Is it true?
- Thread starter McHanhan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Way to blow me off. A mathematician would be the last person I would consult for reasons you seem unwilling or unable to entertain. It's not a very long link, so I guess you just don't have the attention span for this line of reasoning.Skarin said:
Well, actually, that's not fair. That link does lead to a pretty obtuse article taken out of a larger body of work. I'll summarize. Basically, Walker Percy is saying that the more you learn about a thing the harder it is to truly perceive it because you have been educated about it to think of it in those ways.
That's why a mathematician wouldn't be someone you'd ask about the reality of numbers given that they have been educated overmuch in them and would have the most difficult time seeing past them.
It has more to do with East meets West, really. The postmodern versus the modern. A emphasis on critical thought as opposed to an emphasis on recapitulation.
I think I get what you and and Mr Percy mean by "mental framings", but do we really want to go that far? (correct me if I've misunderstood) Sure it's a valid question: how much do we really know and how does the context in which we gain experiences affect the experiences themselves? Can we really be absolutely certain about anything? I was in a similar discussion a couple of months ago where this reasoning was mentioned. I just don't think it's constructive to since in the end it just dismisses everything (and I really do mean EVERYTHING). If we're going to be questioning everything, then why bother doing anything to begin with? I know, I've gone too far, but that's where this reasoning always leads me.geldonyetich said:
EDIT: Seeing your edit of the last post tells me I'm way off here. :|
This sounds interesting. Root 2 is roughly equal to 1.1412.Skarin said:
Surely then, (1.1412)^2/1.1412=1.1412
Of course, since you can't have decimals in a fraction, you square 1.1412, then times both sides of the fraction, making it 13023/11412 roughly equals 1.1412, which in turn roughly equals root 2
Of course, you could make the fraction more accurate, but the idea still stands, yes?
(PS: excuse the failing mathematical writing)
Not at all - that's about where I am as well.achilleas.k said:
Here's the thing - the essence of existence: it's true that a creature is limited to whatever sensory and mental capabilities it may have, however, it nonetheless will use these abilities to the best of it's ability.
This is why we bother building knowledge to begin with. Even knowing that what we create may not be perfect, so long as it continues to garner results, it's worth doing. Being a human being means we've significant self awareness to be aware of our flaws, and should avoid being overly beholden to any one tool (which any ideas are) should conditions change sufficiently as to garner their replacement with another.
There are mathematicians who are diehard math fundamentals, and mathematicians who entertain skepticism of their most hallowed principles. The former will feel more secure, of that you can be certain, but the later are on a path of greater intelligence in that they are always ready to adapt.
So, going way back to where this whole mess started, I wouldn't use a mathematical proof as a definitive proof of anything within reality on the grounds that is exists on an entirely mental realm, separate from reality, a realm where proving things is much, much easier than it should be.
I am merely stating that I am neither a philosopher or a man versed in semiotics to understand what he is talking about. Which is why you (since you provided the link and seem to have an understanding of the author) should explain to me what the man said, instead of giving me a link with the instructions "here, read!".geldonyetich said:
And yes, I don't have the attention span for reasoning that loops and twists around conjecture. Clear, logical reasoning should be able to present itself with simplicity, not via the works of other authors. If you cannot explain something in your own words or at least explain the source of your information, then don't bother expecting me to take interest in it.
Either make a statement without conjecture, tautologies, syllogisms and vague references to "East meets West" or don't say anything at all. I could easily throw a formula at you as proof of something and I doubt you would react to that. For instance I could say:
1 != 0
Assume 1 = 0 and z is any number != 1.
0 * z = 0
0 * z = 1
1 * z = 1
z = 1 <- contradiction
Therefore 1 != 0. A mathematical proof of a contradiction. That is a perfectly logical answer to the OP and I could leave it at that.
Eitherway I have answered the OP to the best of my abilities and as I am stepping out I won't be responding to your replies for a while.
PS: I'm pretty sure logically (as in using formal logic) you can prove negatives if my mind isn't failing me.
There are logical arguments that are intended to prove ~P and ~Q.
If you are a man, you are human = statement.
If Frank is a man, Frank is human...is a proper logical statement using modus pollens.
If Frank is not a human, Frank is not a man...is also a proper logical statement using modus tollens.
...or rather, you can prove someone is not of a particular human gender, if they are in fact not human, which is proof that someone is not something.
I think the common sense reasoning is that this is too binary of a conclusion. Just because someone isn't human doesn't necessarily imply they are not a man. There are probably some crazy sci-fi shit you could come up with that would prove this wrong using clones or alternate dimensions or birth defects...something.
But I'm pretty sure logic provides the tools needed to prove negatives, it's just whether or not you consider that logical conclusion definitive that seems like the bigger question, as we see with mathematical quandary.
Deal.Skarin said:
Your insistence to your lines of conjecture suggest that you're really not on a compatible mindset to prod, really. You hold mental framings as sacred and, consequently, they cage you. Far be it from me to separate a man from what he holds as sacred - I would sooner pull the moon from the heavens.
Damn it man, I am a doctor!. Not a psychologist. If you are saying that by prodding me I will become a raving homicidal maniac..then I will stab you in the eye.geldonyetich said:
Good lord you edited:
I hold nothing sacred. Apart from bacon.
All I am saying is that without a binding definition of "real", what it encompasses and what it entails, I cannot proceed with your line of reasoning. In case you have forgotten, let me reap:
You believe that maths is a pure unit of measurement, divorced from reality, having little or no impact to life as we know it. I say that maths is a part of reality because it shapes the reality we are in. If something does not exist in this world then it cannot exert an influence on this world. Even weak Van der Waals forces exerts an influence on a mote of dust. Maths does nothing but exert influence in this world so it cannot logically be removed from reality.
So the only thing left is to define what we consider reality and what is considered to be real. That's a definition that I cannot answer.
No, dear fellow, I blame you of something far worse: common human behavior!Skarin said:
But, you're young yet, plenty of time to mull things over.
I will never try to argue against the validity of this reasoning. I do, however, argue against the NEED for this sort of reasoning. Understandably, keeping an open mind about the validity of what we assume to be "absolute truth" holds its merit, but I draw the lines of constructive scepticism slightly before that extreme. We need a reference frame, a grasp on the meaning of the word "real", no matter how abstract or skewed it may be. Going beyond that just makes everything stop working, so I keep my distance.geldonyetich said:
I was interested by your reasoning so I checked out your profile. Dear sir ,to quote!geldonyetich said:
"I love a good debate but, sadly, the Internet is the worst possible place for one. Please don't tempt me. If you see me debating, remind me I wrote this. "
Anyway I love epistomology and philosophy in general. Hopefully doing it in college next year. An interesting thing to note is the Scientific Method. In order to disprove it's validity you would in fact need to use the Scientific Method. Same goes for empirical reasoning. Therefore they are held to be universally true until another method can be devised in order to test them.
While you're at it, you will also have to prove to me how and why the mental realm is separate from the realm of reality before I stop exhibiting common human behavior. Way I see it, the body cannot live without the mind and a great man told me that once.geldonyetich said:
In fact both mind and body are two separate realities but realities nonetheless. In each realm they are as real as the screen before you, they may not co-exist in the same plane save for the vessel that joins them (maybe the soul) but the mind cannot be dismissed from the physical reality because they share a symbiotic relationship.
And that's science. And science is a reality in more planes than you can imagine.
Yes, I do that a lot, sorry. I advise allowing a few minutes for the dust to settle whenever I make a post. I almost always feel the need to clarify.Skarin said:
I really can't grok that if I put on glasses, it becomes a part of what I'm seeing through it. This doesn't mean it's not useful to wear glasses, but I don't think they work the way you're saying.
Everything we perceive is a shadow on the wall in Plato's Cave [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave], yes? Where, then, would math exist?
Of course, if you're just going to chalk up everything I'm writing as a conjecture, tautologies, syllogisms, and discard it, I'm wasting my poor fingers down to a nub for no reason. This is a thread of conjecture, our very words are syllogisms, and tautology may very well be necessary when what we're trying to do is examine a concept very, very closely.
Well, you're certainly free to draw your lines of constructive skepticism wherever you deem fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you'll forgive me if I want to see a little further and harbor the apparent insanity that may bring.achilleas.k said:I will never try to argue against the validity of this reasoning. I do, however, argue against the NEED for this sort of reasoning. Understandably, keeping an open mind about the validity of what we assume to be "absolute truth" holds its merit, but I draw the lines of constructive scepticism slightly before that extreme. We need a reference frame, a grasp on the meaning of the word "real", no matter how abstract or skewed it may be. Going beyond that just makes everything stop working, so I keep my distance.geldonyetich said:
Go ahead. Just don't slaughter everyone in the thread when the voices tell you to, I just cleaned up a couple of hours ago.geldonyetich said:
Very well: Here you go. [http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory.htm]Skarin said:
Erm, sorry, I seem to have just used science to disprove you.
(Well, not really, of course -- but what we do know about the mind fairly well establishes that it's beginning to look like it's hardly a magical realm where that we imagine becomes real. It is, at best, an abstraction.)
I am sorry but I am with Skarin on this. The reason is that I have spent a good deal of time with my philosophy tutor studying the various sides to common philosophical concepts and the one that stands out the most is what we define as sentient or alive. Not the meaning of life itself but what it means to be alive.geldonyetich said:Yes, I do that a lot, sorry. I advise allowing a few minutes for the dust to settle whenever I make a post. I almost always feel the need to clarify.Skarin said:
I really can't grok that if I put on glasses, it becomes a part of what I'm seeing through it. This doesn't mean it's not useful to wear glasses, but I don't think they work the way you're saying.
Everything we perceive is a shadow on the wall in Plato's Cave [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave], yes? Where, then, would math exist?
Of course, if you're just going to chalk up everything I'm writing as a conjecture, tautologies, syllogisms, and discard it, I'm wasting my poor fingers down to a nub for no reason. This is a thread of conjecture, our very words are syllogisms, and tautology may very well be necessary when what we're trying to do is examine a concept very, very closely.
Well, you're certainly free to draw your lines of constructive skepticism wherever you deem fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you'll forgive me if I want to see a little further and harbor the apparent insanity that may bring.achilleas.k said:I will never try to argue against the validity of this reasoning. I do, however, argue against the NEED for this sort of reasoning. Understandably, keeping an open mind about the validity of what we assume to be "absolute truth" holds its merit, but I draw the lines of constructive scepticism slightly before that extreme. We need a reference frame, a grasp on the meaning of the word "real", no matter how abstract or skewed it may be. Going beyond that just makes everything stop working, so I keep my distance.geldonyetich said:
Among all the criteria, introspection or meta-cognition is the sign of advanced life. This introspection would not be possible without a certain degree of physical and mental input. To be alive, to be human is to think and react. To have free will. Now all of this is fine and dandy but they are interconnected. The reality of our physical world and the thoughts that drive the actions which shape our physical world.
To bring this to maths, the basis of mathematics has brought us from the stone age to the space age, or whatever this age is. If maths was not based on reality then our existance is also not based on reality. It would be random happenstance that the paths of everyone on this earth followed more or less the same course. This is however not the case. We are alive and real because we thought our way here. If thoughts as you say exist only in an entirely mental realm then we by association to our own mentality exist in our heads.
If this was the matrix then you'd be right. But this isn't the matrix. So Skarin has a valid point.
Humans are the sum of physical + mental. Take one, you rip the other.
Also if you look through glasses, it does become a part of what you see through. Only we get used to seeing the glass that we automatically ignore it. Like the sound of a ticking clock. If we focus really hard, we can hear the seconds hand. Similarly, the grok that if you put on glasses, it becomes a part of what you see is correct. You just are not looking hard enough.
Interesting you Plato's cave up. It actually supports Skarin's point more than yours. It states that the material world (physical world) is not the form of ultimate realty. Instead it is knowledge (mental realm) and knowledge of the ideas that constitutes reality. Hence how people struggle to see the reality beyond illusion.
Ah, I love internet forums, when a new contributor to a discussion appears and supports the other guy by actually supporting your side. Who has really read and understood the thread? You? The opposition? The third party supporter? Probably none of the above, and any apparent argument that was occurring was, in fact, merely a misunderstanding, discussion of the other side of the same coin. After all, if we're all perceiving the same reality, and sincerely expressing our perception of it, how could it be anything else?McHanhan said:I am sorry but I am with Skarin on this. The reason is that I have spent a good deal of time with my philosophy tutor studying the various sides to common philosophical concepts and the one that stands out the most is what we define as sentient or alive. Not the meaning of life itself but what it means to be alive.geldonyetich said:Yes, I do that a lot, sorry. I advise allowing a few minutes for the dust to settle whenever I make a post. I almost always feel the need to clarify.Skarin said:
I really can't grok that if I put on glasses, it becomes a part of what I'm seeing through it. This doesn't mean it's not useful to wear glasses, but I don't think they work the way you're saying.
Everything we perceive is a shadow on the wall in Plato's Cave [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave], yes? Where, then, would math exist?
Of course, if you're just going to chalk up everything I'm writing as a conjecture, tautologies, syllogisms, and discard it, I'm wasting my poor fingers down to a nub for no reason. This is a thread of conjecture, our very words are syllogisms, and tautology may very well be necessary when what we're trying to do is examine a concept very, very closely.
Well, you're certainly free to draw your lines of constructive skepticism wherever you deem fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you'll forgive me if I want to see a little further and harbor the apparent insanity that may bring.achilleas.k said:I will never try to argue against the validity of this reasoning. I do, however, argue against the NEED for this sort of reasoning. Understandably, keeping an open mind about the validity of what we assume to be "absolute truth" holds its merit, but I draw the lines of constructive scepticism slightly before that extreme. We need a reference frame, a grasp on the meaning of the word "real", no matter how abstract or skewed it may be. Going beyond that just makes everything stop working, so I keep my distance.geldonyetich said:
Among all the criteria, introspection or meta-cognition is the sign of advanced life. This introspection would not be possible without a certain degree of physical and mental input. To be alive, to be human is to think and react. To have free will. Now all of this is fine and dandy but they are interconnected. The reality of our physical world and the thoughts that drive the actions which shape our physical world.
To bring this to maths, the basis of mathematics has brought us from the stone age to the space age, or whatever this age is. If maths was not based on reality then our existance is also not based on reality. It would be random happenstance that the paths of everyone on this earth followed more or less the same course. This is however not the case. We are alive and real because we thought our way here. If thoughts as you say exist only in an entirely mental realm then we by association to our own mentality exist in our heads.
If this was the matrix then you'd be right. But this isn't the matrix. So Skarin has a valid point.
Humans are the sum of physical + mental. Take one, you rip the other.
Also if you look through glasses, it does become a part of what you see through. Only we get used to seeing the glass that we automatically ignore it. Like the sound of a ticking clock. If we focus really hard, we can hear the seconds hand. Similarly, the grok that if you put on glasses, it becomes a part of what you see is correct. You just are not looking hard enough.
Interesting you Plato's cave up. It actually supports Skarin's point more than yours. It states that the material world (physical world) is not the form of ultimate realty. Instead it is knowledge (mental realm) and knowledge of the ideas that constitutes reality. Hence how people struggle to see the reality beyond illusion.