@once wrote:Tmaq wrote:You keep maintaining that distinctions result from the operation of logic.
No, I haven't actually been doing that at all. I encourage you to go re-read my very first post.
I happened in this post:
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... 377#123377
I think its the other way around; logic is how we reason *with* distinctions, which makes the distinctions primary.
I have been implying precisely that, just in different words. I guess you are not used to my wording.
It must have something to do with your wording in the post I quoted, where you said that logic was required before we can recognize or make distinctions, IE, standard English expressing a notion contrary to the idea I expressed in my first post.
If, as it seems you are doing, you plan to redefine a lot of those standard terms, then its going to be a very long haul.
I suggest you stick to the standard meanings.
In my view, logic is established via a kind of involuntary unfolding.
I guess that depends on what you mean by 'logic.' Typically, its the language of categorical, predicatory, conditional, and implicative relationships, as opposed to math, which is about sizes and amounts.
I'd state it a bit more simply, and I don't agree that math is somehow in opposition.
You are mistaken; the language of size (math) and the language of categories and descriptions (regular spoken languages) are decidedly distinct.
Logic first begins the moment meaning is established via thought, and thus, logic rests upon a definitional reality.
That is also false; the rules of grammatical transformation (another common meaning for 'logic') can be established for a completely referentless set of symbols...and using that meaning for 'logic' means logic applies to both math and spoken language.
The problem so far is that you've only presented a metaphor to explain what you 'mean' by 'logic.' You need to be more explicit, if you want to communicate, as opposed to only implying or suggesting.
Before this definitional reality is established, there is only the pure empiricism of a mind without any knowledge, which is a state of mind prior to establishing logic, yet essential for establishing logic, for it is one of the many means.
This is more of the same metaphoric bull.
"Definitional" reality doesn't gel for me. What symbol you apply to an experience is wholly arbitrary, so calling a symbol choice 'reality' is very mistleading, if not outright false.
math is about sizes and amounts.
Math is a definitional reality, with its origins in empirical perception as well. A boy might establish the recognition(meaning) of his toy cars, and shortly after that, it may become clear to him that there is an empirical difference between only a single car, and two cars.
Right; sizes and amounts. Were you intending to contradict what I'd said?
Tmaq wrote:Cory wrote:Tmaq wrote:Much of our experience is not voluntary, that is true. The making of distinctions, however, is an act of interpretation
Why do you say however? I'm not sure if you are trying to correct me, or are simply assuming that I should be further informed.
Because I'm drawing a contrast between those things which happen to us, and those things we choose to focus upon; between the involuntary and the voluntary, between the receptive function and the discriminative.
Well, like I said, I question whether choice truly exists,
But thats a separate question, not relevant to the one we are talking about; the distinction between an automatic process, and one which requires attention and effort, and for which options based on our volition exist.
Saying "well, you don't really choose to pay attention" ducks the issue, rather than addressing it. All you can establish with that strategy is a good reason for people to consider you a weasel.
Tmaq wrote:Cory wrote:To help get us on the same track, how about we together consider the following phenomena, and see where our discussion goes from there,
Consider this: An experiment was done where a kitten was raised in pitch black. The scientists intermittently exposed the kitten to horizontal strips of light. The kitten, when a fully grown cat, was only capable of detecting horizontal motion and could not see verticle motion.
My point: the kittens development into adulthood involved the making of distinctions and it was involuntary.
Nah. You are talking about the effects of neural migration, and the fact that they grow in response to stimulation; the lack of one kind of stimulation stunted that cat's ability to recognize that stimulation. What you describe is the kind of distinction which is 'hard-wired.' A similar thing happens to Japanese people when faced with the sounds 'lah' or 'rah' - because the Japanese language has neither sound, native Japanese speakers grew up rarely hearing it, and in most cases, do not have the neural equipment to distinguish the two sounds. Again, that is an example of a built-in distinction processor, which describes most of our sensory systems.
I'm talking about the abstract distinctions that one must pay attention to, care about, focus upon, or actively seek, all of which means they are decidely voluntary.
No, it doesn't neccesarily mean they are voluntary. [/quote]
I'm not talking about whether any particular distinction is *necessarilly* voluntary. My point is that many of them are *in fact* voluntary, and your schema doesn't account for them.
It seems to me that men and women develop into their logic differently and this is because they are caused to pay attention to different things or to interpret the same thing in different ways.
Any person can reframe their experiences, if they so choose. It happens all the time. You fatalism is contradictory; if people don't *choose* what to think, whats the point of discussing it?
