I think there's a bit of equivocation going on with the term "coherency" here. I take logical coherence as distinct from scientific coherence. If an argument is logically incoherent, it's truly incomprehensible. Logical statements that draw random conclusions and self contradictory statements would be examples.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
There are a few reasons for this. First coherency can allow a repeatability of positive results. Think about superstitions. I have a lucky rabbits foot, therefore lucky things will happen to me today. Maybe they did one day. And maybe you will have lucky results happen to you all day, or at least ascribe those "lucky" results to the foot. — Philosophim
The second is to avoid negative results. Lets say that I want to go paragliding but don't finish the training course because "My lucky rabbits foot will make it all work out." Perhaps it does. But you and I know that the rabbit foot had nothing to do with it, and his belief in the foot made him make a decision that could have been deadly. And of course, perhaps it doesn't work out at all.
It is a decision to be rational however, and if someone does not experience negative consequences from being irrational, or does not ascribe their negative experiences to being irrational, many people will choose the easier path of being emotional. In this case, they will reject reason for their "superior state" of emotional opinions and biases. — Philosophim
I think there's a bit of equivocation going on with the term "coherency" here. I take logical coherence as distinct from scientific coherence. If an argument is logically incoherent, it's truly incomprehensible. Logical statements that draw random conclusions and self contradictory statements would be examples. — Hanover
But the propositions are part of this reality that is represented. They are composed of visual scribbles and sounds that we observe, just like the the things that the propositions represent. I don't understand this inclination to set words, or language-use, and observers, up on this special pedestal separate from the world that they represent. What makes one scribble or sound a proposition and some other scribble or sound not a proposition?However, we tend to believe that there is a reality, beyond the propositions, which is represented by them, and we will judge propositions as "true" according to some assumed ideal of correspondence. The propositions serve as descriptions of this assumed reality, produced from observation. — Metaphysician Undercover
The principle 'it happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again', is not logical, nor reasonable in any way. [Italics added] — Metaphysician Undercover
However, we tend to believe that there is a reality, beyond the propositions, which is represented by them — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't understand this inclination to set words, or language-use, and observers, up on this special pedestal separate from the world that they represent. — Harry Hindu
If we didn't observe (see and hear) propositions consistently between ourselves, how could we ever communicate? — Harry Hindu
The inconsistency lies in the mind of observers in the form of their different experiences with propositions and what they refer to. The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds. — Harry Hindu
Not reasonable in any way? Really? Not any way? You shall have to prove this, else how is anyone to suppose you're anything other than just crazy? — tim wood
Propositions are merely a formality of dictionary words bundled through a simple manageable logic. They are a useful tool for the practice of formal philosophy. In and of themselves propositions represent nothing whatsoever just as mathematical symbols represent nothing beyond their own formalism. — magritte
The principle 'it happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again', is not logical, nor reasonable in any way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Repeatability, we can understand as being the necessary condition for a general principle, produced by induction. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you conclude this? Now some instances of predicting the future based on the past are illogical. — Philosophim
And why not the necessity of the necessity, .., of the necessity?I just explained it in the last post. Another principle, which states the necessity of similarity is required. — Metaphysician Undercover
But that's the problem - trying to separate it from the world. We typically understand things based on their effects on the rest of the world or the rest of the world's effect on it. Understanding understanding entails knowing how understanding has a causal relationship with the rest of world - like how observations affect our understanding, or how humans behave as a result of their understandings.It's called "human understanding", and it's separated off from the rest of the world, as a particular thing to try to understand in itself. The reason for separating it off, is not to put it on a pedestal, but to try and understand it. Since this is philosophy, human understanding is a common subject to separate off.
I have made a further distinction, to address the role of natural reason, in comparison to observation, within human understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
From participation in this forum, it appears to me like there is not necessarily consistency between the way that different people interpret propositions. So I believe that communication is based in something other than consistency or coherency. I've seen people try to argue that communication requires coherency, and if you truly believe this you might present me with such an argument, but such arguments always seem to fail, so I believe that this is just an unsupported assumption.
I think, that as described above, coherency is something demanded by an individual's mind, for the sake of that thinking person's own thoughts, not something demanded by the person for the sake of communication. — Metaphysician Undercover
Like I said, "The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds", which means that the only place the inconsistencies exist in the world is in minds. Inconsistencies occur because propositions and understanding are about, or of things, and not the things themselves, and our belief that every instance in time can be the same as some prior instance. All instances are unique and any understanding of some present or future event can only be based on prior similar instances, never the same instance.The inconsistency lies in the mind of observers in the form of their different experiences with propositions and what they refer to. The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds.
— Harry Hindu
I don't see how you can say this, and respect your earlier premise that propositions, which are products of minds, are part of the world. If our minds are part of the world, then the inconsistencies within our minds are inconsistencies in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
And why not the necessity of the necessity, .., of the necessity?
