Right, now the question is what validates the desire, or need for coherency in what we say about the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
What makes it wrong, to say something inconsistent about the world, if "consistent" doesn't correspond with anything in the world? — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps. For me, everything in its place: sound sensation is hearing, tactile sensation is feeling, olfactory sensation is smelling.....sight sensation is seeing, and that which is seen is observed. We do not observe the smell of frying bacon, we do not taste B-flat, and we do not hear the sight of fast-moving clouds. — Mww
If you scan the horizon with your eyes for a few seconds, and there are hundreds of different things out there, and you turn around, then I ask you what did you see, you could list off a view items. Whether you list off these items, or those items, is a big difference, because it indicates that what you have noticed, or "observed", is different from what you have "sensed". — Metaphysician Undercover
Judgement passed on sensation, rather than being mere observation, is empirical knowledge. Sensation upon which a judgement is not forthcoming, insofar as we must admit to an “I don’t know” about it, still manifests as an experience. Aesthetic judgements, on the other hand, those having to do with non-cognitive feelings, or the sublime, are just the opposite, insofar as, while possibly motivated by experience, are not themselves judgements of experience, thus knowledge with respect to them is given immediately. — Mww
Nevertheless, if one chooses to trust sensation over reason, he will be at a complete loss as to explaining what the sensation actually represents, unless he reasons about it, which puts him right back to trusting reason over sensation. — Mww
Anyway, consider the situation where you have a belief system, T, that consists of the propositions, say X, Y, and Z. Suppose then that these 3 propositions are inconsistent in the sense that it's impossible for all three of them to be true at the same time. In other words the conjunction X & Y & Z evaluates to false i.e. the belief system T, as a whole, is false. — TheMadFool
If X&Y&Z are inconsistent with each other, this does not justify the claim that the belief system is false, unless falsity is determined as inconsistency, rather than as correspondence. That is the point of the op. Each proposition might state something true (corresponding) about the world, yet logic might tell us that those statements are inconsistent. The laws of consistency are not based in correspondence, so inconsistent does not mean false, in the sense of correspondence.
You conclude that X, Y, and Z, cannot all be true if inconsistent, but on what basis do you claim this? Perhaps your idea of what is consistent, and what is not consistent, does not provide a true representation of the world. Then being inconsistent does not necessarily mean false, because your rules of logic may not correspond with the reality of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
Isn't that what "defining the meaning of words" means? If not, then what is a "definition"?It is a use of words, but the dictionary does not define the meaning of words. It gives guidance, in the form of a general representation of how words are commonly used. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure I get what you mean here. My point was that there has to be a common understanding of what some words mean if they are to be used for communicating. That common understanding could be a dictionary, or experience with a person using certain words in a certain way. Either way, it requires experience with a dictionary or a person using words, to understand their use of them.So the dictionary definitions are similar to inductive conclusions, descriptions of how words are commonly used. But if we look at them as inductive conclusions, they are very faulty, not acceptable induction at all, by scientific standards. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's the thing - I don't see a distinction. Don't you have to first understand that what you are looking at or hearing is words, and not just some scribbles or sounds? Only after that can you then try to understand what those scribbles or sounds refer to. At each point, there is no difference in the type of understanding required to understand the difference between scribbles and words and to understand how those words are used. In the case of lightning and thunder, you have to understand that it is lightning and thunder that you see and hear, and then understand from that what the presence of lightning and thunder mean.The so-called sounds and scribbles are used with intent, as symbols, and that means that they are associated with something else. We do use other things, like in your example. I didn't say that understanding is limited to the use of words. I was talking about a specific type of understanding, which I called "natural reason". — Metaphysician Undercover
Observation requires that the person understands and remembers what has been seen. — Metaphysician Undercover
My argument is that some form of judgement (unconscious judgement) must be passed on sensation prior to observation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether you list off these items, or those items, is a big difference, because it indicates that what you have noticed, or "observed", is different from what you have "sensed". — Metaphysician Undercover
But if it is true that there is a difference between sensation and observation, as I describe, then we have to account for that type of "judgement" or whatever it is, which induces us to observe only specific aspects of what we sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Consistency ensures that, there exists a possible world in which all propositions for a given belief system, say X, are true. — TheMadFool
To reiterate, an inconsistent set of propositions implies one or more of them is/are false. — TheMadFool
The idea that there's a possibility that the universe could itself be inconsistent doesn't make sense for the reason that inconsistency implies the presence of a falsehood and unless you want to construct a belief system that includes falsehoods, no inconsistent set of proposition is acceptable. Do you want there to be falsehoods in your belief system about the universe? — TheMadFool
Isn't that what "defining the meaning of words" means? If not, then what is a "definition"? — Harry Hindu
