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

[Kharakov]

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

No two gradients are the same thing. The universe is nothing but unique entities.

To put any two things into a grouping is artificial and capricious.

Ok, so nature is artificial and capricious because it creates shared Earth-Moon spacetime gradients.

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this- do you mean that nature is artificial?

 

[untermensche]

Color itself is entirely capricious.

There are no colors out on the world. They only exist as a capricious subjective experience.

Why then do certain light frequencies combined almost always yield the same perception. so much so that there is an entire theory describing how this phenomena works with categories of color.

Not all humans perceive the same colors.

Color is a randomly occurring phenomena of minds. It is not a feature of anything else.

 

[fast]

Hey! Woah! This-Is-Really-Good!

I don't want you to blush too much here but I'm really impressed.

Come to think of it, you know, could UM cogently refrain from accepting there are two categories of statements: true statements and false statements? How would that possibly go I wonder?

Ok, let's wait for it.
EB

Without minds or language you don't have any statements.

But the propositional content is still either true or false; it remains factually the case that either the cat is on the mat or it isn't. You think cats and mats are mind dependent; I don't. I think they'll continue to meow.

 

[untermensche]

Without minds or language you don't have any statements.

But the propositional content is still either true or false; it remains factually the case that either the cat is on the mat or it isn't. You think cats and mats are mind dependent; I don't. I think they'll continue to meow.

Without a mind there is only truth. There is only what is. Falsehood is non-existent.

 

[Kharakov]

But the propositional content is still either true or false; it remains factually the case that either the cat is on the mat or it isn't. You think cats and mats are mind dependent; I don't. I think they'll continue to meow.

Without a mind there is only truth. There is only what is. Falsehood is non-existent.

Without a mind? Minds exist as part of truth.

 

[untermensche]

No two gradients are the same thing. The universe is nothing but unique entities.

To put any two things into a grouping is artificial and capricious.

Ok, so nature is artificial and capricious because it creates shared Earth-Moon spacetime gradients.

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this- do you mean that nature is artificial?

Read the thread if you want to know what this is about.

- - - Updated - - -

Without a mind there is only truth. There is only what is. Falsehood is non-existent.

Without a mind? Minds exist as part of truth.

This is a discussion of the idea of "categories".

Some claim they exist independent of a mind.

My position is they do not.

Saying that minds are part of reality helps in no way.

 

[Juma]

Color itself is entirely capricious.

There are no colors out on the world. They only exist as a capricious subjective experience.

Why then do certain light frequencies combined almost always yield the same perception. so much so that there is an entire theory describing how this phenomena works with categories of color.

That humans agree to some (sic!) extent is due to the fact that we are almost exact copies of each others. ( our DNA and thus our brains is so similiar. )

 

[Juma]

Without minds or language you don't have any statements.

But the propositional content is still either true or false; it remains factually the case that either the cat is on the mat or it isn't. You think cats and mats are mind dependent; I don't. I think they'll continue to meow.

Without the brain there is no propsosition.
The world is what it is. Humans propose propsitions. No humans, no propositions.

Even worse: a propsostition can never be stated about the real world. Only about our model.
No humans: no model.

 

[Juma]

Then we are really close in this.

But a ”distinction” is a ”measure” and a measure require a definition of that measure. That definition is within ourselves, our body, our brain.


Think of it like this: how would you make an ai that made the same distinction? Then you realize that the definition of objects lies in the measurement and only implicit in the input data.

But the important point sti

It seems to me that whatever it is that forms a virtual representation of the external world, be it Human, AI or other species of animal, based on information acquired from the external world, it is merely modeling information that already exists and exists independently of all modeling.

Yes. It is modelling external information.
And objects is a part of the model. Not the external information.

 

[fast]

But the propositional content is still either true or false; it remains factually the case that either the cat is on the mat or it isn't. You think cats and mats are mind dependent; I don't. I think they'll continue to meow.

Without the brain there is no propsosition.
The world is what it is. Humans propose propsitions. No humans, no propositions.

Even worse: a propsostition can never be stated about the real world. Only about our model.
No humans: no model.

The referent of a word exists independent of the word. To speak of an object as a referent doesn't imply an object maker. The object we call a cat is what it is no matter what we call it, and a mat is a mat in the same vein, and when the cat is upon the mat and we call that sitting, it's doing what it's doing no matter how we label it.

Propositions are timeless. We use sentences to express propositions, but the proposition described as what's expresses by a sentence is a poor explanatory descriptor, as it fails to capture the proposition as the philosophers tool to transcend time.

The planet earth predates human beings. The word, "Earth" does not. The meaning of the word "Earth" does not. The sentence does not. The statement does not.

The referent does. The proposition does.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me that whatever it is that forms a virtual representation of the external world, be it Human, AI or other species of animal, based on information acquired from the external world, it is merely modeling information that already exists and exists independently of all modeling.

Yes. It is modelling external information.
And objects is a part of the model. Not the external information.

And so we only know the model, yes? And we can only have beliefs about the world?

Or do you think, like fast, that we know the world, somehow through the model? How would that be possible if all we are aware of is the model?
EB

 

[Juma]

Yes. It is modelling external information.
And objects is a part of the model. Not the external information.

And so we only know the model, yes? And we can only have beliefs about the world?

Or do you think, like fast, that we know the world, somehow through the model? How would that be possible if all we are aware of is the model?
EB

”know” is a weasel word. We have information and we can only be more or less justified in believing it to be useful.

 

[fast]

And so we only know the model, yes? And we can only have beliefs about the world?

Or do you think, like fast, that we know the world, somehow through the model? How would that be possible if all we are aware of is the model?
EB

”know” is a weasel word. We have information and we can only be more or less justified in believing it to be useful.

It's also subject to ambiguity in the hands of philosophers.

To the typical child and adult not exposed to these kinds of subjects, knowledge can be described as:

A justified belief that IS true.

It's only altered and transformed with exposure to these kinds of subjects and becomes:

A justified belief that MUST be true.

 

[fast]

Yes. It is modelling external information.
And objects is a part of the model. Not the external information.

And so we only know the model, yes? And we can only have beliefs about the world?

Or do you think, like fast, that we know the world, somehow through the model? How would that be possible if all we are aware of is the model?
EB

That's like saying I'm not really and truly aware of the person coming up behind me as I gaze into a mirror showing a reflection of the person. You would say that I'm only aware of the reflection and not what it's a reflection of. So what if I'm only directly aware of the mental percepts available to me--so long as I'm at least indirectly aware. After all, surely I'm not so skeptical of the external world that I dismiss my interpretations of sensations as being sensations of nothing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Very simple: When I look into a mirror, I believe that what I see is the world behind me reflected into it.

Or even better, but no longer so very simple: When I believe I'm looking into a mirror, I believe that what I believe I'm seeing is the world behind me reflected into it.

No knowledge involved. Belief certainly is good enough to explain all our actions.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Without the brain there is no propsosition.
The world is what it is. Humans propose propsitions. No humans, no propositions.

Even worse: a propsostition can never be stated about the real world. Only about our model.
No humans: no model.

The referent of a word exists independent of the word.

There is a specific referent for "that tree". And another referent for "that different tree".

There is no referent for "tree". No referent for any category.

Propositions are timeless.

Nothing that is composed of human language is timeless.

They can only appear AFTER human language appears.

The planet earth predates human beings.

No. This singular unique water covered rock only became a planet after humans made it one.

 

[fast]

Very simple: When I look into a mirror, I believe that what I see is the world behind me reflected into it.

Or even better, but no longer so very simple: When I believe I'm looking into a mirror, I believe that what I believe I'm seeing is the world behind me reflected into it.

No knowledge involved. Belief certainly is good enough to explain all our actions.
EB

No, there is knowledge involved; you're just refusing to admit it, and I know why.

If the Sargent needs to pfft (belieeeeeve) something of a serious nature and you haul off by responding to him about what you belieeeeeve, then he is going to be none too happy. Refusing to declare knowledge when you have every justification that your belief IS IS IS IS true, I'd encourage you to muster the courage to step up your declaration a notch.

Yes, you don't 'know' what you'd be telling him is true in the sense that you're infallibly certain beyond the gettierest of mistake. Yes, you do not hold certainty in a Cartesian sense. Yes, you are possibly possibily possibly wrong.

That's okay; you don't need to 'know'; you just need to know, and therein lies the difference. In the former, you need a justified belief that must must must be correct without the possibility possibility possibility of mistake. In the latter, you need a justified belief that is is is actually actually actually correct.

So, yeah, you can cowardly (no offense, just expressive) refuse to affirm knowledge when what you have can be explained safely couched in terms of belief, but a substantively justified belief that you have every reason to believe is true is quite different than run of the mill belief.

I believe my hand is in front of me, and yes, I will never 'know' my hand is in front of me, but I don't just believe my hand is in front of me, as there is more; I know my hand is in front of me ... even though I don't 'know' my hand is in front of me.

 

[fast]

The planet earth predates human beings.

No. This singular unique water covered rock only became a planet after humans made it one.

That does not parse with common language usage.

If a being came here prior to mankind, he would not have known it was earth since he would have come by long before humans came along to name it, but the referent in this case precedes the naming of it. The object referred to as "Earth" is precisely as old as the object you describe as "this singular unique water covered rock." If I had to guess, you probably don't want to use the terms "water" and "rock" either, but language, what can I say?

 

[Juma]

”know” is a weasel word. We have information and we can only be more or less justified in believing it to be useful.

It's also subject to ambiguity in the hands of philosophers.

To the typical child and adult not exposed to these kinds of subjects, knowledge can be described as:

A justified belief that IS true.

It's only altered and transformed with exposure to these kinds of subjects and becomes:

A justified belief that MUST be true.

”Knowledge” can only be stated from a godlike viewpoint.
And thus shoukd be banished from discussions like this.

 

[Juma]

No. This singular unique water covered rock only became a planet after humans made it one.

That does not parse with common language usage.

If a being came here prior to mankind, he would not have known it was earth since he would have come by long before humans came along to name it, but the referent in this case precedes the naming of it. The object referred to as "Earth" is precisely as old as the object you describe as "this singular unique water covered rock." If I had to guess, you probably don't want to use the terms "water" and "rock" either, but language, what can I say?

Is it? Does ”earth” also refer to the planet that consisted of the matter that later became the earth and the moon?

You see that what is clearcut in your mind is not so clear cut when getting into how the objects are separated from each other. In fact: the separations are made up by us.