I am very interested in the 'argument from reason', but I don't want to use it to persuade others that God exists. I think what interests me about it, is the claim that reason itself is not something that can be or ought to be explained in terms of any other factor. Whereas nowadays it is widely accepted that, because we evolved, then reason is, in some sense, just another natural faculty, like a particularly successful adaptation, something that is a consequence of an essentially unreasoning process, which is assumed by nearly all scientific philosophy. — Wayfarer
Now, we could, if we wanted to, enter into a gentlemen's agreement that a thing that is not identical to itself is nothing. — James Riley
Ok, it is something - but only if it is nothing. That's where contradiction gets you. — litewave
The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. — James Riley
So, God, like logic, says "Because I said so." It's a gentlemen's agreement, coming and going. — James Riley
Is it self-evident to you that it sounds religious? — litewave
But without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there. — litewave
What kind of agreement is it then? — litewave
They are optional if you are not talking about reality. Regardless, the question I have is, are they proven with lesser proofs than simply saying "self-evident" or "can't prove a negative"? — James Riley
In a book titled "The Hermeneutics of Original Argument: Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric," P. C. Smith, and a mighty good book too, the author offers as proof the LNC & etc. are true "because they had better be," italics added. Maybe not what's expected, but there it is. — tim wood
No. That's my subjective perception. — James Riley
Is it self-evident to you that it is your subjective perception? — litewave
See, whenever you deny the existence of self-evidence, you invoke it. — litewave
Or in other words, whenever you deny the existence of truth, you invoke it. — litewave
Or in other words, whenever you deny the principle of identity/non-contradiction, you invoke it. — litewave
So, you can't deny it. It's not an option. — litewave
No; Unlike God, or logic, I don't pretend to truths, nor do I invoke them. — James Riley
What Hoffman brings is the idea that this disconnect is not going to be random, it's going to be subject to selective pressure. I can see that, but the fundamental function of these models is surprise reduction and that is correspondence dependant (or at least there's no reason to assume it's not). — Isaac
Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave
Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave
Yes and no. — James Riley
Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave
Yes and no.
— James Riley
The answer is no, because you have claimed something as true (when you said that you don't pretend to truths). — litewave
No; the answer is yes and no, precisely because I lack your pretense. — James Riley
What does the answer "yes and no" mean? You have asserted a truth (it is still there if you scroll a few posts up), so why not just answer "no"? — litewave
No; — James Riley
↪James Riley
Well, I still don't understand what you meant by "yes and no".
But for some reason you have answered just "no" here:
No;
— James Riley — litewave
The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. Yeah, religious. — James Riley
As it happens, I was just listening to Steven Pinker discuss this view of reason via his new book Rationality. — Tom Storm
And if it sounds religious, then the grounds for rejecting it are self-evident. — Wayfarer
You might as well write a negation of your whole post and it wouldn't make any difference to you, so why did you even bother? — litewave
I was kind of hoping someone would prove that A = A and that A does not = -A. — James Riley
It's not logic that is the problem, but appealing to evolutionary biology to rationalise it. — Wayfarer
What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave
What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave
I think A = A is a gentlemen's agreement that a thing must be limited to what we say it is, and no more, no less, and no different — James Riley
Is this objective definition of A = A not self-evident to you? — litewave
2. You asked me what I thought A = A means. I mistakenly answered your question assuming X, not A. And I answered as I thought logic would answer, not me. So let me clarify. For me, A means All. Thus, A = A means to me that A not only = A, but it also = -A. In other words, All is not only All but it must necessarily account for (=) the absence of itself. Otherwise, it could not be All. — James Riley
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.