I'm not sure I get what you mean here. My point was that there has to be a common understanding of what some words mean if they are to be used for communicating. That common understanding could be a dictionary, or experience with a person using certain words in a certain way. Either way, it requires experience with a dictionary or a person using words, to understand their use of them. — Harry Hindu
That's the thing - I don't see a distinction. Don't you have to first understand that what you are looking at or hearing is words, and not just some scribbles or sounds? Only after that can you then try to understand what those scribbles or sounds refer to. — Harry Hindu
At each point, there is no difference in the type of understanding required to understand the difference between scribbles and words and to understand how those words are used. In the case of lightning and thunder, you have to understand that it is lightning and thunder that you see and hear, and then understand from that what the presence of lightning and thunder mean. — Harry Hindu
So you say, which is fine. I would say cognition requires one to understand, and experience is that which he remembers as having been observed in particular, perceived in general. — Mww
I suppose imagination, the unconscious faculty that transforms sensations into phenomena, could be thought as a form of judgement. But such transformation is still a consequence of perception rather than prior to it. — Mww
Whichever items are mentioned in a list merely indicates a relative impression those objects made, whether from familiarity, some arbitrary characteristic...shiny, odd-shaped, whatever. — Mww
I grant there will be a difference between the totality of the items and the items that make the list, but I don’t grant it as relating to a difference in sense vs. observation. — Mww
Sensation is the affect the objects we have sensed have on us...a tickle, a sound, a taste, etc. These are all sensations which merely represent objects that physiologically affect our sense organs. — Mww
Which is to say what the word generally means, and how it is commonly understood, or interpreted. All of these terms are compatible with each other, so we seem to be understanding each other and agreeing as we are using different words that have similar meanings to reiterate what the other is saying.Defining a word is to give a definition which will be adhered to within a logical argument or a similar use. This is a prescriptive venture. It prescribes how the word will be used and interpreted. What the dictionary gives us is a description of how words are generally used. — Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly, YET we communicate. So how do you explain communication without a common understanding, or way of interpreting scribbles and sounds?Your use of "common understanding" doesn't make any sense to me. Individual people understand, and have an understanding. But the way I understand things is different from the way that you understand things. Yet we can communicate. So I think your proposition, that a "common understanding" (which appears incoherent to me) is required for communication, is false. — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems to me that you can't sever the interpretation from the sensation - as if sensations just occur without the addition of its interpretation. The brain subconsciously interprets the sensory data and filters it before you even become aware of it in your conscious mind. The conscious part of the mind seems to be an extra layer of fault-tolerance - interpreting sensory data and interpreting it in a social context, like for communication.I believe that this is intuitive. Everything we sense and observe, lightening, thunder, the ground, buildings, sky, words, is intuitively received as having significance or meaning. This is why I have requested a difference between sensation and observation. When we sense things, there is a huge magnitude of events happening all at the same time, and we instinctually prioritize the significance of the various things, and observe those assumed to have importance. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, that begs the question: What is consciousness?I think there is a big difference between conscious understanding, reasoning, and the unconscious, intuitive, assigning of importance to sensations. — Metaphysician Undercover
So how do you explain communication without a common understanding, or way of interpreting scribbles and sounds? — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that you can't sever the interpretation from the sensation - as if sensations just occur without the addition of its interpretation. The brain subconsciously interprets the sensory data and filters it before you even become aware of it in your conscious mind. The conscious part of the mind seems to be an extra layer of fault-tolerance - interpreting sensory data and interpreting it in a social context, like for communication. — Harry Hindu
This is incorrect. Consistency says nothing about the truth of the beliefs. One could write fictitious propositions which are completely false, but consistent, about some "possible world". Consistency does not ensure that the belief system is true. What ensures truth is that the propositions correspond with the actual world. The issue is whether or not the true propositions, ones which describe the actual world, are consistent with each other, and capable of producing one consistent "possible world". Perhaps the actual world is composed of a multitude of possible worlds which are inconsistent with each other. — Metaphysician Undercover
To reiterate, an inconsistent set of propositions implies one or more of them is/are false.
— TheMadFool
If "true" is defined according to correspondence with the reality of the world, then another premise is required to produce this conclusion. That premise would be the proposition that the reality of the world cannot be described with inconsistent premises. How can we know whether this proposition is true or not. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is only the case if you remove correspondence as a defining feature of truth and falsity. If you do this, then any imaginary possible world which is consistent is a true world. Otherwise you equivocate with your use of "falsehood". — Metaphysician Undercover
I would say cognition requires one to understand.....
— Mww
OK, so I would place observation in the same category as cognition. — Metaphysician Undercover
I won't fuss over the proposed division between sense and observation. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe that this way of dividing the different mental activities is not representative of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
between conscious reasoned thought (cognition), and unconscious brain activity. I'd say that this is derived from our habit of separating human beings from other animals — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem here, is that we cannot proceed through the conscious mind, to determine the effect which sensation has on the unconscious part of our being. — Metaphysician Undercover
To limit "the affect the objects have" to the consciously apprehended affect, is a mistake. . — Metaphysician Undercover
This is an unwarranted assertion. What is it about consciousness that makes reasoning limited to it? To answer this we need a proper definition of consciousness.We cannot call it reasoning because reasoning is limited to conscious judgements. So i wonder what kind of principles are being applied in this subconscious interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, consistency/inconsistency doesn't depend on the actual truth of propositions. In fact this is why we use truth tables to identify them - every possibility is taken into account. Ergo, no theory or definition of truth is relevant to consistency/inconsistency. — TheMadFool
The second is fine; whatever reason there may be to fuss over the division between sense and observation is semantic, and doesn’t interfere too seriously with the technicalities. But if observation is suggested as having similar characteristics....being in the same category.....as cognition, we are met with an insurmountable technical inconsistency, for cognition makes explicit an understanding, but observation holds no such requirement, insofar as it is common enough to sense that for which there is no immediate recognition. In other words, cognition implies knowledge, mere observation does not. — Mww
But I think I understand your groundwork: if there is an “unconscious” form of judgement at the one end of the cognitive sequence, which has been mentioned as imagination, and a “conscious” form of judgement at the other, which has been mentioned as judgement proper, then it follows that the outputs of these forms of judgement will have something in common between them. This may very well work, except for the realization that nothing in the unconscious mode can be anything but purely theoretical, from which follows necessarily that our observation, if categorized as proceeding from “unconscious” judgements, can also be nothing more than theoretical. But they are not, nor can they be, and still keep with the hope of empirical knowledge, as humans indulge themselves in it. — Mww
One doesn’t theorize hearing a siren; he actually, truly, and with apodeictic certainty, hears a siren. — Mww
No need for such derivation. It is quite obvious there is an unconscious aspect of human mental activity, right? I mean.....we are never aware of the output of sensation and the input to the brain, yet when we stub our left toe we never jerk our right foot. Might this be your “unconscious” judgement?/quote]
Yeah, I think that serves as a good example. So consider reflex actions for a moment, as an example. It really is inappropriate to say that there is a "judgement" involved with reflex actions. However, how could we describe such actions without some reference to a sort of preconditioned influence toward a decision to act?
— Mww
Perhaps. But we both accept that we know things. If nothing else, the best we could say is we both sometimes make exactly the same mistake. And if everybody makes exactly the same mistake, we might as well call such mistakes, knowledge. — Mww
This is an unwarranted assertion. What is it about consciousness that makes reasoning limited to it? To answer this we need a proper definition of consciousness. — Harry Hindu
If this is the case, then why do we give consistency any esteem? According to the op, many would give greater esteem to consistency than to correspondence. This may be due to the fact that it is usually much more difficult to determine correspondence than it is to determine correspondence. — Metaphysician Undercover
The issue to address here is the question of why natural reason (meaning the innate ability of human beings to engage in reasoning) demands coherency. — Metaphysician Undercover
Consistency is important for the reason that if an inconsistency is detected then, there's a hidden contradiction and that's bad, right. — TheMadFool
All in all, inconsistency checking ensures that there are no contradictions or falsehoods in your beliefs. — TheMadFool
It does not.
All sorts of people engage in reasoning despite having self-contradictory(incoherent )beliefs. Some refuse to even consider the self-contradiction even when the incompatible beliefs are picked out and compared/analyzed side by side. — creativesoul
That is the point, to determine whether contradiction truly is bad. If reality is such, that contradiction is required to accurately describe it, then how can we say that contradiction is bad? — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, this is to define "falsehood" as inconsistency. But if reality is such that inconsistencies are the result of true descriptions of our natural world, how can you say that inconsistency represents falsehood? — Metaphysician Undercover
A contradiction is "bad" because, to give an analogy, it's like writing down a proposition on a blank piece of paper and then erasing it. If I say P and then follow it up by saying ~P and P = "God exists" then it amounts to this: God exists. It's as good as not saying anything at all. — TheMadFool
Inconsistency has nothing to do with the definition of falsehood. Allow me to explain (as best as I can). Imagine there are two definitions of truth and falsity: 1. Correspondence, 2. Pragmatic. Whether I use definition 1 or definition 2 doesn't matter for inconsistency is simply the situation in which you say something and then take back what you said. Refer to what I said about contradictions. — TheMadFool
is a misunderstanding.All in all, inconsistency checking ensures that there are no contradictions or falsehoods in your beliefs. — TheMadFool
A proposition without context is meaningless. So the terms in your example, "God", and "exists" need to be defined. Otherwise saying "God exists" says nothing at all in the first place, so negating it changes nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover
is a misunderstanding — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, put it in whatever context you wish but the fact that you're cutting off the very branch you're sitting on remains unchanged. — TheMadFool
The concept of inconsistency has nothing to do with the definition of truth/falsity. — TheMadFool
You appear to be saying that within an individual's own tendency to reason (and this is what I called natural reason), a person would allow the existence of contradiction. I disagree. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.