R
Rhubarb
Guest
Pretty much everything I know about science. But that’s another matter entirely than the one on the table.
- Status
W
wmw
Guest
On Free Will
It’s quite easy for us to fall upon habits. Habits are a trained set of actions; so, we tend to be very much on autopilot. The instincts of animals are like pre-set habits that they follow unless exterior forces train them out of the animal. Humans too have many of these initial pre-set habits and bodily functions called instincts. I think of free will as the ability to override, modify, and build new habits and instincts where we have mental control with our own internal force of will (I consider this will a combination of mastered passion and mental reason).
This is an amazing thing. Much of what children do below the age of 7 or 8 in the median pace of human growth is instinct and parental training. To look at a 5 year old and watch them play mindcraft and teach a 22 year old with 8 months of mindcraft experience many new things is difficult to fathom the complexity achievable on instinct alone. I think choices of free will are in some sense rare, but are routinely made by adults usually very casually hidden among our very similar looking “choices” based on instincts and habits.
On belief in the Random
There are many Christians that think it is contrary to the idea that “God is in control and He is the Lord of all” to accept true randomness. I’m not one. I think that God had some difficult problems in how to make our world in such a way to allow evil and yet not be a source or completely co-operative in evil. His answer was to make randomness a part of reality. God could set the laws up that allowed for a great many more outcomes of simpler material elements by allowing the great deal of randomness that scientists truly observe. This is truly the way God chose to remain neutral in the affairs of men and not force every outcome according to His will or too strict a law; thus allowing the bad and evil choices of humanity.
God could also make such interventions as he deems required to complete his plan of human history without pushing the minds of people to do things or truly diverting things from a deterministic and un-random path. Also, God is not constrained to these manipulations of probability, He can choose to intervene in fully miraculous ways (ways in which matter can be directed to go beyond the normal laws and not just act within what is physically possible (I say “fully miraculous” to allow that things that happen by choice of God within the physically possible as allowable to be called “miraculous”).
It’s quite easy for us to fall upon habits. Habits are a trained set of actions; so, we tend to be very much on autopilot. The instincts of animals are like pre-set habits that they follow unless exterior forces train them out of the animal. Humans too have many of these initial pre-set habits and bodily functions called instincts. I think of free will as the ability to override, modify, and build new habits and instincts where we have mental control with our own internal force of will (I consider this will a combination of mastered passion and mental reason).
This is an amazing thing. Much of what children do below the age of 7 or 8 in the median pace of human growth is instinct and parental training. To look at a 5 year old and watch them play mindcraft and teach a 22 year old with 8 months of mindcraft experience many new things is difficult to fathom the complexity achievable on instinct alone. I think choices of free will are in some sense rare, but are routinely made by adults usually very casually hidden among our very similar looking “choices” based on instincts and habits.
On belief in the Random
There are many Christians that think it is contrary to the idea that “God is in control and He is the Lord of all” to accept true randomness. I’m not one. I think that God had some difficult problems in how to make our world in such a way to allow evil and yet not be a source or completely co-operative in evil. His answer was to make randomness a part of reality. God could set the laws up that allowed for a great many more outcomes of simpler material elements by allowing the great deal of randomness that scientists truly observe. This is truly the way God chose to remain neutral in the affairs of men and not force every outcome according to His will or too strict a law; thus allowing the bad and evil choices of humanity.
God could also make such interventions as he deems required to complete his plan of human history without pushing the minds of people to do things or truly diverting things from a deterministic and un-random path. Also, God is not constrained to these manipulations of probability, He can choose to intervene in fully miraculous ways (ways in which matter can be directed to go beyond the normal laws and not just act within what is physically possible (I say “fully miraculous” to allow that things that happen by choice of God within the physically possible as allowable to be called “miraculous”).
