Epistemology - the basis of logic

[Tmaq]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In my view, the former question, when dealt with, will help us tackle the later.

How?

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?

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

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.

It happened in this post:
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... 377#123377

Ok, so let's look at what I said in that post:

Tom: Hence which categories you develop and pay attention to, are almost wholly a matter of choice.

Cory: Ok, If that is true (and I'm not certain that it is), then this 'choice' in what we recognize occurs only after basic logic(recognition) has been established. The establishing of basic logic in the mind of an infant is indeed involuntary. An infant does not choose that he has a mother, that the words she is speaking to him are in the language they are spoken in, the infant does not choose to find the things he finds funny, funny, etc.

Let me translate this^ for you.

I'm saying that 1) we do not choose to be born 2) We do not choose to experience the very first sensations we experience. 3) When we experience these very first sensations, we are experiencing distinctions, and we are doing so without 'recognition' of them. This is because the act of recognizing involves the identification of something previously seen. It is when we identify for the first time (something that was previously seen) that logic is first established, and this is involuntary - because the very first things recognized - pain, cold, pleasure, warm, mother, father, good tasting food, bad tasting food, etc - - all of those things are not the baby's choice, but they are imposed and discovered against his will.

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

Recognizing something is different than experiencing a distinction for the first time. I did not equate recognition with experiecing distinction - that was your error.

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.

I suggest you read a little more closely and refrain from letting your imagination get carried away. I hope you realize that you are accusing me of equating recognition with distinction when I have done no such thing.

Take another look at the post in question - Link

Amusingly, the word 'distinction' is no where to be found in the post. I used the word recognition, and ironically, you deviated away from the standard meaning of the word and equated it with distinction.

[Tmaq]

I'm trimming all the he-said she-said stuff for brevity.

I think the miscommunication is mostly a result of using philosophical terms in a way that is quite different from their standard meanings, and I'll explain what I mean by that as we go.

This is because the act of recognizing involves the identification of something previously seen. It is when we identify for the first time (something that was previously seen) that logic is first established, and this is involuntary - because the very first things recognized - pain, cold, pleasure, warm, mother, father, good tasting food, bad tasting food, etc - - all of those things are not the baby's choice, but they are imposed and discovered against his will.

OK, this use of logic isn't really appropriate. What you've described is the labelling of something, or the naming of something. Attaching symbols to experiences, esentially, even if that means only forming an idea about some experience.

Etymologically, you're OK calling that 'logic,' since 'logos' is greek for 'word,' but in most circles, 'logic' means 'rules of inference' or in a more mathematical context, the rules by which true statements (or theorems) are transformed into equally-true statements.

Those rules for transformation (and/or the recognition of when we can trust certain transformations, or distrust others) aren't produced simply by defining things.

Recognizing something is different than experiencing a distinction for the first time. I did not equate recognition with experiecing distinction - that was your error.

You're right, you didn't equate them, but you're overlooking something critical, for they are much more related than you seem to think.

Recognizing some particular thing means having a category - a set of relevant distinctions - in mind by which to recognize that thing. When you recognize something, you are recognizing it as *distinct* from other things, as belonging to a particular category.

I think, however, that you're going to have to deal separately with sensations, perceptions, and ideas, since each requires a different process, when it comes to making (or recognizing) distinctions.

I suggest you stick to the standard meanings.

I suggest you read a little more closely and refrain from letting your imagination get carried away.

Thanks for the useless advice. Now you should consider my advice for making your efforts effective.

Was it my imagination that you invented (at least) two completely vague, if novel, phrases, have yet to explain what you mean by them, and expect people to take seriously your attempt to establish "certaintly" with your musings?

If you want some useful criticism, start by using your language more explicitly, so we all know what you are talking about.

I hope you realize that you are accusing me of equating recognition with distinction when I have done no such thing.

Not exactly. I'm 'accusing' you of using two different words which actually mean the same kind of act, then making the mistake of thinking that you are talking about two different things.

Using two different words does not make a distinction between the ideas.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are confusing a semantic system with the experiences those semantics are for discussing, but unless you make your vague philosophical phrases more clear, I can't be sure either way.

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

This is because the act of recognizing involves the identification of something previously seen. It is when we identify for the first time (something that was previously seen) that logic is first established, and this is involuntary - because the very first things recognized - pain, cold, pleasure, warm, mother, father, good tasting food, bad tasting food, etc - - all of those things are not the baby's choice, but they are imposed and discovered against his will.

OK, this use of logic isn't really appropriate. What you've described is the labelling of something, or the naming of something. Attaching symbols to experiences, essentially, even if that means only forming an idea about some experience.

