• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

fast said:
I am not fooled into conflating the sensory data with what the sensory data is sensory data of, nor am I fooled into confusing my perceptions gained from the sensory data with what my perceptions are perceptions of.
Click to expand...

In my (subjective) experience, I can make a clear distinction between my perceptions and my rationalisations. Rationally, I can argue with and convince myself that my perceptions are sensory data. I can even understand how my scientific inclination must have informed that view. Yet, if I forget about that for a moment and focus instead on my perception of the world around me, say by considering my laptop in front of me right now, it's clear to me that I somehow take it at face value, i.e. as an actual, real and material, object. And I can't dismiss this impression. All I can do is have a sort of parallel and smart rational commentary on this impression saying something like, "right, this has to be an impression, I'm not fooled".

Maybe I should add that I suppose this to be universally the organisation of the human psyche and that it makes sense if we accept that it took probably a very long time for human beings to develop a formal language that could be used to articulate rationalisations whereas our perception system must be pretty much identical to what it was several hundred thousand years ago.
EB
 
fast said:
If it should be the case (and I doubt that it is the case) I am self deluded and merely think there is a reality external to my mind, then pray tell, speak more not of how we do or don't know but rather about the source of this sensory data being spoken of. It seems logical to me that if we do indeed have sensory data, then it was processed by a physical entity that exists as surely as does the physical glowing thing we call a moon.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that there is something real which results in me having the impression that there is a moon. But I can also rationalise that the way that the moon looks to me has to be dependent on my perception system so that I can't take what the moon looks like to me to be indicative of what there is in actual fact in lieu of the moon. Of course, this post-hoc rationalisation presupposes something like an actual, physical perception system but that itself doesn't mean there is one. All we need is that there is something real that has the same basic effect. Even a god that would provide all the inputs would do and you couldn't tell shit.

All this doesn't mean we should give up on entertaining any detailed conception of the real word as essentially a physical world but we can see it as the pragmatic thing to do given that we don't know how to do any different and that it seems to have worked well enough for us so far (and the god alternative solution seems just a waste of energy). But the times that come seem to present tough new challenges to humanity. Any additional understanding we can get of our situation seems rather a good idea to me in the context.
EB
 
untermensche said:
Kharakov said:
Beginningless? It means without a beginning. You might, although I have my doubts about your ability to do so, be able to define "what it means" for something to be without a beginning.
Click to expand...
Yes the magical concept of "beginningless" is conceptually the same thing as "without beginning".
Click to expand...

Ok, so finally you understand reality, even if you think it is magical. Good job buddy.
 
Communicated 'logical possibility' is much greater than one's notion of 'logical possibility' in several ways. First it is uttered into a world where many minds exist each having their own takes on the notion. Second it refers to both one's understanding of the term and of the term as understood commonly among the population in which it is communicated. One's view probably has sharper edges and more or less fixed constraints. Whereas the more global understanding is summarized edges and much broader understood constraints. Whether one agrees with the published understanding of committees or one just adjusts one's meaning to what one thinks approximates the committee view is what we seem to be discussing here.

That's strange since our views will still differ after the discussion is complete.
 
Kharakov said:
untermensche said:
Yes the magical concept of "beginningless" is conceptually the same thing as "without beginning".
Click to expand...

Ok, so finally you understand reality, even if you think it is magical. Good job buddy.
Click to expand...

It is an imaginary nonsensical concept that has ZERO evidence or arguments to support it.

You might as well invoke an eternal god. You know, a god with no beginning.

It is worthless. Absolutely worthless as an answer to anything.

I do understand that.

I would be ashamed to express it.
 
fast said:
untermensche said:
Words don't refer to objects in the world. Each object that can be examined is singular and unique.

Words refer to concepts in the head. If they are understood.

Concepts that can change and evolve over time.
Click to expand...
But when I say, "hand me that book," I'm not saying to hand me that particular concept.

I get that that the particular book I'm ordering you to hand me is but a single instantiation (or can be examined, singular and unique, as you say) serving as a member of the overarching class, set, or group of all books, but (oh let's say) a request to burn all books in the room is not a request to burn all of something in the head.

A concept is like an understanding. I can ride a horse, and there's not a horse I can't ride, and given time, I can ride all the members of the set, but the entire group is physical, not mental. A concept I cannot ride. When I refer to horses and use the term "horses" to do so, the term succeeds in referring to what I'm using it to refer to.

If I said to explain your concept of a horse or horses, that would be distinctively different than if I asked you to explain horses (or the behavior or nature of horses).
Click to expand...

A specific book is something real.

"Book" is a concept.

How many pages does "book" have?
 
fromderinside said:
Is untermenche showing signs of having a logical tantrum? Is it logically possible?
Click to expand...

I am frustrated at the level of argument.

But no tantrum yet.

Some think all they have to do is say magic words and that amounts to demonstrating something is reasonable.

There is nothing rational contained within the concept "beginningless".

All it is is a negation of an understood rational concept, "to have a beginning".

Merely saying it as if a magic incantation is a waste of time to argue against.