I illustrated this above quite well with my comparison of me and my sister.
No, you didn't. The fact that people are different tells us nothing about *why* they are different. So far, you've got an unsupported assumption of fatalism, and its easily proven untenable. Would you like to take a different approach now, or do you need to have this first approach proven false, first?
Although Transformers and Popples are simlar in concept as both transform from one form to another - for some reason my sister wasn't very interested in transformers and I wasnt very interested in her popples.
Yeah. "Some" reason.
They did an experiment a few years back where some parents tried raising their daughter with boys toys. They found the little girl, instead of playing with the truck like boys normally do, would treat the truck like it was a baby, rocking it and trying to nurture it.
So? You do know that lots of boys play 'girl' games, and vice-versa, right?
Statistical tendencies are not fatalism.
Another example, my Dog, when I ask him: "wanna go for a walk" knows that the word 'walk' means he is going for a walk - and he begins (excitedly) anticipating the future event. In otherwords, Dogs have established in their minds a crude definitional reality - which is a mental representation of the world.
Not exactly. "Representation" implies a theater of consciousness. All you've got for sure with the dog is an association. Not the same thing.
I don't believe that this is for the dog, 'voluntary'. He is just doing what he is caused to do. Likewise, humans simply do what they are caused to do.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the theology. What you need to find out is how anyone can recognize that it is a theology, because I disagree, and there is no argument that you can make in favor of your particular answer to that theological question.
Tom wrote:Cory wrote:That being said, are you still content equating the act of making distinctions with the act of interpreting?
I haven't *equated* them; one is a predicate of the other. (One is a more general category which includes the other, more specific, categorization).
Thats like 'equating' lions and animals.
Ok, so I also misinterpreted your position, as you did mine.[/quote]
I don't think I did misinterpret, as the quoted post, above, will show.
If anything, you've now abdicated your original claim, but in my 'definitional reality' that result means that you originally misstated your position, not that I misinterpreted it.
Tom wrote:Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.
This voluntarilly-noticed and -described distinction is all the evidence required to prove my point.
I don't see how it was voluntarily noticed.
Because you did it all on your own, and you could have chosen a different distinction to notice and report.
My interest in this topic, my drive to make sense of what you are saying - it all seems involuntary to me. I'm just spending my time doing what seems most worthwhile, and what seems most worthwhile to me, doesn't seem like a choice anymore than I choose 4 to be the result of 2+2. The truth is not a choice, and my desire for the truth is simply an innate drive that is propelling me.
You're just Tik-Tok, carrying out your 'program,' eh?
I'm not capable of disproving your mythology. Just don't make the laughable mistake of representing that belief as anything else.
(Isn't it ironic that your argument *is* the evidence supporting my argument?)
Not at all.
I'm afraid that your retreat into fatalism doesn't change anything; the distinction you expressed is not one of the kind that are built into our sensory systems.
I think your sense of irony here is pretty contrived and easily dismantled.
It isn't a sense, and your retreat has not affect. Your recognition proves my point; abstract distinctions require a choice, unlike, say, the way you have absolutely no control over the appearance of 6000 angstrom light.
Your conclusion that there is free will seems to rest upon fairly crude assumptions.
Seems can be deceiving; you've merely assumed that I concluded that.
What I've concluded is that the free will question is unavoidably theological, any answer is theological, any answer is equally a 'crude' assumption, but I have 2 important advantages over you; I know that my theological belief is a theology, and you have no choice but to communicate in terms of making choices, because you make them all the time. Whether they are 'really' choices or not is absolutely immaterial.
Tmaq wrote:Cory wrote:Let us make it a goal to establish absolute certainty.
Lets not, since its a fool's errand.
Wow, now that's ironic - - you say that with a great deal of certainty, Tom.
Confidence, actually, and you are welcome to try to prove me wrong, if you think my confidence is misplaced.
Tmaq wrote:Cory wrote:In my view, the former question, when dealt with, will help us tackle the later.
All mysteries are diffused in the same way. For instance, When you encounter a slick magic trick or if you were a detective presented with a crime-case where the assailant is still unknown - - how would you diffuse the mystery? Mysterious phenomena are resolved by penetrating surface appearance, going into the past, in order to determine the phenomena's causal origins. [/quote]
I'm afraid that your analogy obscures more than it explains.
distinctions are the *inputs* to that process.
I agree. Pure empirical observation, meaning - perception without knowledge - is the input neccesary to establish the definitional reality needed for rational reflection, logic.
Um, did you see the description of why there is no such thing as perception without knowledge?