Notice how this thread is titled: "the basis of logic", and then take note of how the first post was an elaboration on that title. We're exploring the origins, or basis if you will, of logic.

Those rules for transformation (and/or the recognition of when we can trust certain transformations, or distrust others) aren't produced simply by defining things.

I think you'll find these rules for transformation are based upon the defining of things, much like a flame rests upon it's fuel, the branches and fruit of a tree rests upon it's roots - or a young shoot depends on it's seed.

Recognizing something is different than experiencing a distinction for the first time. I did not equate recognition with experiecing distinction - that was your error.

You're right, you didn't equate them, but you're overlooking something critical, for they are much more related than you seem to think.

I didn't say they were not closely related.

Recognizing some particular thing means having a category - a set of relevant distinctions - in mind by which to recognize that thing.

Correct. It also means identifying something that was previously seen. Seeing a distinction for the first time is not recognition.

When you recognize something, you are recognizing it as *distinct* from other things, as belonging to a particular category.

Correct.

I think, however, that you're going to have to deal separately with sensations, perceptions, and ideas, since each requires a different process, when it comes to making (or recognizing) distinctions.

Perception is a sensation. Ideas are photographs of such.

I suggest you stick to the standard meanings.

I suggest you read a little more closely and refrain from letting your imagination get carried away.

Thanks for the useless advice. Now you should consider my advice for making your efforts effective.

Thanks for the useless advice. Now you should consider my advice for making your efforts effective.

Was it my imagination that you invented (at least) two completely vague, if novel phrases

Precisely. See above.

If you want some useful criticism, start by using your language more explicitly, so we all know what you are talking about.

Pay closer attention to the title of a thread and read the opening post more carefully. Amusingly, I think your difficulty is that in your effort to assess my thread, you interpreted it through the filter of what you already knew, thus you recognized it as something it wasn't, rather than perceiving it as it was, a distinction that is apparently new to your mind.

I hope you realize that you are accusing me of equating recognition with distinction when I have done no such thing.

Not exactly. I'm 'accusing' you of using two different words which actually mean the same kind of act, then making the mistake of thinking that you are talking about two different things.

It looks to me like you are in need of learning. But do you have the humility?

[Tmaq]

This is because the act of recognizing involves the identification of something previously seen. It is when we identify for the first time (something that was previously seen) that logic is first established, and this is involuntary - because the very first things recognized - pain, cold, pleasure, warm, mother, father, good tasting food, bad tasting food, etc - - all of those things are not the baby's choice, but they are imposed and discovered against his will.

OK, this use of logic isn't really appropriate. What you've described is the labelling of something, or the naming of something. Attaching symbols to experiences, essentially, even if that means only forming an idea about some experience.

Notice how this thread is titled: "the basis of logic", and then take note of how the first post was an elaboration on that title. We're exploring the origins, or basis if you will, of logic.

But people can be illogical in their use of symbols, too, so you aren't really saying anything at all specific to logic.

Those rules for transformation (and/or the recognition of when we can trust certain transformations, or distrust others) aren't produced simply by defining things.

I think you'll find these rules for transformation are based upon the defining of things, much like a flame rests upon it's fuel, the branches and fruit of a tree rests upon it's roots - or a young shoot depends on it's seed.

This metaphor doesn't change the fact that symbols can be used illogically.

IOW, symbolic or semantic representations are the basis for lots of things. Logic is defined by HOW they get used, not simply THAT they are used.

Recognizing something is different than experiencing a distinction for the first time. I did not equate recognition with experiecing distinction - that was your error.

You're right, you didn't equate them, but you're overlooking something critical, for they are much more related than you seem to think.

I didn't say they were not closely related.

But you did say something which ignores that close relation. IOW, you haven't addressed the relevant issue I raised.

Recognizing some particular thing means having a category - a set of relevant distinctions - in mind by which to recognize that thing.

Correct. It also means identifying something that was previously seen. Seeing a distinction for the first time is not recognition.

I can't complain about your literal use of recogntion, technically, but you are using a minor semantic point to avoid the larger point.

Pattern-recognition (or - using your more literal manner of talking - becoming cognizant of a pattern, which includes many distinctions) is always about noticing a violation of some more fundamental pattern.

IOW, the 're'cognition is caused by a singular violation of an expectation.

I think, however, that you're going to have to deal separately with sensations, perceptions, and ideas, since each requires a different process, when it comes to making (or recognizing) distinctions.

Perception is a sensation.

It is not. Sensations are feelings. "Red," or "warm" is not a perception, but a feeling.

Perceptions are a concrete idea which refers to some kind of object, like 'apple,' 'stove,' etc., even when the object of such ideas are not objects in the strict sense, like 'running,' 'sharp,' etc.