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I don’t think many people here are going to contest free will. I certainly don’t. I do think free will is correct. As for my philosophical objections to deity, I wouldn’t mind talking about them in a safe thread. (the topic can get posters angry on this forum) But that hijacks this thread.
But the fact that we can go back and forth on these topics and discuss subjects that empirical inquiry cannot touch shows the need for rationality, logic and philosophy across all topics. It’s very important to reason correctly about what we can observe and detect. But all the more so about subjects we cannot. Especially for establishing the truth of premises.
But the fact that we can go back and forth on these topics and discuss subjects that empirical inquiry cannot touch shows the need for rationality, logic and philosophy across all topics. It’s very important to reason correctly about what we can observe and detect. But all the more so about subjects we cannot. Especially for establishing the truth of premises.
W
wmw
Guest
Maybe I deleted too much of your last statement. You were saying for “subjects that empirical inquiry cannot touch”. You accept “free will”, but many atheists, they at least redefine it as being unrestrained from performing as your biology says to perform. Without much common ground there is almost nothing to build anything. The common peoples use of Kant’s “I think therefore I am” has been taken to mean nothing is provable to be real except me and something unknowable outside of myself. This attitude of non-acceptance of any premise has stifled philosophy to academic obscurity and relegated logic as something great for digital computer development.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Descartes said “I think therefore I am”, and he said it as a conclusion of the preliminary arguments for his own existence. There’s always going to be premises to fight over. Logic can be perfectly coherent with false premises. This is why there’s the distinction between an argument’s validity and an argument’s soundness.
What I meant is that there are things that the empirical sciences have nothing to say about. A premise that human beings have two eyes is empirically grounded. Things like free will, goodness, modality, identity, etc. are not so easily and surely settled by being measured and observed. We use logic in science all the time - yes. But there is a level of justification that seems more sturdy in those matters. Logic becomes even more important for the matters that science cannot speak on, I think, to establish the premises we’re working from. Philosophers are always going to argue about premises. I think scientists too. They may dispute what the results of an experiment really means, etc.
W
wmw
Guest
Right, logic is very not like Mr. Spock would have us think. That it will solve debates over decisions, and beliefs. Its a tool for clarifying the validity or not of some deductions.
Yes, the goal is truly “soundness” where as validity is objective. The basis of the premises are often subjectively gauged in soundness.
Yes, Descartes not Kant. The popular myth of what it means doesn’t care which one. It has become a mantra for “I don’t have to believe anything except that I am”. This married to the concept that “EVERYTHING is relative”. Has thrown a wet blanket on many a rational discussion and shielded the masses from thinking that philosophy has any thing more to tell me.
No, I never dreamed that logic could uproot this stagnation of the general group think. Yet, maybe having a well developed Catholic Philosophy could at least stare them in the face until their eyes might see and their ears might hear. Still, Even Jesus only taught in parables that most in his time could hardly unravel.
Yes, the goal is truly “soundness” where as validity is objective. The basis of the premises are often subjectively gauged in soundness.
Yes, Descartes not Kant. The popular myth of what it means doesn’t care which one. It has become a mantra for “I don’t have to believe anything except that I am”. This married to the concept that “EVERYTHING is relative”. Has thrown a wet blanket on many a rational discussion and shielded the masses from thinking that philosophy has any thing more to tell me.
No, I never dreamed that logic could uproot this stagnation of the general group think. Yet, maybe having a well developed Catholic Philosophy could at least stare them in the face until their eyes might see and their ears might hear. Still, Even Jesus only taught in parables that most in his time could hardly unravel.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I can’t talk about the religious side. I don’t take religious teaching as a given. I think Nietzsche was the bigger blow to an objective world-view. Kant and Descartes were both practicing Christians - Descartes was even Catholic.
I’ve heard on CAL that ‘truth doesn’t refute truth’. Even given a certain theological or religious given, when a good argument is given against it, that argument needs to be reckoned with. There are some good arguments for relativist ideas, in a certain sense. I don’t think I mean relativist in the same way that you do, or that I hear vilified here. (And championed by philosophically green college freshmen) And now I’m rambling. I’ve totally lost the thread.
I’ve heard on CAL that ‘truth doesn’t refute truth’. Even given a certain theological or religious given, when a good argument is given against it, that argument needs to be reckoned with. There are some good arguments for relativist ideas, in a certain sense. I don’t think I mean relativist in the same way that you do, or that I hear vilified here. (And championed by philosophically green college freshmen) And now I’m rambling. I’ve totally lost the thread.
F
francisca
Guest
And as a catholic, here is my logic ramblings:
Our logic can’t find the truth.
It can only stack up facts like a lego blocks
In the end our logic serve what we believe, even for those who insist that they are atheist or free thinkers
For example:
when I’m hungry, I may arrive at different conclusion than if I were not hungry.
Thus logic itself being used to serve a purpose.
If logic can find the truth, we all will think the same way and arrive at the same “correct conclusion” everytime.
If a persons believe is bad, his logical conclusion will serve that believe
If a persons believe is good, his logical conclusion will serve that believe also
our logic is arrested in what we believe, until our believe is being set free
if a person is really free, only then he can find what’s the truth, and so his logic will be better than if he is not free.
sorry for this rambling. I do not know what syllogism, etc is.
pls take this as an intermezzo…
Our logic can’t find the truth.
It can only stack up facts like a lego blocks
In the end our logic serve what we believe, even for those who insist that they are atheist or free thinkers
For example:
when I’m hungry, I may arrive at different conclusion than if I were not hungry.
Thus logic itself being used to serve a purpose.
If logic can find the truth, we all will think the same way and arrive at the same “correct conclusion” everytime.
If a persons believe is bad, his logical conclusion will serve that believe
If a persons believe is good, his logical conclusion will serve that believe also
our logic is arrested in what we believe, until our believe is being set free
if a person is really free, only then he can find what’s the truth, and so his logic will be better than if he is not free.
sorry for this rambling. I do not know what syllogism, etc is.
pls take this as an intermezzo…
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
My Philosophy of Life by John Ashbery
Just when I thought there wasn’t room enough
for another thought in my head, I had this great idea–
call it a philosophy of life, if you will.Briefly,
it involved living the way philosophers live,
according to a set of principles. OK, but which ones?
That was the hardest part, I admit, but I had a
kind of dark foreknowledge of what it would be like.
Everything, from eating watermelon or going to the bathroom
or just standing on a subway platform, lost in thought
for a few minutes, or worrying about rain forests,
would be affected, or more precisely, inflected
by my new attitude.I wouldn’t be preachy,
or worry about children and old people, except
in the general way prescribed by our clockwork universe.
Instead I’d sort of let things be what they are
while injecting them with the serum of the new moral climate
I thought I’d stumbled into, as a stranger
accidentally presses against a panel and a bookcase slides back,
revealing a winding staircase with greenish light
somewhere down below, and he automatically steps inside
and the bookcase slides shut, as is customary on such occasions.
At once a fragrance overwhelms him–not saffron, not lavender,
but something in between.He thinks of cushions, like the one
his uncle’s Boston bull terrier used to lie on watching him
quizzically, pointed ear-tips folded over. And then the great rush
is on.Not a single idea emerges from it.It’s enough
to disgust you with thought.But then you remember something
William James
wrote in some book of his you never read–it was fine, it had the
fineness,
the powder of life dusted over it, by chance, of course, yet
still looking
for evidence of fingerprints. Someone had handled it
even before he formulated it, though the thought was his and
his alone.
It’s fine, in summer, to visit the seashore.
There are lots of little trips to be made.
A grove of fledgling aspens welcomes the traveler.Nearby
are the public toilets where weary pilgrims have carved
their names and addresses, and perhaps messages as well,
messages to the world, as they sat
and thought about what they’d do after using the toilet
and washing their hands at the sink, prior to stepping out
into the open again.Had they been coaxed in by principles,
and were their words philosophy, of however crude a sort?
I confess I can move no farther along this train of thought–
something’s blocking it.Something I’m
not big enough to see over.Or maybe I’m frankly scared.
What was the matter with how I acted before?
But maybe I can come up with a compromise–I’ll let
things be what they are, sort of.In the autumn I’ll put up jellies
and preserves, against the winter cold and futility,
and that will be a human thing, and intelligent as well.
I won’t be embarrassed by my friends’ dumb remarks,
or even my own, though admittedly that’s the hardest part,
as when you are in a crowded theater and something you say
riles the spectator in front of you, who doesn’t even like the idea
of two people near him talking together. Well he’s
got to be flushed out so the hunters can have a crack at him–
this thing works both ways, you know. You can’t always
be worrying about others and keeping track of yourself
at the same time.That would be abusive, and about as much fun
as attending the wedding of two people you don’t know.
Still, there’s a lot of fun to be had in the gaps between ideas.
That’s what they’re made for!Now I want you to go out there
and enjoy yourself, and yes, enjoy your philosophy of life, too.
They don’t come along every day. Look out!There’s a big one…
Just when I thought there wasn’t room enough
for another thought in my head, I had this great idea–
call it a philosophy of life, if you will.Briefly,
it involved living the way philosophers live,
according to a set of principles. OK, but which ones?
That was the hardest part, I admit, but I had a
kind of dark foreknowledge of what it would be like.
Everything, from eating watermelon or going to the bathroom
or just standing on a subway platform, lost in thought
for a few minutes, or worrying about rain forests,
would be affected, or more precisely, inflected
by my new attitude.I wouldn’t be preachy,
or worry about children and old people, except
in the general way prescribed by our clockwork universe.
Instead I’d sort of let things be what they are
while injecting them with the serum of the new moral climate
I thought I’d stumbled into, as a stranger
accidentally presses against a panel and a bookcase slides back,
revealing a winding staircase with greenish light
somewhere down below, and he automatically steps inside
and the bookcase slides shut, as is customary on such occasions.
At once a fragrance overwhelms him–not saffron, not lavender,
but something in between.He thinks of cushions, like the one
his uncle’s Boston bull terrier used to lie on watching him
quizzically, pointed ear-tips folded over. And then the great rush
is on.Not a single idea emerges from it.It’s enough
to disgust you with thought.But then you remember something
William James
wrote in some book of his you never read–it was fine, it had the
fineness,
the powder of life dusted over it, by chance, of course, yet
still looking
for evidence of fingerprints. Someone had handled it
even before he formulated it, though the thought was his and
his alone.
It’s fine, in summer, to visit the seashore.
There are lots of little trips to be made.
A grove of fledgling aspens welcomes the traveler.Nearby
are the public toilets where weary pilgrims have carved
their names and addresses, and perhaps messages as well,
messages to the world, as they sat
and thought about what they’d do after using the toilet
and washing their hands at the sink, prior to stepping out
into the open again.Had they been coaxed in by principles,
and were their words philosophy, of however crude a sort?
I confess I can move no farther along this train of thought–
something’s blocking it.Something I’m
not big enough to see over.Or maybe I’m frankly scared.
What was the matter with how I acted before?
But maybe I can come up with a compromise–I’ll let
things be what they are, sort of.In the autumn I’ll put up jellies
and preserves, against the winter cold and futility,
and that will be a human thing, and intelligent as well.
I won’t be embarrassed by my friends’ dumb remarks,
or even my own, though admittedly that’s the hardest part,
as when you are in a crowded theater and something you say
riles the spectator in front of you, who doesn’t even like the idea
of two people near him talking together. Well he’s
got to be flushed out so the hunters can have a crack at him–
this thing works both ways, you know. You can’t always
be worrying about others and keeping track of yourself
at the same time.That would be abusive, and about as much fun
as attending the wedding of two people you don’t know.
Still, there’s a lot of fun to be had in the gaps between ideas.
That’s what they’re made for!Now I want you to go out there
and enjoy yourself, and yes, enjoy your philosophy of life, too.
They don’t come along every day. Look out!There’s a big one…
W
wmw
Guest
Nietzsche was very anti-Christianity:
But what ideas has he brought forth that have tied the minds of men. Did he say, “God is dead”? Was this a statement that changed anyone’s thinking? I don’t see it.
Descartes and Einstein had no idea how their statements were going to be contorted. They were very Godly men, but it is what has since been twisted from the truth that is the greater evil than any direct statements.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Nietzsche was very anti-christian, as well as anti- any religion dominated by the ‘ascitic priest’ as he called them. I don’t know if he had any slogans to be misinterpreted as far as this goes, but his thoughts on religion and truth in general were laid out (where I read them at least) in The Genealogy of Morals. I don’t think highly of his arguments, but it was an interesting read. About 150 pages if I recall.
W
wmw
Guest
Diversions aside, I still don’t understand this conversion process from English to the symbols of our Cheat Sheet:
Your translation below. If you would, I think a slower step by step of the bold paragraph would help explain the process of conversion. Please. Maybe with a few hints that we could tack into the Cheat Sheet.
This may not even be a good way to get back into it. Maybe we could go about it differently. I’m feeling the student that is trying to make the curriculum. That usually doesn’t work all that well.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
The main difference between sentence logic and first-order logic is how close they analyze sentences. Sentential logic deals with full propositions. That’s why you can cram down an entire sentence into one variable: “The moon is made of cheese”=A, for example. Or, for example the argument:
C) I’ll eat cheese.
This argument can be symbolized in sentential logic like so…
C) B
As you can see, using sentential logic we can properly symbolize the meanings of the seneces, and we can use the symbolization to see how the sentences relate to each other. We can see that the argument is valid, and the symbolization demonstrates it. Now let’s look at another classic model argument from philosophy.
C) Socrates is mortal
If we try symbolizing this in sentential logic, we get this:
C) C
Notice that each sentence is a unique proposition, where as the other argument uses the same propositions. But we can obviously tell there’s something right going on in the Socrates argument. First-order logic analyzes sentences closer than just at the level of the proposition. It looks at the parts of the sentence - namely predicates and subjects. So using first-order logic we can symbolize the argument as…
One last thing - recall that logics are just formal languages. We made them up to be used so we can analyze our natural languages. There are many different kinds - Sentential, first-order, higher-order ones, modal logics, many-value logics, etc. Depending on what is said in the natural language will determine which logic will work best to analyze it.
- I like cheese
- If I like cheese, I’ll eat cheese
C) I’ll eat cheese.
This argument can be symbolized in sentential logic like so…
- A
- A⊃B
C) B
As you can see, using sentential logic we can properly symbolize the meanings of the seneces, and we can use the symbolization to see how the sentences relate to each other. We can see that the argument is valid, and the symbolization demonstrates it. Now let’s look at another classic model argument from philosophy.
- All men are mortal
- Socrates is a man
C) Socrates is mortal
If we try symbolizing this in sentential logic, we get this:
- A
- B
C) C
Notice that each sentence is a unique proposition, where as the other argument uses the same propositions. But we can obviously tell there’s something right going on in the Socrates argument. First-order logic analyzes sentences closer than just at the level of the proposition. It looks at the parts of the sentence - namely predicates and subjects. So using first-order logic we can symbolize the argument as…
- ∀x Hx⊃Mx (For all things, if a thing is a man, then it is mortal)
- Hs (Socrates is a man)
- Ms (Socrates is mortal)
One last thing - recall that logics are just formal languages. We made them up to be used so we can analyze our natural languages. There are many different kinds - Sentential, first-order, higher-order ones, modal logics, many-value logics, etc. Depending on what is said in the natural language will determine which logic will work best to analyze it.
