What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[DBT]

To categorize is a mental activity.

It is not something that occurs without a mind.

It first requires something that can recognize similarity.

Did you read what I said?

You talked of "observable features".

That requires an observer.

Try again.

You missed the point the first time, I doubt that you'll do any better this time or next or any time after.

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

Which does not deny the existence of observers, but clearly states it. The point being the bit about categories not being arbitrary, as you happen to claim;


''Only humans have categories.

And all are arbitrary.''

 

[Juma]

To categorize is a mental activity.

It is not something that occurs without a mind.

It first requires something that can recognize similarity.

Did you read what I said?

You talked of "observable features".

That requires an observer.

Try again.

You missed the point the first time, I doubt that you'll do any better this time or next or any time after.

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

Which does not deny the existence of observers, but clearly states it. The point being the bit about categories not being arbitrary, as you happen to claim;


''Only humans have categories.

And all are arbitrary.''

They are arbitrary in the sense that they depend on the information processing capabilities of the observer.

 

[DBT]

To categorize is a mental activity.

It is not something that occurs without a mind.

It first requires something that can recognize similarity.

Did you read what I said?

You talked of "observable features".

That requires an observer.

Try again.

You missed the point the first time, I doubt that you'll do any better this time or next or any time after.

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

Which does not deny the existence of observers, but clearly states it. The point being the bit about categories not being arbitrary, as you happen to claim;


''Only humans have categories.

And all are arbitrary.''

They are arbitrary in the sense that they depend on the information processing capabilities of the observer.

Which is testable. The object itself not altering its features and characteristics to suit the observer. The observers perception is limited, perhaps even flawed to some degree, but necessarily arbitrary...as claimed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Descartes takes "knowing" to it's essence.

If there is awareness of things, even if the things are a lie, there MUST be that which is capable of being aware of things.

We know beyond doubt there must be something capable of being aware of things.

Then we must consider the mountain of evidence, we are aware of, that shows why there is a thing capable of being aware of things. The desire to survive in living organisms and the advantage being aware of things provides.

This is not like knowing there must be something capable of being aware of things.

We're on the same page so far.

But to reject all this evidence without cause is irrational. It defies a parsimonious outlook. It creates the need for extraneous entities that have no evidence to support their existence.

So in this case we "know" it is true because to think otherwise is not reasonable.

Here we disagree.

Personally, I don't reject any evidence. I use it all the time. For example I go shopping on the basis of such evidence and I can't fault the principle. But I don't need to claim knowledge to explain the result. Instead, it's good enough to observe that I seem to behave according to what I believe, for example that there is a convenience store nearby. And, although I don't actually know the ontology involved, this belief is good enough apparently for me to end up feeling satiated and comfortable. And in fact, it's also true, it seems to me, that I do know something, which is the impression that there's a convenience store. Whether there's one is a metaphysical question and we don't need to concern ourselves with metaphysical questions to decide about going shopping.

People are systematically overstating their case. It's I think a psychological bias. And in the end, claiming to know X certainly does not imply that you know X. All you can claim to know is that you believe you know X. And it's good enough I think.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

I read it and it is total nonsense.

All things are unique. No two things are the same thing.

To place two unique items into a category is a mental process. It requires assigning value to arbitrary features. In other words saying some features count and others do not.

It cannot take place without a mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Isn't that how Flat Earthers get away with their 'theory'. They don't know the earth is round so their earth is in another category from that of the Round Earthers

 

[Speakpigeon]

Isn't that how Flat Earthers get away with their 'theory'. They don't know the earth is round so their earth is in another category from that of the Round Earthers

You ought to quote a Flat Earther because all I can see right now is a dude playing fast and loose.
EB

 

[Juma]

To categorize is a mental activity.

It is not something that occurs without a mind.

It first requires something that can recognize similarity.

Did you read what I said?

You talked of "observable features".

That requires an observer.

Try again.

You missed the point the first time, I doubt that you'll do any better this time or next or any time after.

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

Which does not deny the existence of observers, but clearly states it. The point being the bit about categories not being arbitrary, as you happen to claim;


''Only humans have categories.