Ideas are photographs of such.

Images are perceptions, too, actually, which perceptions are only one category of idea.

*Conceptions* are abstract relations, another kind of idea, distinct from perceptions.

Thanks for the useless advice. Now you should consider my advice for making your efforts effective.

But it wasn't useless, as you'll discover, if you decide you want to communicate effectively about these abstractions, and would like to avoid the confusion and failure to get an idea across, which is almost guranteed to result from strange elocutions like 'definitional reality' and 'epistemological reality.'

It wasn't my imagination that such weird phrases fail to communicate, because you didn't get your idea across. The meaning of your communication is the response you get, and the response you have been getting is that those phrases are crap, and not just from me.

Explain them, replace them, or accept that you aren't communicating anything with them, and there is nothing anyone here can do to change it - you are the one who must do something different, now, if you expect to communicate effectively.

Was it my imagination that you invented (at least) two completely vague, if novel phrases

Precisely. See above.

Yeah, I saw where you claimed that you didn't. Now you should see above, where the consistent response to such phrases has been "explain what you mean, because you aren't making any sense."

See also where I deconstructed your illogical use of the word 'logic.'

If you want some useful criticism, start by using your language more explicitly, so we all know what you are talking about.

Pay closer attention to the title of a thread and read the opening post more carefully.

That won't make your weird phrases start meaning something, nor your non-standard use of common words worth the effort to decode.

Sorry, but its futile to pretend the responsibility for (or value of) making yourself clear is anyone else's.

Amusingly, I think your difficulty is that in your effort to assess my thread, you interpreted it through the filter of what you already knew,

This abstract generalization is a vapid truism, because thats what everyone always does.

You still need to make yourself clear, and nobody has the ability to alter their filters in a way that will convert your weird phrases into something meaningful without more input from you first. You just give us all a heads up, when you are ready to advance the discussion, by explaining what you mean, or providing a decoder ring, phrase-book, glossary, etc.

I hope you realize that you are accusing me of equating recognition with distinction when I have done no such thing.

Not exactly. I'm 'accusing' you of using two different words which actually mean the same kind of act, then making the mistake of thinking that you are talking about two different things.

It looks to me like you are in need of learning.

We've already covered this; I'm seeking to learn what your meaningless phrases refer to. Similarly, I've already attempted to figure out what you in fact mean when you use common words contrary to their standard meanings, and have also tried to learn your motivation for avoiding the standard uses, because all you are doing is hindering your own ability to explain what you have in mind.

I'm done doing all your translating for you, when it is looking more and more like you don't actually have anything worth taking the time to decode from your abstract generalizations, vapid metaphors, nonsense and novel coined phrases. Getting an arrogant attitude about your own opaque elocution in respones to my honest attempts to understand what you are getting at only reinforces that conclusion.

You need to do something different, now, if you expect a different result in the future.

But do you have the humility?

I've been asking honest questions, seeking to understand what you are getting at. If that's not what you mean by 'humility,' then again, your use of a common word in a non-standard way is hindering your ability to communicate.

Do you have the humility to defer to standard use of common words, or should we all start ignoring you right now, because you don't actually have anything valuable to communicate, and therefore are really only using idiosyncratic language to hide your lack?

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

This is because the act of recognizing involves the identification of something previously seen. It is when we identify for the first time (something that was previously seen) that logic is first established, and this is involuntary - because the very first things recognized - pain, cold, pleasure, warm, mother, father, good tasting food, bad tasting food, etc - - all of those things are not the baby's choice, but they are imposed and discovered against his will.

OK, this use of logic isn't really appropriate. What you've described is the labeling of something, or the naming of something. Attaching symbols to experiences, essentially, even if that means only forming an idea about some experience.

Notice how this thread is titled: "the basis of logic", and then take note of how the first post was an elaboration on that title. We're exploring the origins, or basis if you will, of logic.

But people can be illogical in their use of symbols, too

Question: Can there be logic without symbols?

Answer: Not until there is a definitional reality established (not until there are symbols that mean things), can there be logic.

You aren't really saying anything at all specific to logic.

I maintain that I am indeed saying something about logic. I am speaking of its basis, as well as its most basic and simple level of functioning.

Those rules for transformation (and/or the recognition of when we can trust certain transformations, or distrust others) aren't produced simply by defining things.

I think you'll find these rules for transformation are based upon the defining of things, much like a flame rests upon it's fuel, the branches and fruit of a tree rests upon it's roots - or a young shoot depends on it's seed.

This metaphor doesn't change the fact that symbols can be used illogically.

That symbols can be used illogically doesn't change the fact that establishing symbols (thoughts correlating with distinctions perceived) is the basis for doing logic.