If one claims infinite time has passed before any given moment they have no idea what the concept "infinite" means.

If one claims an amount of time without limit has already occurred they don't understand what "without limit" means.
 
When we examine the speech act, we take note that the speaker means to express a thought, usually via a vocal utterance with use of words that themselves already have lexical meaning as determined from collective usage. It would be quite strange to use the word, "horse" when trying to state that there's a cat on the mat. For instance, imagine me saying, "there is a horse on the mat." People would give me funny looks and think, "no, that's not a horse; it's a cat."

The thought (that I have in my mind) doesn't get expressed such that there's a match between what I have in my mind before the utterance and what's in the receivers mind after I make the utterance. Poor word usage on my part. Maybe I should try "cat" instead of "horse."

Words already have meaning--remember, it's a product of collective usage, not individual usage. Of course, collective usage would never occur if not for repeated individual usage, so the origin for words to ever come to have collective meaning independent of any particular persons usage stems back to when the word was first used by an individual. Once the original thought of the sender is conveyed, the meaning is denoted by the word. Once the word becomes apart of collective usage, it's up to me to choose which words have the meaning that match the thoughts I'd like to express. Or else, I have to use other means such as a different arrangement of words or stipulate meaning.

It's terribly important that we distinguish between a variety of things:

A) the thought I want to express (what I mean when I speak) and
B) what the word means (as explained by definitions of the word)

Additionally, we ought not lose sight between
C) the meaning of the word
D) the referent of the word

It would also be nice to not falter between
E) sense
F) meaning

All while not confusing
G) ideas
H) concepts

Or conflating
I) Definitions
J) Meaning

While juggling between
K) concrete
L) abstract

And separating
M)Groups
N)Sets
O)class

And there's so much more, oh my, so much
(Gotta run and no time to put something in perspective )

Meaning isn't in the head. Meaning is in the conveyance. It's in the usage. It's in the act. The event. What's in the head is the thought. The depth of that thought is a function of the development of the concept. I have an idea on how to express this more vividly later.

Oh, and when we think we use the word, "horse" or "book" without an article, we tend to say it refers to what we think it does, but if it doesn't refer to what we think it does, we are mistaken. I need time to get this outlined better.
 
fromderinside said:
Is untermenche showing signs of having a logical tantrum? Is it logically possible?
Click to expand...

It's just a bad case of his being literal minded. He takes some pronouncements he doesn't like as if the speaker had claimed perfect knowledge of the world with it and keep repeating the same criticism again and again. So, yes, it can be regarded as a logical thing but not just a one-off tantrum, unfortunately.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Is untermenche showing signs of having a logical tantrum? Is it logically possible?
Click to expand...

It's just a bad case of his being literal minded. He takes some pronouncements he doesn't like as if the speaker had claimed perfect knowledge of the world with it and keep repeating the same criticism again and again. So, yes, it can be regarded as a logical thing but not just a one-off tantrum, unfortunately.
EB
Click to expand...

Translation: He had a argument I could not refute.

Wah, wah, wah!
 
fast said:
When we examine the speech act, we take note that the speaker means to express a thought, usually via a vocal utterance with use of words that themselves already have lexical meaning as determined from collective usage. It would be quite strange to use the word, "horse" when trying to state that there's a cat on the mat. For instance, imagine me saying, "there is a horse on the mat." People would give me funny looks and think, "no, that's not a horse; it's a cat."

The thought (that I have in my mind) doesn't get expressed such that there's a match between what I have in my mind before the utterance and what's in the receivers mind after I make the utterance. Poor word usage on my part. Maybe I should try "cat" instead of "horse."

Words already have meaning--remember, it's a product of collective usage, not individual usage. Of course, collective usage would never occur if not for repeated individual usage, so the origin for words to ever come to have collective meaning independent of any particular persons usage stems back to when the word was first used by an individual. Once the original thought of the sender is conveyed, the meaning is denoted by the word. Once the word becomes apart of collective usage, it's up to me to choose which words have the meaning that match the thoughts I'd like to express. Or else, I have to use other means such as a different arrangement of words or stipulate meaning.
Click to expand...

It's terribly important (:D) to keep in mind that people don't seem able to share thoughts, not literally anyway. So, while each of us can monitor the use of words in context by other speakers and infer collective usage and meaning from that, it remains true that each of us doesn't actually know what other people really mean when they use words. It's only our best guesses. So there would be nothing surprising for someone to say "there's a horse on the mat" even though other people would rather say it's a cat, not a horse, if by "a horse" the speaker meant a cat.

fast said:
It's terribly important that we distinguish between a variety of things:

A) the thought I want to express (what I mean when I speak) and
B) what the word means (as explained by definitions of the word)

Additionally, we ought not lose sight between
C) the meaning of the word
D) the referent of the word

It would also be nice to not falter between
E) sense
F) meaning

All while not confusing
G) ideas
H) concepts

Or conflating
I) Definitions
J) Meaning

While juggling between
K) concrete
L) abstract

And separating
M)Groups
N)Sets
O)class
Click to expand...