And all are arbitrary.''

They are arbitrary in the sense that they depend on the information processing capabilities of the observer.

Which is testable. The object itself not altering its features and characteristics to suit the observer. The observers perception is limited, perhaps even flawed to some degree, but necessarily arbitrary...as claimed.

Of course it is testable. It is even simple to devise a gedanke experient for it.
You only have to realize that we are free to design such an observer...

 

[fromderinside]

You do know to whom I was responding, right?

Sometime fast and loose is the only play available for ...

 

[untermensche]

But to reject all this evidence without cause is irrational. It defies a parsimonious outlook. It creates the need for extraneous entities that have no evidence to support their existence.

So in this case we "know" it is true because to think otherwise is not reasonable.

Here we disagree.

Personally, I don't reject any evidence.

Then you know you are an organism on a planet with other organisms.

To think you were anything else would require invoking "something" that has no evidence to support it.

If you cannot rationally think anything else, you know.

 

[DBT]

What I said was; Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

I read it and it is total nonsense.

All things are unique. No two things are the same thing.

To place two unique items into a category is a mental process. It requires assigning value to arbitrary features. In other words saying some features count and others do not.

It cannot take place without a mind.

Which implies that you are a solipsist.

 

[Juma]

I read it and it is total nonsense.

All things are unique. No two things are the same thing.

To place two unique items into a category is a mental process. It requires assigning value to arbitrary features. In other words saying some features count and others do not.

It cannot take place without a mind.

Which implies that you are a solipsist.

It does not. You are confusing the model and what it models. What is out there is not arbitrary but our model of it is. (That is: arbitrary relative the real wprld. Not arbitraty relative our selfs)

 

[Speakpigeon]

You do know to whom I was responding, right?

Sometime fast and loose is the only play available for ...

Ah, Ok. I see.
Still, there was room for misinterpreting. Try to read your piece from my point of view. You should see it!
Sorry!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here we disagree.

Personally, I don't reject any evidence.

Then you know you are an organism on a planet with other organisms.

To think you were anything else would require invoking "something" that has no evidence to support it.

If you cannot rationally think anything else, you know.

I never said or suggested I knew I'm something else. I say I don't know I'm what I seem to be.

I'm not talking about having a rational belief. I'm talking about knowing.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Then you know you are an organism on a planet with other organisms.

To think you were anything else would require invoking "something" that has no evidence to support it.

If you cannot rationally think anything else, you know.

I never said or suggested I knew I'm something else. I say I don't know I'm what I seem to be.

I'm not talking about having a rational belief. I'm talking about knowing.
EB

So am I.

If you cannot reasonably think otherwise, you know.

If you say you do not know you are saying there is possibly another reasonable explanation.

What other reasonable explanation is there to account for your being able to be aware of things besides you are an evolved organism with that ability?

 

[untermensche]

I read it and it is total nonsense.

All things are unique. No two things are the same thing.

To place two unique items into a category is a mental process. It requires assigning value to arbitrary features. In other words saying some features count and others do not.

It cannot take place without a mind.

Which implies that you are a solipsist.

No you are religious.

You think things like categories can exist without a mind.

To create a category first requires somehow being aware of things and then it requires abstractions, giving weight to some features and ignoring others.

Categories do not exist in nature. All have to be created. By a mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh I think a panther knows it isn't food for rabbits.

 

[Juma]

Oh I think a panther knows it isn't food for rabbits.

Yes. And your point is? Categorizing is a common and useful traimt of intelligent agents. That doesnt mean that categories are a property of the world ”out there”

 

[fromderinside]

They are related. One doesn't develop the capacity to generate categories without there being a relevant analog in the world.

 

[fast]

There are some objects before me, and there are a variety of ways I could group them. I may choose to categorize them by any variety of simple or complex metrics, and the choice I make is mine alone. One things for sure, I couldn't if there was no me to do it, but there's another one thing for sure, given X amount of metrics to group Y amount of objects, there's Z amount of different possibilities to group the objects before me. Because the potential groupings is independent of the grouper, the different classificatory potentials are inherent to reality.