Logic is defined by HOW [things] get used, not simply THAT they are used.

Sure, things can be used in illogical ways. But in the same way that a shadow cannot exist without light, illogic cannot exist without logic. The former, in part, arises from the later.

Case Study 1 - The most elementary form of Logic

A toddler recognizes his toy truck via thought. In such an instance, the most fundamental of logical operation is taking place here. The truck is indeed the truck, and not something else. The essence of logic is A=A, the law of identity. All logic builds off of this most simplistic act of recognition, the establishment of identity, of a definitional reality.


Case Study 2 - The most elementary form of illogic

A toddler, via thought, excitedly anticipates playing with his truck, but cannot find it. He throws a temper tantrum, accusing his brother of stealing it. This I define as illogical behavior because the toddler is angrily assenting to a conclusion that is contrary to what his senses are informing him. This illogical behavior is rooted in the logical recognition that the truck is indeed not present, but from this logical recognition arises an illogical belief in merely an imagined reality that has yet to be actually sensed. So when the basis for logic is established, the emotions and imagination can interfere with it's course, begetting illogic.

As you will see as you read further into this post, you Tom, are not so much unlike this toddler.

Recognizing some particular thing means having a category - a set of relevant distinctions - in mind by which to recognize that thing.

Correct. It also means identifying something that was previously seen. Seeing a distinction for the first time is not recognition.

I can't complain about your literal use of recognition, technically, but you are using a minor semantic point to avoid the larger point.

Larger point? There most certainly is one, but until the minor points are agreed upon, there is no sense jumping into the major ones.

Funny. You seem to have forgotten that my posts to you so far have merely been an effort to correct your ignorance and sloppy assumption about my opening post

Absurdly, you are now falsely accusing me of avoiding the larger point, when the truth is that you've been struggling to understand the minor one I made on the very first post.

Pattern-recognition is always about noticing a violation of some more fundamental pattern. IOW, the 're'cognition is caused by a singular violation of an expectation.

No, not always. I may desire a cup of tea, and expect that water will come out of the tap and go into my kettle, that my kettle will eventually whistle if it is heated, that the mug will be in the cupboard, etc. It all goes as planned, the tea is made - and the whole thing was based on a process involving recognition of expected patterns.

I think, however, that you're going to have to deal separately with sensations, perceptions, and ideas, since each requires a different process, when it comes to making (or recognizing) distinctions.

Perception is a sensation.

It is not. Sensations are feelings. "Red," or "warm" is not a perception, but a feeling.

Sensation

The operation or function of the senses; perception or awareness of stimuli through the senses.

Is that standard enough for you?

Perceptions are a concrete idea which refers to some kind of object, like 'apple,' 'stove,' etc., even when the object of such ideas are not objects in the strict sense, like 'running,' 'sharp,' etc.

The point I was trying to make in my first post was that there is a significant difference between raw - "unrational" (as opposed to 'irrational') perception, and perception that is accompanied by a symbolic/definitional reflection of that 'unrational raw perception'. Making this distinction is worthwhile because it allows us to speak of the difference between the mere word and the actuality that the word points to. The word/idea/thought is the finger pointing at the moon.

Ideas are photographs of [perceptions/sensations].

Images are perceptions, too, actually

I'm simply making a distinction between the raw experience of our sense organs and 'thought' which echos/reflects/interprets the vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch of our sense organs.

*Conceptions* are abstract relations, another kind of idea, distinct from perceptions.

Conceptions - abstract relations, such as numbers, are what I mean by definitional reality. And yes, this reality is distinct from the pure, unrational empirical perception of sight, smell, hearing, etc. I say empirical because it implies that only the senses are being relied upon, and thought is in the background, simply recording the pure observation of distinctions and potential discovery of new distinction.

Thanks for the useless advice. Now you should consider my advice for making your efforts effective.

But it wasn't useless, as you'll discover, if you decide you want to communicate effectively about these abstractions, and would like to avoid the confusion and failure to get an idea across, which is almost guranteed to result from strange elocutions like 'definitional reality' and 'epistemological reality.'

Not once have I used the term 'epistemological reality.' Again you are demonstrating a tendency to see things that aren't really there. It's really quite amusing. You are demonstrating perfectly my point about illogic and it's origins. Imagination and emotions, propelling you to believe in things that are not really there - a childish rebellion against the involuntary fact of things not being the way you want them to be. We don't choose to be illogical do we? People unconsciously fall into, what I view as, a rather expected pattern of behavior, realizing, only in hindsight, their error.

It wasn't my imagination that such weird phrases fail to communicate, because you didn't get your idea across.

That you didn't simply make a specific demand to know what I meant by specific terms in your first reply, and instead proceeded to impose what you know damn well is a theological belief in free will is quite staggering in it's stupidity - given this is an epistemology thread. Keep in mind you proceeded to further waste our time with critiques of my post that were riddled with false assumptions about my original post and fabricated memories of things I never said. It really is quite telling.

The meaning of your communication is the response you get, and the response you have been getting is that those phrases are crap.

The response that I have been getting is that I am dealing with a reader not intelligent enough to directly specify to the writer what specific terms he wants defined, and instead goes on to fabricate false memories of things the writer never said, imposing theological beliefs, etc - - and this on an epistemology thread, of all topics.

Was it my imagination that you invented (at least) two completely vague, if novel phrases

Precisely. See above.

Yeah, I saw where you claimed that you didn't.

That's right, it was precisely your mere imagination, and not actuality itself. (see the joke? Do try and keep up, Tom)

As it was also your imagination when you accused me of equating distinction with recognition, and using the term "epistemological reality", when, in actuality, I did not.

I hope you realize that you are accusing me of equating recognition with distinction when I have done no such thing.

Not exactly. I'm 'accusing' you of using two different words which actually mean the same kind of act, then making the mistake of thinking that you are talking about two different things.

It looks to me like you are in need of learning.

We've already covered this; I'm seeking to learn what your meaningless phrases refer to.

It would only take you a moment to tell me which ones specifically you want defined. That you haven't had the wisdom to do this yet, and instead have resorted to writing many long posts, accusing me of saying things I haven't actually said, comically exposes your desperation.

Similarly, I've already attempted to figure out what you in fact mean when you use common words contrary to their standard meanings

Why don't you take the time to go take a look at my first post and explicitly tell me specifically what terms you are confused by?

Let's hope you get it right this time, and not come up with more memories of events that never happened.

I have also tried to learn your motivation for avoiding the standard uses, because all you are doing is hindering your own ability to explain what you have in mind.

A sign of a good thinker is that he defines reality for himself. But most of my definitions don't stray from the dictionary use anyway. For instance, equating perception with sensation is hardly radical. So it seems even conforming to the standard meanings is too much for you to handle.

I'm done doing all your translating for you

That's a relief, 'cause you were really starting to get tedious

Hopefully you're done being an imbecile and are ready to find out what I mean by some fairly basic terms - by telling me specifically which terms you want defined.

Do you have the humility to defer to standard use of common words

A sign of a good thinker is his ability to define reality for himself and not rely on the general consensus for his sense of meaning. He thinks for himself.

Are you ready to specify which terms you want defined? Or are you only limited to barking unspecific orders and going on long winded spiels in response to a post that you admittedly don't even understand?

[Tmaq]

"This definitional reality is different from empirical reality, and is the essence of the dichotomy we often see expressed, distingishing the empricist from the rationalist."

My mistake - I confused your contrafactual topic title "Epistemology - the basis of logic" ('epistemology is in fact one of the products of the operation of logic) with the more recent vague phrase(s) you've introduced without ever explaining yourself anywhere nearly as well as you finally did when I busted your chops over it.

Dil got the phrases correct, though, long before you and I started talking about them;

can you expand on the difference between 'definitional reality' and 'empirical reality'?

You answered

Consider this: "Can there be experience (perception of distinctions) without knowledge?"

Your answer to that question will determine how you regard definitional reality, empirical reality, and the sort of bloke who peddles such concepts.

It seems that someone already proved that they don't have straight answers to give, and really has no grounds to complain when only their wounded ego succeeds in prodding them into spitting out what the heck they were talking about.

Remember this:?

"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.

You answered my direct request/challenge for elucidation (which you IMAGINED never occurred) thus;

<crickets chirping>

As much as you want to pretend this 'waste' of time to which you contribute is my choice, you could have given a straight answer a long time ago, if that was really your preference. Projecting the existence of your own oversights onto me...how would you characterize that, exactly, in your 'definintional reality'?

And now you've decided to enlist me in the role of your examplar of toddler behavior ...in retaliation? (and even as you continue to confuse 'thought' 'perception' and 'sensation'). What motivated your your amusing performance? Is this your 'rebuke' for having to get kicked into action? Can you only explain yourself clearly when you feel personally challenged? I'm just asking...but not really expecting a straight answer this time, either.

I realized I was being a bit preachy in my human nature thread, and so I made this epistemology thread in order to filter out the preaching

I see the 'preachyness' is a pattern with you, one that even you recognize. I wonder how many times it took for you to do so? I also wonder why preachiness was a problem in that other thread, but not this one? I'd ask you about it, but, you know, you don't like to explain your thinking, preferring instead to just 'define reality,' instead.

But really, I sure don't want to waste any more of your clearly valuable time seeking to understand you, so I'll merely refer to our primary point of disagreement if you seek to find some common ground;

"A sign of a good thinker is his ability to define reality for himself."

I believe you and I have different goals with our thinking, hence different standards of 'good,' and you are clearly quite comfortable and confident with your 'definitional reality,' so I sure don't want to risk screwing it all up for you, especially after you lashed out just because you couldn't speak up right off the bat.

I suppose its better than stuttering, though.

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

(deleted double post)

[Cory Duchesne]

"This definitional reality is different from empirical reality, and is the essence of the dichotomy we often see expressed, distingishing the empricist from the rationalist."

My mistake - I confused your contrafactual topic title "Epistemology - the basis of logic" with the more recent vague phrase(s)

Contrafactual? What hypocrite you are, using words that aren't even in the dictionary, and then not even bothering to define them.

DEFINE contrafactual.

Dil got the phrases correct, though, long before you and I started talking about them;

Dil: can you expand on the difference between 'definitional reality' and 'empirical reality'?

Tom: You answered

Cory: Consider this: "Can there be experience (perception of distinctions) without knowledge?" Your answer to that question will determine how you regard definitional reality, empirical reality, and the sort of bloke who peddles such concepts.

Tom: It seems that someone already proved that they don't have straight answers to give.

I'm more interested in provoking readers to think for themselves, rather than imposing a bunch of my own answers on them. I don't share your need to give a bunch of answers as fast as I can, but am capable of having a discussion, I can take a discussion slowly, step by step, making sure the reader understands the original post, and from there proceeding to have a reasonable discussion, as opposed to readers who lust for being the top dog - derailing the thread with a needy eagerness to prove the writers in need of Tmaq's Zen provocations.

Remember this:?

"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 misleading, if not outright false.

You answered my direct request/challenge for elucidation (which you IMAGINED never occurred) thus;

Request for elucidation? You translated the meaning of what I was saying, and then told me I was being misleading and false. There was no request or demand.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to debate with you over whether or not I was indeed being misleading or even false - or if my view is an appropriate one.

But remember, my next post to you was actually me addressing a major error in your interpretation, namely, that you equated me as saying distinction was the equivalent to recognition. My reasoning was that if you couldn't understand the value of distinguishing the act of recognition from merely perceiving distinctions, then the whole point about discussing with you definitional reality would be a waste of time.

As much as you want to pretend this 'waste' of time to which you contribute is my choice...

No, I doubt very much you'd consciously choose to waste time, but rather, I think that you are unconscious of your superfluity and greed to control people and blame them for misunderstandings that I think stem from your own social problems, rather than other people on this forum who are mostly capable of taking their time and offering more succinct posts. This is a discussion forum, not a place for people to have book writing contests, where every relevant thing is included in the first few posts. So rather than bitch that the writer didn't say everything that you think he should have said in his first, or first few posts - - ask some simple questions, or make some simple demands. Experiment with how it feels to restrain yourself, and settle for a 15-20 word post. Try having a discussion, rather than be a troll.

you could have given a straight answer a long time ago, if that was really your preference.

I prefer people to really understand the problem before giving answers. With Dil for instance, I wanted to make it clear to her what the crux of the problem was, to provoke her to think for herself, and to see if whether or not the problem was something she agreed was real, or just a wrongly put original post, built on false assumptions.

You are a perfect example. What's the point in giving answers to someone who obviously doesn't understand the significance and meaning of the first post?

Projecting the existence of your own oversights onto me...how would you characterize that, exactly, in your 'definintional reality'?

Oversights! Ok there Mr. "had to be corrected more than once for reading things that weren't even there". You have been the king of oversights on this thread. At least I can refer to specific examples of your idiocy, to which you have no good excuse. Whereas I have thoughtful reasons for my strategy in communication.

And now you've decided to enlist me in the role of your examplar of toddler behavior ...in retaliation? (and even as you continue to confuse 'thought' 'perception' and 'sensation'). What motivated your your amusing performance?

Oh, I don't know.....something to do with you accusing me of saying phrases I never even said. lol. Learn to read.

Is this your 'rebuke' for having to get kicked into action?

It's a rebuke aimed at someone whose behavior has been, quite frankly, moronic.

Can you only explain yourself clearly when you feel personally challenged?

I will explain myself to someone who indicates he understands the initial post. My exchanges with you on this thread have been mostly attempts to deny your false allegations; that I've said things that I never actually said.

I realized I was being a bit preachy in my human nature thread, and so I made this epistemology thread in order to filter out the preaching

I see the 'preachyness' is a pattern with you, one that even you recognize.
I wonder how many times it took for you to do so?

I'm not so petty I feel a need to count, and share those stats with others. People make mistakes, and are imperfect. It's really not that big of a deal. But your inflamed inferiority complex I see is now seeking to tally it all up. Too funny.

I also wonder why preachiness was a problem in that other thread, but not this one?

Because this is an epistemology thread. You know what epistemology means?

It's the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

That your first post was an assertion that there is free will, like I said, really stupid.

I'd ask you about it, but, you know, you don't like to explain your thinking, preferring instead to just 'define reality,' instead.

Gee, yeah, terrible thing to define reality.

But really, I sure don't want to waste any more of your clearly valuable time seeking to understand you, so I'll merely refer to our primary point of disagreement if you seek to find some common ground;

"A sign of a good thinker is his ability to define reality for himself."

I believe you and I have different goals with our thinking, hence different standards of 'good,' and you are clearly quite comfortable and confident with your 'definitional reality,'

Yeah, it's a useful concept. That some Christians and Muslims are intensely engaged with a reality involving heaven, angles, demons, etc, bespeaks well of what I call definitional reality. Mathematicians, can immerse themselves in the definitional reality of mathematics, a reality which, like the Christian or Islamic reality, often applies not to the empirical world whatsoever.

so I sure don't want to risk screwing it all up for you, especially after you lashed out just because you couldn't speak up right off the bat.

Like I said, before giving answers, I like to be sure my readers actually understand my original post.

[Tmaq]

"This definitional reality is different from empirical reality, and is the essence of the dichotomy we often see expressed, distingishing the empricist from the rationalist."

My mistake - I confused your contrafactual topic title "Epistemology - the basis of logic" with the more recent vague phrase(s)

Contrafactual? What hypocrite you are, using words that aren't even in the dictionary, and then not even bothering to define them.

DEFINE contrafactual.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Contrafactual

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

"This definitional reality is different from empirical reality, and is the essence of the dichotomy we often see expressed, distingishing the empricist from the rationalist."

My mistake - I confused your contrafactual topic title "Epistemology - the basis of logic" with the more recent vague phrase(s)

Contrafactual? What hypocrite you are, using words that aren't even in the dictionary, and then not even bothering to define them.

DEFINE contrafactual.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Contrafactual

-Tom

Hmmm...yeah, I thought I tried pasting that in already. I guess I must of left a letter off by mistake or something.

Anyhow, I suppose a good place to try and get this back on track, is getting to the bottom of what you mean by this:

My mistake - I confused your contrafactual topic title "Epistemology - the basis of logic" with the more recent vague phrase(s)

I'm not even sure what you mean here. Care to distinguish the more recent vague phrases, from the older ones?

Care to present to me all the phrases I've used that you are having trouble with?

I can't imagine you are still having difficulty with definitional reality. If so, just say so. And again, please, do tell me specifically what the terms are that you want clarification about.

[Tmaq]

Epistemology isn't the basis of logic, by any meaning for 'basis' because logic is required to DO epistemology. Logic is clearly primary. You are a fan of etymology, surely you recognize the suffix of the term.

The vague, coined, poorly defined, previously mentioned and incidentally, ONLY 2 noun-phrases in your original post, and nearly every post about it since then, including the one that starts your last post, are "definitional reality" and "emperical reality"... and I know that you knew exactly which two phrases I meant a long time ago...not just because you did answer one, but because there aren't any other phrases I could have possibly been talking about.

You explained the first a while ago, equating it to each persons set of symbol-referent pairs, presumably on the conceptual level (idea -> experience). The second I suspect means 'sense data,' but we'll see (that is, if you maintain your newfound passion about direct communication.)

As you were quite capable of figuring out which one of your only 2 coined and poorly defined phrases I was griping about earlier, its completely disingenous of you to play dumb now to score ideological points about my failure to be more specific.

If your honest goal was communicating about your epistemological theory, you could have just *guessed* which two phrases (among those only 2 that you coined), and discovered, as you were covering your minimum responsibility for charitable communication, that there were only two. I didn't need to be more specific, because the general terms "phrases" referred to every single expression of yours which I lacked clarity.

To imply that your difficulty explaining what you mean with your new phrases was somehow completely or even mostly my choice, especially after you failed to answer a direct request toward exactly that end, is patently ridiculous.

Instead of trying to channel socrates, maybe you should try answering the honest query about what *you* think, or address the criticisms that have been offered toward those portions that were clear.

Being nosy about Dil's state of mind (let alone frequently mind-reading mine) is just so much bullshit; Berating me because of the bullshit inherent in an *in*direct communication strategy suggests that I should have expected otherwise from you, despite your total failure to be direct until I busted your chops about it. If it takes busting your chops to convince you to be direct, then quit griping and imagining your psychobabble banalysis over the fact that I busted your chops means anything.

If I was stupid not to carefully explain what is meant by my query for eluicdation of the new terms, its equally or even more stupid not to carefully explain what is meant by your fabricated phrases because you had every reason to expect a query about exactly that. And in fact, you did get such a query. If your preference is for definitions, why did it take so much hassle for you to have that idea put in your head?

If its not stupidity for someone as clearly articulate as yourself to overlook the possibility that someone might ask you to define new terms during you first post, then I defy you to describe what does qualify. Are there more than two coined phrases you thought I could have meant, and you just wanted to avoid 'wasting' incredible amounts of time writing a paragraph to explain them, or what? Are either of those phrases in the dictionary, like the rest of the language in your posts?

Recall, if you will, why this thread was motivated.

You claimed that you wanted to explore our differences WRT epistemological theory. It seems your true preference is for psychobabble, if one were to measure by the bulk of your output.

You've certainly illustrated and explained your motives well enough in this thread, even if you haven't done much to explain your thinking WRT epistemology.

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

Epistemology isn't the basis of logic, by any meaning for 'basis' because logic is required to DO epistemology.

The whole purpose of the thread was to have a discussion about what the basis of logic was - - hence, a discussion guided by such a purpose would be an epistemological discussion. When we are interested in finding out what the very basis of logic is, we are doing epistemology. Hence, the title of the thread.

It's like if I titled a thread:

Psychology - the basis of sadism.

First the general subject, then the more specific one.

Do you agree that trying to find the basis of logic is an interest we should categorize under epistemology?

[Tmaq]

Epistemology isn't the basis of logic, by any meaning for 'basis' because logic is required to DO epistemology.

The whole purpose of the thread was to have a discussion about what the basis of logic was - - hence, a discussion guided by such a purpose would be an epistemological discussion.

No, it wouldn't. A better title (sticking with your Aristotilean beginnings and attempt to make an outline) is 'logic - its bases' because logic is its own field, just like epistemology is its own field.

That's the point; logic is the basis of epistemology, as well as all the other philosophical fields. This is the same issue I brought up, asking you to describe a distinction by which we could decide which distinctions are more important; you are implying an infinite regress that you have little chance of coping with, let alone describing unambigously.

It's like if I titled a thread:

Psychology - the basis of sadism.

First the general subject, then the more specific one.

Do you agree that trying to find the basis of logic is an interest we should categorize under epistemology?

So you're doing outlines with the topic headings. How stupid was it not to explain yourself more specifically, since the *literal* meaning of your title is a contradiction in terms?

And now you've turned around and used 'basis' to mean 'relevant field,' contrary to your previous explanation of how you use that word.

Seriously, 'elements' is a lot more apt. Ask around.

It means the same thing as what you referred to as 'fundamental ingredients' or some such.

-Tom

[Cory Duchesne]

Epistemology isn't the basis of logic, by any meaning for 'basis' because logic is required to DO epistemology.

The whole purpose of the thread was to have a discussion about what the basis of logic was - - hence, a discussion guided by such a purpose would be an epistemological discussion.

No, it wouldn't.

Epistemology: a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

OR

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said, how can one ascertain the origin or nature of knowledge without examining logic and its basis? Furthermore, if we are aiming at establishing what the basis of logic is, we need to inquire how/why it is we know we have found the basis of logic, and this is an epistemological aim.

A better title (sticking with your Aristotilean beginnings and attempt to make an outline) is 'logic - its bases' because logic is its own field, just like epistemology is its own field.

That's too shallow. We need to go into how/why it is we know what logic's bases are. That's why I regard this as an epistemological concern.

That's the point; logic is the basis of epistemology

But how is it that we know what logic is?

It's like if I titled a thread:

Psychology - the basis of sadism.

First the general subject, then the more specific one.

Do you agree that trying to find the basis of logic is an interest we should categorize under epistemology?

So you're doing outlines with the topic headings. How stupid was it not to explain yourself more specifically, since the *literal* meaning of your title is a contradiction in terms?

Maybe that should have been the first point you brought up - rather than your absurd assertion that there is free will.

And now you've turned around and used 'basis' to mean 'relevant field'

No, I don't quite see how anything I've said implies that. Ascertaining the basis of logic was the specific concern, and I categorized this specific concern under 'epistemology' because, we need to philosophize about how it is we know that we have indeed discovered the basis of logic.

Seriously, 'elements' is a lot more apt. Ask around.

I already explained to you why basis is more apt and why elements is less.