W
wmw
Guest
This is giving me more to think about in the two letter combinations. I’m looking for things to put down in the Cheat Sheet. Should I be looking at these as sets. e.g.
∀x (The set of all things is x)
Hx (Subset of Human things that are within x)
Mx (Subset of Mortal things that are within x)
∀x Hx⊃Mx (Within the Set of all x’s the Set of Humans is completely in the set of Mortals.)
Hs (Socrates is an element of the set of Humans)
Ms (Socrates is an element of the set of Mortals)
Socrates is mortal if and only if Socrates is a human" can be “M≡H”
might be expressed, “the set of Mortals is exactly the Set of Humans”. Therefore, a counter example of an Animal is not Human, but is Mortal shows that this is invalid when x is all things. Sorry, I don’t want to wander too far without confirming that this is better understood in terms of sets.
Yes, but let’s stick to one right now.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I would say that it might be a good idea to put aside the first-order logic for beginners and focus on the sentential logic first. It is generally considered a pre-requisite for first-order logic anyway. I don’t think it’d be wise to talk about sets in the way you have, because sets play into first-order logic. But I’ll sip to the bottom part of the post.
M≡H is a compound sentence in sentential logic. (I’ll call it SL for now) It has two atomic sentences joined by the biconditional connective. Sometimes the biconditional is called ‘equivalence’ so I think what you said is correct. (I was never clear on that, so I always tried to avoid the term - but I do think that’s right. An animal is a counter-example to the sentence - it shows that “M≡H” is false. That is also correct. It’s not right to say that the sentence is invalid - validity is a property of an argument, not a sentence. And even arguments with false sentences can be valid.
(The first-order stuff is an argument, it can be proven with a natural deduction via universal generalization. But that’s not important right now)
W
wmw
Guest
Again this is structure verses rationality, i.e. Irrational statements can be valid.
If we switch gears now away from 1st-order;then I think You’re going to lose me.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I don’t think you’ll be lost - the only part you’ll have to disregard is the quantifiers, and the predicate-subject stuff. An argument would look like:
C) A&B
Or…
C) BvF
If you want to keep forging ahead though, I’ll do what I can.
- A
- B
C) A&B
Or…
- (~G&M)
- (~G&M)⊃(BvF)
C) BvF
If you want to keep forging ahead though, I’ll do what I can.
W
wmw
Guest
It’s the lack of usefulness of
A
B
A&B
that scares me. Also, that we went down a fork in the road and now want to go back; No, I really don’t like the concept that we’d be going back.
Please continue with First Order logic.
Thank you for being very patient and you’re very generous for explaining so much and getting nothing in return. Very seldom do we have people that will demonstrate so elaborately how a tool might be useful rather than just insist that it is.
A
B
A&B
that scares me. Also, that we went down a fork in the road and now want to go back; No, I really don’t like the concept that we’d be going back.
Please continue with First Order logic.
Thank you for being very patient and you’re very generous for explaining so much and getting nothing in return. Very seldom do we have people that will demonstrate so elaborately how a tool might be useful rather than just insist that it is.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Hah. Well that example is just a demonstration of how to prove a conjunction. I should also say that sentence logic can be done in first-order logic too. The above is the same as:
Hs
Nj
Hs&NjI wouldn’t call the above useless. Like so many things, when it is shown so trivially the use can be lost. a+b=b+a sounds useless and trivial but it’s an important property of addition.
And yeah, I’m always glad to talk about what I’ve learned. (Provided everyone understands that I’m not a teacher) Philosophy is a hard subject and the nuances matter. And philosophy is done best as a group sport.
W
wmw
Guest
Well without words defining or explaining your symbols, It becomes undecipherable and therefore unhelpful if not useless.
- Status