The thing either is, or it is not. If subject to infinite regress, then not. But it is, so it cannot be subject to infinite regress and must therefore be understood in some different way. Perhaps your reading of reason and reasonable are both too reductive and restrictive. — tim wood
f all you meant was the past is not a guarantee of a particular future, that's easy enough. But to deny that reason can find any connection is ludicrous on its face. — tim wood
But that's the problem - trying to separate it from the world. We typically understand things based on their effects on the rest of the world or the rest of the world's effect on it. — Harry Hindu
And understanding is about, or of, things, so trying to separate what some understanding is, from what it is about, or of, would be a misunderstanding of understanding. — Harry Hindu
And does understanding necessarily entail the use of propositions? Does a mother deer in the woods understand the odors and sounds that it smells and hears? Based on it's behavior, it obviously understands the distinction between the smell and sounds of its offspring and the smell and sounds of a wolf. It runs from wolves, and not from its offspring. — Harry Hindu
Definitions in dictionaries are the consistent use of some scribble or sound. If you want to use them in a way that is inconsistent with their definition, then communicating would be difficult unless the other person has some prior experience with you using the scribble/sound in that way to know/understand/interpret in the same way that you are. In other words, communication entails the consistent understanding of what some scribble or sound points to in two or more minds. Without that, communication doesn't occur. — Harry Hindu
Communication between two or more computers requires the consist use of protocols - the rules by which the computers communicate. If one isn't following the same set of rules communication doesn't happen. — Harry Hindu
Like I said, "The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds", which means that the only place the inconsistencies exist in the world is in minds. Inconsistencies occur because propositions and understanding are about, or of things, and not the things themselves, and our belief that every instance in time can be the same as some prior instance. All instances are unique and any understanding of some present or future event can only be based on prior similar instances, never the same instance.
The world is consistent (deterministic), in that if ever the universe was re-started, it would evolve in exactly the same was as before, but each instance in time of the evolving universe is separate and distinct, however similar it may appear based on our present intention and experiences. — Harry Hindu
Then what use is a dictionary? Is not a dictionary a use of words within a certain context, like defining the meaning of words?I think that if you took a serious look at the way words are actually used, you'd see that meaning is provided by the context of usage, not dictionaries. — Metaphysician Undercover
And I already showed that words are just scribbles and sounds. What makes some scribble or sound useful for understanding, and others not useful for understanding? If we can use sounds to understand things that arent sounds, then why cant we use any sound, like sounds that arent spoken words, to understand something. For instance, hearing and seeing someone say "it's going to rain" vs hearing thunder and seeing lightning, both sounds and visuals provide you with the same understanding - that it is going to rain. Propositions are just a particular type of visual and sounds.The op concerned the use of words in human understanding. You took one step away from this to talk about the use of words in human communication. Now you've taken a step even further away, to talk about communication between computers. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why ought we trust natural reason as superior to observation whenever observation gives us incoherency? — Metaphysician Undercover
It makes complete sense to talk about "understanding" in a general sense, and determine characteristics which are proper to it — Metaphysician Undercover
That's not how we start it.The nature of reality might be that there is inconsistency inherent within it, so that one person's observation might naturally contradict another's, for example. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is not a dictionary a use of words within a certain context, like defining the meaning of words? — Harry Hindu
What makes some scribble or sound useful for understanding, and others not useful for understanding? If we can use sounds to understand things that arent sounds, then why cant we use any sound, like sounds that arent spoken words, to understand something. For instance, hearing and seeing someone say "it's going to rain" vs hearing thunder and seeing lightning, both sounds and visuals provide you with the same understanding - that it is going to rain. Propositions are just a particular type of visual and sounds. — Harry Hindu
We trust reason over observation because reason is conditioned by itself, whereas observation is conditioned by Nature. — Mww
Observation, being a strictly passive, unconscious mental activity, is not responsible for incoherency, such being the domain of judgement. — Mww
It follows that even if judgement, a product of reason, occasionally leads the thinking subject astray, it is rarely the case, and even if there is a case, it is reason alone that has the ability to rectify its own mistakes. — Mww
Although, treating understanding as a fundamental human cognitive faculty, doesn’t really warrant scare quotes, Nietzsche’s “inverted goat’s feet”. No reason to be scared of it, or doubt its reality. — Mww
No, this is what you wrote:What i said is that it is not reasonable in any way, to think that what happened in the past guarantees that the same thing will happen in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
Two different statements.The principle 'it happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again', is not logical, nor reasonable in any way. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is this need that leads to an infinite regress: the need for the need,..., for the need.... When actually all that's needed is a reasonably accurate use of language, without bizarre and outrageous claims. However, you have made a partial correction by adding "guarantee," but you still have the problem with "is not reasonable in any way." And just this is what you have to demonstrate. Here's your test case. "It rained here yesterday." Now you have to show why it "is not reasonable in any way" to suppose that it will rain here again.It's not reasonable because a further premise is required.... 'It happened like this before, therefore it will happen like that again' is not reasonable in any way, because the further premise which states the necessity of similarity must be accounted for. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't you think that there is judgement inherent within observation? — Metaphysician Undercover
What do you mean with "conditioned by itself"? — Metaphysician Undercover
The idea of coherency only exists if there are prior observations of the phenomena being observed currently. If you observe a completely novel experience, then you won’t know if your observation is coherent or not, as there is no baseline to judge it by. — Pinprick
If you have prior observations/experiences, then the default assumption is coherency (which also implicitly assumes determinism). The reason for this, I would assume, is because more often than not this assumption is correct. It’s an effective assumption to make while navigating the world and trying to understand it. — Pinprick
If we observe something that contradicts our assumed coherency, then the logical thing to do is to try to develop a theory that explains both the incoherent and coherent observations. If that cannot be accomplished, then the only options left are to discard the observation as some illusion, determine that the novel observation plays by a different set of rules for some reason (which you would then go in to try and explain), or to repeat the observations if possible and hope you can gain some better insight into what exactly is going on.
The bottom line is that observations drive, or determine, reason. When the two clash, it is reason that must become flexible or malleable in order to accommodate our observations. — Pinprick
Here's your test case. "It rained here yesterday." Now you have to show why it "is not reasonable in any way" to suppose that it will rain here again. — tim wood
Inherent in? No. Consequential to, certainly, with respect to time. Judgement presupposes that which is to be judged, either a posteriori perception on the one hand, or a priori thought on the other. We can think and arrive at a judgement without perceiving, but we cannot perceive and arrive at a judgement without thinking. — Mww
Reason is a prime human asset, along with the moral constitution. Reason conditioned by itself just means there is nothing else required for reason to function as that asset, other than the compendium of cognitive faculties incorporated within it. Things are required to reason about, of course, but not to function.
Reason doesn’t create itself, but it does create its own objects. Consciousness, the ego, the self....a myriad of representations that are nothing but objects of reason.
But it’s all speculative metaphysics, so......grain of salt here, dump truck full there. — Mww
I don't agree with this. I think that each experience is novel. I've never had two experiences the same before, though I've experienced deja vu, but I really can't even imagine the possibility of living through the same thing twice. I recognize deja vu as just a feeling, and not really having the same experience twice. With the nature of time and spatial existence being as it is, it seems completely impossible to have the same experience more than once. So quite clearly, coherency must be based in something other than prior observations of the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem I see here is that you do not seem to be differentiating between experience, and observation. Observation is to take note of what has been experienced, so it requires a task of memorizing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you contradict yourself here? First you say that if consistency cannot be produced, the only thing to do is to discard the observation as illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then you say when observation and reason clash, "it is reason that must become flexible" to accomodate observations. — Metaphysician Undercover
If such observations produce judgements of correspondence, and true propositions, but the propositions display incoherency amongst each other, then why does natural reason demand that we reject them? — Metaphysician Undercover
The nature of reality might be that there is inconsistency inherent within it, so that one person's observation might naturally contradict another's, for example. — Metaphysician Undercover
If our minds are part of the world, then the inconsistencies within our minds are inconsistencies in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
The truth might be that there is incoherency inherent within reality, — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not familiar with "scare quotes" — Metaphysician Undercover
Coherence is found in what we say, not in how things are. Things just are the way they are. If what we say about them is inconsistent, then we've said it wrong. There will be another way of talking that will remove the inconsistency. — Banno
I suppose we may be using "observation" in different ways. — Metaphysician Undercover
To me, observation implies judgement having been past on the acts of sensation, such that a decision as to what will be remembered out of all that has been sensed, has been made — Metaphysician Undercover
Reason, being conditioned only by itself, would have the capacity to produce any sort of fantasy, any imaginary thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, it depends on how general you want to be. I had in mind things like causation, or gravity. You have certainly observed one object cause another object to move on more than one occasion. My point being that due to this consistency in experience (or observation if you prefer) we come to have certain expectations of how the world works. We then experience incoherency when these expectations are not met. — Pinprick
I’m not, but it’s because whatever difference there is between them seems to not make a difference. — Pinprick
This was to show that we are able to form expectations at a very young age, which implies the ability to learn about the environment presumably through “memorizing” observations. — Pinprick
This is meant to refer to those other two options. My point is just that if we are going to make an attempt at understanding something that seems to contradict our preconceived notions (natural reason), then we must alter those notions because we cannot change the actual phenomenon. — Pinprick
I don't think natural reason demands the rejection of incoherent propositions. Incoherent propositions are rejected when proven incoherent. Therefore, it is the action of observing which forms the basis for the rejection of incoherent propositions. — Daniel
If I say there is only one star in the universe, it is not natural reason which leads me to believe that there is more than one star in the universe; it is the act of experiencing and observing that there is more than one star in the universe which rejects the incoherent proposition. — Daniel
I don't think that two different, observations about the same thing can be completely contradictory; they might disagree in certain aspects but never contradict each other (they are about the same thing). If they are observations about different things, then they cannot be contradictory, at all. — Daniel
Coherence is found in what we say, not in how things are. — Banno
If what we say about them is inconsistent, then we've said it wrong. — Banno
If propositions are inconsistent, contradictory, or otherwise incoherent, there is an inability for human reason to understand what is being stated, so some or all of these propositions need to be rejected, for the purpose of reasoning and understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
The nature of reality might be that there is inconsistency inherent within it, — 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.