Did you know that mathematics is just a useful fiction?

Started by Baruch, August 30, 2018, 07:19:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 01:52:14 PM
I'm not at all surprised that you have this view of philosophy. I've already made an assessment on the logicality (or lack thereof) of your responses to me thus far on this forum, and perhaps a little analytic philosophy (at least) would do you some good.

Fair enough if you're not interested and if it leaves you laughing though. Each to their own.

OMNEG, yer killing me here!  Look "philosophy" is for young or confused people who are troubled by reality.  I had my time of that in college.  But then I grew up.

If you want to argue ethics and such, I'll by glad to engage.  But please don't bother me with "what is reality".  Been there, done that,  look around, and use your senses...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:02:34 PM
OMNEG, yer killing me here!  Look "philosophy" is for young or confused people who are troubled by reality.  I had my time of that in college.  But then I grew up.

If you want to argue ethics and such, I'll by glad to engage.  But please don't bother me with "what is reality".  Been there, done that,  look around, and use your senses...

It is clear that you already hold the philosophical view of empiricism then.

But you do make other logical mistakes that I've already pointed out elsewhere.

Sure, we can argue ethics, but metaphysics and epistemology are very relevant to ethics as is metaethics and normative ethics.

Let's not argue ethics on this thread though.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 02:15:30 PM
It is clear that you already hold the philosophical view of empiricism then.

But you do make other logical mistakes that I've already pointed out elsewhere.

Sure, we can argue ethics, but metaphysics and epistemology are very relevant to ethics as is metaethics and normative ethics.

Let's not argue ethics on this thread though.

Well, why not?  We can all grouply hijack the thread.    Do you think people act on morals or do they act on ethics?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:24:52 PM
Well, why not?  We can all grouply hijack the thread.    Do you think people act on morals or do they act on ethics?

Neither. I think people act on self-interest.

SGOS

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 01:56:49 PM
I don't think everything is predetermined by some kind of God. It depends what you mean by "predetermined". I don't think that the future is already "out there", and I don't think that it has already happened... as, as far as I am concerned, the future is what will happen but hasn't happened yet. The future is unavoidable and inevitable, but that's true regardless of whether the future is determined or undetermined.

I think that there is exactly one possible future... but that's simply because I think that believing that is more parsimonious than believing that there's more than one possible future. There could easily be more than one possible future . . . but in either case, the future is unavoidable and inevitable, whether it's determined or not. We can't change what will happen into what won't happen any more than we can change what was into what wasn't.
Don't make too much of it.  I was just making a joke. 

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 02:28:50 PM
Neither. I think people act on self-interest.

Is there no sense of altrusim in you philosophism?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall


luckswallowsall

#52
Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:33:29 PM
Is there no sense of altrusim in you philosophism?

It depends how altruism is defined.

People can and do indeed engage in acts of self-sacrifice... but I also think that they at least subconsciously believe that they have some benefit to engaging in such an act.

But, I mean, if someone saves the life of their child and ends up dying because they care for their child, could we really call such an act selfish simply because the reason that they care for their child may ultimately be because they care for their own values and they see their child as part of what is most valuable to them (even if on the surface it may seem that they selflessly care about their child)?

If even the most selfless acts can be called selfish... then that seems like an incredibly loose definition of selfish.

But this is why I said self-interest. I think people ultimately do what is in their self interest, whether they know it or not, and this includes even the most selfless and self-sacrificing acts. I wouldn't call such acts selfish because of the negative connotation that I think doesn't apply there. But I do think that everything we do is ultimately down to self-interest. I mean, all our motives come from our self, and our motives and interests are synonymous as far as I'm concerned. If we're motivated to care about others then we're interested in caring about others.

If we didn't get any sort of benefit at all from engaging in self-sacrificing acts I don't think we would do them.

I mean, for starters, if someone who deeply cared about their children didn't sacrifice themselves to save their child... they may spend the rest of their life suffering greatly due to their regret of not saving their child when they had the opportunity to. So on the one hand you may say they only have such regret because they're selfless enough to care about their child... but on the other hand you may also say that people who are motivated to care about their child may be driven to do so because they don't want to feel the pain of regret or remorse if they don't save their child. But, of course, the person will be convinced that they genuinely care about their child and it has nothing to do with the regret or remorse they will feel if they don't save their child. But people can easily be mistaken about how selfish or selfless they are which is kind of what I'm getting at.

So, I'm a psychological egoist: I think people do what is in their self interest. You could say that I'm also an ethical egoist because I obviously must think people should do what their only option is as it would make no sense for me to say that someone shouldn't do what they must do... but that would be misleading. I think that acts of self-sacrifice for others can be a very ethical thing to do. I just think that people can only do it when it is ultimately in their own interest to do so. And, if I think that ALL acts already are in one's own self interest... then it's kind of just as redundant for me to say that all acts should be in our self interest as it would be to say that no acts should be in our self interest. If our our only option is A then it seems silly to say that we should do A simply because it's our only option. If it's our only option then there isn't really an option. The whole should or shouldn't thing doesn't make sense without more than one option, in a way.

This would seem that I am a moral nihilist. I'm not though. I think there is objective right and wrong. I just don't think it makes sense to say that people are morally obligated if people don't have any moral options. When I say that morality is objective all I'm saying is that some results are better than others. Some things are worse for people than others, morally speaking, regardless of choice.

But some people would say that objective morality without moral obligation isn't really morality... as what people ought to or ought to not be obligated to do is required for morality... according to some. To some, it's not enough for me to say "X would be objectively the right action to take if one could take it" because some would say that ought implies can...

But, by denying obligations, I guess I am saying that there are right answers in theory but not in practice. I am saying that if one could do otherwise, if one could do Y instead of X, then Y would be the right action, for objective reasons.

Perhaps it would make more sense to say that I believe in objective moral values, even if I still deny objective moral obligations, but if the word "moral" is still problematic there (as some believe that morality implies obligation), then I think it's perhaps most correct to say that I believe in objective right and wrong behavior.

I don't know. Basically, take objective morality and then take the obligation part out of it... and that's my view. I think some actions really are wrong and others really are right... I just think it makes no sense for others to be obligated to do otherwise if all the can really do is what's in their own interest.

Now, I'm talking in logical terms. In practical terms, moral obligations obviously do make sense. It makes sense to hold people responsible in certain situations even if they aren't, if that is the best for society and that is the best for individuals. A kind of practical moral responsibility and obligation can make sense even if it isn't possible logically. The idea is that acting as if such things made sense, is better for everyone.

Then there's those who would say that the practical terms are just as important and just as real.... therefore it is real. And I would say, yes, of course, just not in the same sense.

Cavebear

Well said.  I do think there is a difference between self-sacrifice and making decisions for "the greater good" in a general sense.

I don't vote for my specific benefit often, more for a generally functional nation, for example.

And I've heard your argument mostly from business majors and politicians, to be honest, which isn't the best ethical support.  Your opinion gets you into Hobbes and Locke and Son Of Nature, etc.

But I've been online since 8 pm EDT yesterday and haven't eaten AND I have a blog post to finish, so I need to make breakfast/lunch/dinner and feed the cats (again) etc. 

It will be interesting to see where this has gone in a few days when I return. 

EOL
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 03:12:59 PM
Well said.  I do think there is a difference between self-sacrifice and making decisions for "the greater good" in a general sense.

What do you think that difference is?

Quote
I don't vote for my specific benefit often, more for a generally functional nation, for example.

So my view is that the reason why you vote for the benefit of a generally functional nation rather than for your own benefit... is ultimately because it's in your own self-interest to do so. You obviously want to vote for a generally functional nation, and are interested in a generally functional nation, for whatever reasons.

So when I am talking about self-interest I mean it in the incredibly broad sense. I am certainly not saying that people directly always go for what's in their own self-interest... as if that were the case acts of self-sacrifice wouldn't even be possible.

Voting for your own benefit would be directly acting in your own self interest. You say that voting for the benefit of your nation is not an act of self-interest... whereas I say that the very reason why you vote for the benefit of your nation is because you want to, so it's ultimately an act of self-interest.

QuoteAnd I've heard your argument mostly from business majors and politicians, to be honest, which isn't the best ethical support.

I'm not making an argument for ethics right now though. At the moment I'm only being descriptive, not prescriptive. And, in fact, I said that I think that acts of self-sacrifice can be morally good. I don't see how that aligns with "business majors and politicians".

QuoteYour opinion gets you into Hobbes and Locke and Son Of Nature, etc.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. And, if anything, when you said that you vote for the benefit of your nation, rather than yourself, I think that gets you closer to Hobbes than me. Hobbes had a very collectivist view, and spoke of the Leviathan, and formed a particular conceptualization of the social contract in order to get what's best for society. But I'm not interested in what's best for society. I'm interested in what's best for individuals. But not just me, other people too. I just think that the only reason I care about others, or others care about me, is because it's in my self interest to care about others and in the interest of others to care about me.

But If you suggest that caring about others can't be good if they ultimately come from selfish motives then you're committing the genetic fallacy. So it's not at all problematic for helping others to be motivated by self interest.

I'm not prescribing or obligating people to do what's best for society, others, or even themselves. I'm saying that I think acts of self-sacrifice can be objectively good... but even when people do those acts they do them because that's in their own self-interest. That was a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive one. If I made any prescriptive claims at all I claimed that helping others can be good. And absolutely nowhere did I say that being selfish at the expense of others can be good.

Baruch

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:13:21 AM
Mathematics and logic both start with axioms. If that's what you mean by "useful fiction" then they're a useful fiction.

But the problem is... you can't even make a distinction between fictional and non-fictional without first accepting the fundamental axioms of logic. And we only need the fundamental axioms of logic to get at least basic numeracy going. As mathematics is basically logic with numbers.

I know you are very bright.  That is evidence of a quality British education (what is that?  many here are Americans, stop using big words).

If you get deeper into higher level logic, into modal logic, into paraconsistent logic ... then no, the Law of Identity doesn't hold.  The question about axioms isn't absolute but relative.  Under which conditions does the axiom hold, and under what conditions does it not hold.  Unless of course you have fallen into the black hole of the Principia Mathematica ... and there is no hope for you ;-)

Cavebear is right in this way ... in Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead took 350 pages of proof to show that 1 + 1 = 2.  I am not impressed.  It would seem they were pushing the rope, not yet aware (how could they) the relationship between logic an algebra.  Mathematics is more dialectical than deductive ... unless you are David Hilbert.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#56
Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 01:46:56 PM
Some people philosophize.  Other's don't.  Fortunately, you can ignore either group.  Unless, everything is predetermined, and then you're screwed.

Another target rich environment.  Gotta reload my chain gun.

I agree with your.  But to opportunistically reply to the new poster ... the law of identity has been already disposed of by Heraclitus.  And a succeeding thinker, whose name escapes me ... says "you can't even step into the same river once".  That trickiness is why most here eschew philosophy, aside from a few pragmatic or artistic views.

The forum on Philosophy Today might be the best place for this kind of discussion.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2018, 05:35:29 AM
Another target rich environment.  Gotta reload my chain gun.

I agree with your.  But to opportunistically reply to the new poster ... the law of identity has been already disposed of by Heraclitus.  And a succeeding thinker, whose name escapes me ... says "you can't even step into the same river once".  That trickiness is why most here eschew philosophy, aside from a few pragmatic or artistic views.

The forum on Philosophy Today might be the best place for this kind of discussion.

And furthermore:

Paraconsistent logic (paraconsistent doesn't even make it past my spell checker) is not consistent.  Theists love this sort of shit. 

QuoteFrom Wiki:  Suppose we are faced with a contradictory set of premises Î" and wish to avoid being reduced to triviality. In classical logic, the only method one can use is to reject one or more of the premises in Î". In paraconsistent logic, we may try to compartmentalize the contradiction. That is, weaken the logic so that Î"â†'X is no longer a tautology provided the propositional variable X does not appear in Î". However, we do not want to weaken the logic any more than is necessary for that purpose. So we wish to retain modus ponens and the deduction theorem as well as the axioms which are the introduction and elimination rules for the logical connectives (where possible).

Yes, don't let the Bible thumpers get a hold of this one, or you'll never hear the end of it.

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on September 28, 2018, 05:50:44 AM
And furthermore:

Paraconsistent logic (paraconsistent doesn't even make it past my spell checker) is not consistent.  Theists love this sort of shit. 

Yes, don't let the Bible thumpers get a hold of this one, or you'll never hear the end of it.

We had an earlier string on this, so I won't repeat.  There is a difference between paraconsistent logic (as defined by professionals) and just pulling things out of your nether regions.  I deal with inconsistency in databases every day.  Maybe that problem doesn't exist in Plato's World Of Forms.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2018, 05:35:29 AM
I agree with your.  But to opportunistically reply to the new poster ... the law of identity has been already disposed of by Heraclitus.  And a succeeding thinker, whose name escapes me ... says "you can't even step into the same river once".  That trickiness is why most here eschew philosophy, aside from a few pragmatic or artistic views.
Yet you can't make sense of that statement (Heraclitus's original was "you cannot step twice into the same stream" â€" except it was in Greek) unless you have some notion of what "the same river/stream" means. Just because some things don't retain their physical identical-ness across time doesn't mean there's no such thing as identity, nor that the law of identity is invalid. Indeed, the statement loses its profundity if the law of identity is not a thing.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu