who can be causally effective. It would just mean that the demon could make idealised predictions of future events, but that would depend on other aspects, such as deterministic chaos - the demon would have to have infinite accuracy in such massively complex calculations - all but impossible in reality.

SPOILER WARNING the whole point of Minority Report was that the future was not written in stone. Those men that were incarcerated had a choice, but they were never allowed to choose because the system assumed they would follow their impulses.

In some ways we are. So it doesn't matter how much freedom I have, it is still almost certain that I'll pop my clogs. But those are still the constraints that would apply to any sort of free will.

Unless I’m mistaken, free-will is more about the ability to make decisions, not actions.

I do. I just think because of the theistic influences and cartesian dualism people have been forced into intellectual knots to justify some sort of free will.

So then you agree that “free-will” as it is understood by most of the world is not applicable in a naturalist universe or other hypothetical universes?

I noted the sorts of things that take away free will, or are not willed behaviour. For example, a Tourette's sufferers tics are not willed.

That’s debatable. I believe that any “tic” that can naturally be executed by will, can be stopped by will as well.

The reflex after the quack whacking my knee isn't a willed behaviour (but the quack's is).

That’s not a decision anyway. It’s strictly a reflex.

You pumping me full of barbs wouldn't allow me free will in gaining slumber (but yours is).

I think perhaps you underestimate your ability to be lucid while drugged.

So something apart from nature causes things? Just more determinism?

That would be less determinism. In a naturalist universe, determinism is all you have.

Or is it some random noncausal thing that can't really underpin free will?

Free-will is an idea; you can’t observe it or express it. All you can do is think about it.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by JPhish]