You realise that we would all agree to distinguish as these groups of words all contain different words. So, the question is rather what distinction we make and whether we all make the same distinctions. I'd said, definitely not.

And there's so much more, oh my, so much
(Gotta run and no time to put something in perspective )
Click to expand...

You're sounding more and more like the White Rabbit in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Or is it just me?

Meaning isn't in the head. Meaning is in the conveyance. It's in the usage. It's in the act. The event. What's in the head is the thought. The depth of that thought is a function of the development of the concept. I have an idea on how to express this more vividly later.
Click to expand...

Your view, not mine. So you won't ever understand my meaning since you think meaning couldn't possibly be mine. Yet, if I express anything it is what I mean that I will express, or at least try to express. And I can only really try to express ideas I have in my head, or in my mind more like. I could for example to try to convey the idea I have of the concept I label "subjective experience" and yet perhaps fail in some way to convey anything much. Communication is not sharing thoughts, but at best exchanging words and then hoping for the best, with often enough poor results.


Oh, and when we think we use the word, "horse" or "book" without an article, we tend to say it refers to what we think it does, but if it doesn't refer to what we think it does, we are mistaken. I need time to get this outlined better.
Click to expand...

You realise that we have absolutely no means of making sure a word would refer in the sense you suggest? Possibly, therefore, none of the words we use refer to anything and we're just indulging in wishful thinking.

The fact that communication between human beings, if there is in fact any at all, seems effective to at least a certain extent, doesn't in the least prove your interpretation is likely correct or mine is somehow faulty.
EB
 
P1) I have thoughts
P2) I convey thoughts

People that think have thoughts. We think. Therefore, we have thoughts. We can have our very own thoughts and choose not to convey our very own thoughts, but we cannot choose to convey our very own thoughts unless we have our very own thoughts. In short, 2 implies 1 while 1 does not imply 2.

My point of saying all this is to make it abundantly clear that we're dealing not with just one but two different propositions.

Thoughts
What are thoughts? First, it's not terribly important whether we hit the head on the nail just so long as we grasp that it's something we have that we can choose not to convey. Whatever we come up with, that point should remain steadfast in your minds. I consider thoughts to be mental entities. They're said to reside in the mind. It might be a broader higher meta level entity that includes narrower lower level entities like concepts and ideas, or thoughts, ideas, and concepts might be distinct mental entities occupying the mind. It really doesn't matter for our purposes at this juncture.

Second, I don't particularly care (right now) whether you substitute "thoughts" for one of those other terms used when referring to mental entities. I do make a distinction between them, but the distinction need not play into our current examination since it will still hold true, for example, that we can have ideas and refrain from expressing them.

Convey
There's other terms I could have used. I just used one (express) when I said "refrain from expressing them." So, the word, "convey" is not critically important either, as I could have said express, state, make known, whatever. I just want the distinction as depicted in the two propositions not meshed together. Why? Because I'm in search of something that I want to find: meaning.

Meaning
Meaning is not like a chair, horse, or strawberry shortcake. We can't really point to it, at least not in the same fashion we can point to other concrete objects. The position I'm entertaining (or toying with) is that meaning is not in the mind. I'm aware of the philosophical dangers of taking an idea and running with it, but I've been after this elusive creature for awhile.

Illustration
2:00 I start think thinking about what to grill
2:10 A thought springs to mind--I have an idea
2:20 Speakpigeon knocks on my door
2:21 I answer the door
2:22 speakpigeon says, "what do you mean?"

Take note of how odd that question is. I haven't said anything yet, so how could I have possibly meant anything? We mean something when we say something.

2:23 speak pigeon says, "what's on your mind?"

That's a fair enough question. It's sensible. And, I can answer it, but first, I ask you the readers if I should tell him what I mean or what I have on my mind? Well, my position is that it's a silly notion to tell him what I mean because I can't mean anything until I make an attempt to convey my thoughts.

2:24 I say to him, "I am thinking about grilling chicken."

At this point, I ask the reader to maintain the focus necessary to differentiate the thought from the expression of the thought. The thought, I've had all along. That's what's on my mind, but the actual conveyance of what's on my mind, the utterance of words, is a speech act, not something that's been on my mind all along.

Now, what if he asks me, "what do you mean?" This is where we have to be careful. This is the point we make our mistake, and it's because of this that I have taken such great care to keep the two propositions apart.

The hurdle now is to explain what might or might not be painstakingly obvious. After battling back and forth over this, and switching sides like I was playing against myself in a game of chess, I came to the idea that meaning isn't where we might otherwise thought it might have been.

Before I tie up the loose end--the most major loose end of all, any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Kharakov said:
untermensche said:
It is worthless. Absolutely worthless as an answer to anything.
Click to expand...
If it's true, it's not necessarily worthless.
Click to expand...

It is not a rational concept.

It is not a concept that can be defined.

Mindlessly repeating the magic words "without beginning" is not a definition.

Day dreaming that it might be true is childish ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom