flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > logical reasoning book

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I just found excellent (IMHO) book on logical reasoning.

Motivation for the book was opposing common christian belief and practices, so some people may not want to read it Sad .

Regardless of focusing on christianity, i find it a very valuable training on logical thinking in everyday life and conversation.

Book is from Slovak author, and is translated to english here.


Last edited by vid on 11 May 2007, 20:45; edited 1 time in total
Post 08 May 2007, 16:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Thanks, vid, good web site, much appreciated
Post 09 May 2007, 08:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Interesting, but it seems that he likes to repeat that he thinks a certain group of people cannot think rationally. It did, however, remind me to bring up some philosophies from my (own personal) view of the issue. Some of you may not accept this, some of you may.

Points of view:

Who really is at the burden of proving weather or not God exists? Fact of the matter is, most conservatives believe that since it is tradition that a higher force exists, the tradition is the one being prosocuted, or the defendent (See his referance to prosocutor verses defendent). On his side of the argument, athiests are on the defence. From what i've seen, both sides of the argument seem to be doing alot of prosocuting and defending. Now, one problem is that we don't know who is right about who should defend themselves. I, personally, believe that we would then need a judge/mediator (because judges are higher than the arguers) to say which does which. Further into my belief, is that as soon as that judge picks one to defend and one to act, that judge or mediator would then no longer be neutral, therefor would end up in the same boat as the arguers, and can't tell us who should be defending. Now, of course, it's up to you weather or not you believe that we even need a neutral or not, because that alone would be of your own beliefs. Also, (theoreticaly) the very neutral that we (theoretically) need is actually the topic of debate. Keep this neutral in mind, i'll bring it up further down the line.

Naming convention for the neutral:

I enjoy mathematical things. Though, one could theorize weather or not math can be used to explain anything is, in itself, a matter of opinion. Because i enjoy mathematical things, i will use math to name the neutral, because i'm sick of referring to the neutral as "the neutral." According to how i view math (which may be different to you), you have positive, negative, and neutral. As i see math, there are two neutrals. Null and zero. Null, as i have seen, seems to be a wild card, so i shall use the not so used wildly zero. Therefor, for the remainder of this post, i shall refer to "the neutral" as "0."

The base point:

As i see it, everything discussed needs 0. Without 0, (i believe that) nothing can be solved. But as i see it, my vision of 0 is what is being debated. For those of you who are following me, i believe that the actual debate is all about the neutrality of the debate itself (i feel that there are two ways of interpreting that). If 0 is what is being debated, what is our 0 for debating 0?

Scientists and the lack of a 0:

He seems (he's really vague so i can only give my interpretation of his words rather than be 100% sure) to target theist scientists. It's interesting to me. I believe that all scientists (theists, atheists, secular, and anything else) are an issue. It appears, to me, that humans need 0 to formulate anything. I theorize that 0 cannot be established without discovering everything, first, which would require an "official" 0 to start with. I also theorize that we need a 0 for language, a 0 for ways of looking at things (science, philosophy, anything else of the such, which includes a combination of), a 0 for every deffinition of every word. From what i've seen, we have a 0 for computers. As i have seen, the actual debate on anything computer related is mearly what one values more, while facts are facts. I believe that we could think of the computer as an existance with a 0. We can use logic to elaborate on that 0, but when something outside of the computer comes in (such as what one sees as more important) the 0 is lost, because it's no longer a matter of just the existance with a 0. Due to what appears to be constant confrontations of each other, the 0 has not been established in my view. So, theoretically (based on what i said earlier), one cannot establish 0. Now, to pull this all together, my logic dictates that if we need a 0 for calculations, and if we do not have a 0, we cannot calculate. Your logic may be different.

Why we need 0:

This is an opinion. I believe that we've all be brought up and raised in a way that lead (or perhaps we always were) dependant on a base point, which also lead to be (or always has been) 0. I'm leaving this solely up to you to decide weather or not we need a point of referance (aka basepoint) to make calculations.

Qualities of 0:

For now, i will say that on my belief of 0, the qualities of 0 can be anything, as long as it is interpreted as neutral. Please endulge yourself and enjoy.

What can we do if we don't have a 0:

I theorize, that if we can't calculate without 0 and that if we don't have a 0, we can't do anything. Have fun.

Why science has created results:

Has it? As i see it, science is a senses way of viewing things. My logic leads me to believe that since it is sense related, it can only produce results that relate to senses. I also believe that philosophy is a logic way of viewing things. I believe that since philosophy is a logical way of viewing things, my conclusion is that it results in results that are logic related. Interestingly enough, i've seen them being used together, for better or for worse. I believe that the result of this is manipulation of both existances, which may or may not have a 0, irregardless of weather we are aware of the 0 if it even does exist.

Propoganda without 0 and imposition:

I have seen that my one teacher (and others) support removal of "i feel," "i believe," and other such subordinates from conversation. I believe that this results in imposition. As i have seen, imposition is common, and that it leads to offence. One could theorize that if i change what you think i believe is 0, would also be imposition. An interesting question would be, "Then, what would be the border of imposition?" I shall let that up to you, but give you my view on it.

Who has the right to offend:

I believe that whenever some one imposes on some one else, both parties are responsible for offence if any is taken. So, i see that even the issue of imposition has no 0, let alone beginning to "tackle the issue" of who has the right to impose or who is at fault for offence if any is arroused. I believe that this is all up to us, but i also beleive that it is also up to us to respect that the 0 of others is different.

What is Kohlrak's 0 on imposition:

For those of you who want my view of 0 on the issue of imposition, i belive that request (subliminal or open) would be the requirement before imposition. And yes, i also believe that i am being a hypocrite by posting this. I hope that people correct me when i impose on them and it leads to offence.

Why Kohlrak posted:

I, Kohlrak, believe that it would be nice to have another source to base logical thought on, his own. I thank all that have taken the time to read my view of the basis logical thought.

I would like to take the time to thank all of those that have read this, and are allowing me to empose, upon them, my theory of basis.
Post 09 May 2007, 22:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I will try to follow author's style, maybe to better demonstrate my understanding of these methods.

Quote:
Interesting, but it seems that he likes to repeat that he thinks a certain group of people cannot think rationally
.
Wrong. He says certain groups of people cannot think LOGICALLY. I am not sure what you mean by "rationality", but "logic(ality)" is well-defined. I hope you agree that many peope can't really think logically.

Quote:
Fact of the matter is, most conservatives believe that since it is tradition that a higher force exists, the tradition is the one being prosocuted, or the defendent

1. He mentioned this problem: what "most conservatives" thinks isn't absolutely important. You cannot beheave based on what majority thinks (earth is flat, 1000 years ago).

Quote:
On his side of the argument, athiests are on the defence...

As, I understood it, atheist are saying everything is possible, god CAN exists, we don't know, but it is very unprobable (like existing of fairies etc..). Theists are saying that they actually KNOW the truth, and that god exist. Theists are those who claim only one of many possible states, so they should reason why only the specific one, and also prove it somehow. Accepting all possible states (atheism) is default, it doesn't need a proof. It's a startpoint, from which you can eliminate possibilities and "get closer to truth".

Quote:
According to how i view math (which may be different to you), you have positive, negative, and neutral.

that is not math Wink you may be refering to some very small (unimportant?) subset of what math is. Because of that, i omit rest of "0 talks".

Quote:
He seems (he's really vague so i can only give my interpretation of his words rather than be 100% sure) to target theist scientists

He expressed quite specifically whom he target (at least in Slovak version). He targets people who are capable of (and honor) logical thinking.

Quote:
My logic leads me to believe that since it is sense related, it can only produce results that relate to senses

That is the definition of science. It is study of reality. Reality = things we observe with senses, directly or indirectly, and which we can deduce from our observation.

Also, there is nothing like "your logic". There is just single logic. Saying that is like saying "My theory of relativity ...".

Quote:
I also believe that philosophy is a logic way of viewing things.

No it isn't. You should be safer when using word "logic" (or "logical"). "Logic" is methodology of manipulation with statements (true and false, quantifiers, anding, oring, etc). Try not to use "logical" in common meaning, it is very unsure what you mean with it then.

Quote:
I, Kohlrak, believe that it would be nice to have another source to base logical thought on, his own. I thank all that have taken the time to read my view of the basis logical thought.

Again you misused word "logical". In this case logic is the thing you oppose with your "another". And yes, maybe it would be nice. But if it should be useful too, then your "base of thinking" should be able to explain and predict at least as much as logic does. Otherwise it's just inferior (even though "nicer").

Quote:
I would like to take the time to thank all of those that have read this, and are allowing me to empose, upon them, my theory of basis.

Try to formulate it next time, without misusing word "logic" for some unclear "proper thinking", and please without substituting "the neutral" by zero, and we can talk further about it.
Post 09 May 2007, 23:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
atheist are saying everything is possible, god CAN exists,


Isn't that agnostic?

Quote:
No it isn't. You should be safer when using word "logic" (or "logical"). "Logic" is methodology of manipulation with statements (true and false, quantifiers, anding, oring, etc). Try not to use "logical" in common meaning, it is very unsure what you mean with it then.


Is not philosophy just that? Is not logic a derivitive of the mind? Is not philosophy based on logic?

Quote:
and please without substituting "the neutral" by zero, and we can talk further about it.


What is wrong with zero? lol I guess it would help to mention that my theory also supports sub-ordinate 0s... Though, i don't think that simplifies this much. To be honest, i feel that if i read this over again, i would get lost.

Quote:
that is not math you may be refering to some very small (unimportant?) subset of what math is.


Oh, but of course. i was mearly stating the convention for which i formed the name.

May it be an interesting point, that my belief that there is a lack of a point of reference *COULD* be supported by the very misconception of my words.
Post 09 May 2007, 23:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Isn't that agnostic?

the real "startpoint" where you find all possible states equally probable is agnostic. Later, mankind has learn lot about it's surroundings, and this rendered many things extremely unpropable (fairies, god, easter bunny, ...). Extremely unprobable (unproven) is for science same is "not true". In science, when you say "fairies doesn't exist", you mean "there is so small evidence and/or chance for fairies to exist, that there is no reason to consider it".

Quote:
Is not logic a derivitive of the mind?

no. logic is independent of our mind (unless you fall under subjectivism, where you consider things percieved by your senses as producy of mind). Logic works in world, even when not percieved by anybody.

Quote:
Is not philosophy based on logic?

surely not. if it would be so, philosophy would have to postulate few basic principes, and deduce everything from them using logical operations. Philosphy doesn't go this way.
For practical example, if philosphy was logical, it could never use analogy to "deduce new truths". Every philosophy i ever studied used analogy quite a lot, and didn't base most of it's statements on nothing.

Quote:
What is wrong with zero?

It makes reading harder. Imagine I would substitute every "it" with "1", "is" with "2", "logic" with 3, "use" with "4" etc... How easy would it be to read?
And only reason for using it was
Quote:
i'm sick of referring to the neutral as "the neutral."
Post 10 May 2007, 08:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:

To me, logic itself is a product of the mind. I believe that the words "if," "when," "else," and other conditional words are all ways of describing what one perceives as those concepts, whether or not they even understand the concept.

you shouldn't make your own definitions of words.
Logic is a precise mathematical system with exact rules, and has nothing to do with how someone perceives something.

Quote:
If we have the same word for posulate, this is how i define philosophy. I believe that philosophy is nothing more than taking interpretations of things and using logic to say what is possible and what isn't possible.

philosphy doesn't use ONLY logic, it uses couple of other methods. That is what i meant when i said philosophy is not based on logic. These "other methods" can evidently produce false results from good sources, unlike philosophy.

Quote:
And vid, are you having connection issues? It seems to me that you posted that 3 times.

yeah, i moderated it back. thanks for reminding, i haven't noticed.
Post 10 May 2007, 11:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
As i see it, everything discussed needs 0. Without 0, (i believe that) nothing can be solved. But as i see it, my vision of 0 is what is being debated. For those of you who are following me, i believe that the actual debate is all about the neutrality of the debate itself (i feel that there are two ways of interpreting that). If 0 is what is being debated, what is our 0 for debating 0?


As I understood math and the geometrical elements of math (basically just math in N-dimensions, so still very much math) and as you may comprehend and appreciate (or possibly not) the value of 0 is irrelevant. Math is about the mechanisms, not about the values.

Specifically "0" also known as "point of origin" and "perspective", has a position or "meaning" in this context. However it may be selected as anything, it's exact value is quite irrelevant in comparing two or more other points.

This very much applies to you thinking process. In a conversation where two intelligent beings, say X and Y have a standpoint and observe values A and B, if they both comprehend the relative position of point A from point B and vice-versa, the position of X and/or Y themselves is irrelevant.


The problem, in our case is really not perspective, it is just an utter lack of interest. While both the Scientist and the Theist may understand that one arguing the other will produce some kind of interest of the masses, something that is good for either of them, none of them will comprehend that there is any good in formulating some kind of common ground, to cooperate and form a basis for translation between the terminologies each of them uses.

That the Theist, from the perspective of the Scientist is just another scientist, running a 2000+ year old study of psychology and that the Scientist is to the Theist, just another theist who is working on better understanding God.

Not logical fallacy, just plain-old short-sightedness.
Post 10 May 2007, 22:38
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
vid wrote:
Motivation for the book was opposing common christian belief and practices, so some people may not want to read it Sad .

Regardless of focusing on christianity, i find it a very valuable training on logical thinking in everyday life and conversation.


As much as I generally agree with that authors motivation and standpoint... you know... am I the only person here who comprehends the extreeme stupidity of arguing the validity of a bunch of axioms?

The article about the existance of God for example, don't get me wrong I am very much Not religious, but that whole argument is written atop a buch of excuses of a bunch of people that never really understood what they were talking about anyway.

You can't proove or dissproove an axiom. In non-God, mathematical terms, you cannot proove the value of "1", it's all just about what some people thought at some point in time and everybody came to agree on. The very same thing applies to God. If I were to think I can approximate it in some hardcore scientific terms: God is the universal group of all factors of a human environment as a whole.

...Or whatever. It's just a defenition, accept it if you want to understand what em religious people were talking about. Or mathematicians for that reason. Making an argument then on top of the arguments of a bunch of people who took the whole non-acceptance of their axiom personally and started giving off these emotional responses like "Oh yeah? Well u can't proove us wrong either so just shut up, smartass!!"... I mean what's so scientific about that?

If that guy was ever going to make an argument about how people should digest whatever they read before they believe it... well maybe he should have taken his time to understand what he was criticising first, because he really, Really doesn't.
Post 10 May 2007, 23:15
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
This very much applies to you thinking process. In a conversation where two intelligent beings, say X and Y have a standpoint and observe values A and B, if they both comprehend the relative position of point A from point B and vice-versa, the position of X and/or Y themselves is irrelevant.


The problem, in our case is really not perspective, it is just an utter lack of interest. While both the Scientist and the Theist may understand that one arguing the other will produce some kind of interest of the masses, something that is good for either of them, none of them will comprehend that there is any good in formulating some kind of common ground, to cooperate and form a basis for translation between the terminologies each of them uses.


Perhaps a better equation would help with this...

Y=X+B <-- I chose B to remind us of the ever famous equation, not to make it more confusing.

B is point of referance. A is negative B (the one in the equation, not the arguement B). B (the argument, not the b in the equation) is positive B. X wants B to be higher. Y wants B to be lower. B seems not to be decided because X and Y won't stop moving it.

Infact, i'll make a better equation to make this more simple.

A = Side A
B = Side B
C = Neither A or B
D = Neutrality
E = Truth
F = Result of argument
G = Debate itself
H = What the debate is over
X = Arguer for A
Y = Arguer for B
Z = Existance in which the argument involves

X ≠ Y
A ≠ B
D = in Z
E = A or B
C helps X and Y make F = either A or B or C
E = A or B
E may ≠ F (issue)

If E ≠ E, Z ≠ D, and X and Y continue to contest using G the H's E. You can't make E without perfect understanding of Z, G, and H.

If you want a simpler situation to compare it to, try a child custody case. This assumes that what is best for the child is what should be done.

A = Live with X
B = Live with Y
C = Live with both or neither
D = Judge (supposedly)
E = what is best for child
F = Judge's decision
G = Which the child should live with
H = The child (and what he wants)
X = Mother
Y = Father
Z = Life

D makes F closer to either A, B, or C. X and Y will even start an argument with D if F ≠ (or dosn't seem to be) E over G. Seldom does C listen to H, and this all takes place in Z. The truth is that D isn't always D (In other words, the judge isn't always neutral). D would probable best allow H to to set D, so X and Y can argue their points to make F closer to E. If there was no D, you can't have an F to = E, right?

In our issue...

A = No God
B = God
C = Answer we never thought of
D = ??
E = (Good question)
F = Can't have it because there's no D
G = A vs B (but we forget C)
H = God (existant or not)
X = Atheist
Y = Theist
Z = (uknown, due to another debate over existance)

Well, i see that the problem is we have no D, and may never find a proper D, because D would have to be > X and Y, right? Therefor, G can't be solved to E because there's no F to further become D for future arguments. So X and Y throw A and B all over the place trying to be D. C is ignored. H refuses to talk or even become D. And another dispute over Z allows us never to come up with a D. The best thing would be for H to become D, but irregardless if H exists or not, it hasn't decided to become D. And until it does, it seems that X and Y will not stop arguing over G. Further more, whenever we do get a D (agnostics), neither X nor Y are satisfied with F. Therefor, G continues to exist without F = D. Confused?

I think i typed that right...

Quote:
That the Theist, from the perspective of the Scientist is just another scientist, running a 2000+ year old study of psychology and that the Scientist is to the Theist, just another theist who is working on better understanding God.


Interesting way of looking at it.
Post 11 May 2007, 00:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
DustWolf wrote:
That the Theist, from the perspective of the Scientist is just another scientist, running a 2000+ year old study of psychology and that the Scientist is to the Theist, just another theist who is working on better understanding God.
No. definitely not.

"A theism" means, WITHOUT theism.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/theism-body.html

A scientist, of any persuasion, relies upon DATA to resolve disputes, i.e. to explain contradictions, or to address hypothetical scenarios. Theists, on the other hand, REJECT a priori, the validity of data, and accept instead a belief, which, to be sure, was initially devised from data, i.e. sensory input. My favorite theist group, Zoroastrianism, KNOWS, with certainty, that the sun is the god which created earth, and all of us occupants of this third rock. No amount of data can persuade a devout Zoroastrian, or shake his/her views on the question of the divine nature of the sun. When Galileo, one of my heroes, a scientist, and most definitely not a theist, lost his eyesight, attempting to study the nature of sunspots, by staring at them through his telescope, he was most certainly NOT motivated to seeking a divine presence, acknowledging Zarathustra's claim, or "better understanding God". He did not sacrifice his vision in an attempt to explain or justify theism.
Post 11 May 2007, 10:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Chill Tom. I think it was a metaphore.
Post 11 May 2007, 11:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
In our issue...

A = No God
B = God
C = Answer we never thought of
D = ??
E = (Good question)
F = Can't have it because there's no D
G = A vs B (but we forget C)
H = God (existant or not)
X = Atheist
Y = Theist
Z = (uknown, due to another debate over existance)

Well, i see that the problem is we have no D, and may never find a proper D, because D would have to be > X and Y, right? Therefor, G can't be solved to E because there's no F to further become D for future arguments. So X and Y throw A and B all over the place trying to be D. C is ignored. H refuses to talk or even become D. And another dispute over Z allows us never to come up with a D. The best thing would be for H to become D, but irregardless if H exists or not, it hasn't decided to become D. And until it does, it seems that X and Y will not stop arguing over G. Further more, whenever we do get a D (agnostics), neither X nor Y are satisfied with F. Therefor, G continues to exist without F = D. Confused?


I am beggining to see vid's point about your usage of short symbols.

But then again I wouldn't be a good ASM coder if I couldn't take in some random abbervations to replace concepts in my mind.

If I read all of this right, I believe the problem is that you are neglecting the effect of perspective and the possibility for more.. evolved methods at solving the problem.

Math usually deals with those kinds of methods... tends to "rise above" the conecepts involved, much like your D, however not above in the meaning of including both perspectives but as in purposefully ignoring them (thus much easier to achieve). It is not scientists versus religious people really, it's critics versus religious people. An actual scientist (that matches his own defenition of one) would be a perfectly good D, since the system of axioms and logic is in essence completely detached from any essence... I believe this is what vid was describing.

The second point, perspective, is the point that from the prespectives of people as inteligent beings, differ. If X and Y are looking at A and B, and Y claims that B has an absolute location, X must understand that this particular statement means that B's location is fixed relatively to Y, while not necesarily fixed against A and/or X. It gets more complicated than that too. In essence, since the perspectives of X and Y differ, if understanding is to be achieved, neither can afford to interpret a stated absolute perspective as an actual one. The problem is that both X and Y talk using natural language, which makes the point that X's statement that Y's perspective is not absolute sound like "Y is wrong and X is right". If understanding is to be achieved, both must understand the shorcomings of the platform our communication is based upon, also understanding that the issue of communication itself is irrelevant to the points discussed.
Post 11 May 2007, 12:57
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
tom tobias wrote:
DustWolf wrote:
That the Theist, from the perspective of the Scientist is just another scientist, running a 2000+ year old study of psychology and that the Scientist is to the Theist, just another theist who is working on better understanding God.
No. definitely not.

"A theism" means, WITHOUT theism.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/theism-body.html


Just a mix of incompatible grammars. "A theism" is one instance of theism, "atheism" is absence of theism.

I simply meant religious people, but wanted to use the terms already picked.

tom tobias wrote:
A scientist, of any persuasion, relies upon DATA to resolve disputes, i.e. to explain contradictions, or to address hypothetical scenarios. Theists, on the other hand, REJECT a priori, the validity of data, and accept instead a belief, which, to be sure, was initially devised from data, i.e. sensory input.


The roles can also be reversed, depending on perspective. Theists accept conclusions derived from understanding of concepts, scientists reject basic understanding and derive abstractions called "data" from understanding of concepts. Both describtions are accurate, see it's only a matter of terminology / perspective.

The point that you have overlooked here is that the perspective which defines the terminology, is not absolute. There is no such thing as an absolute perspective. Thus the theists and the scientists might be talking about the same things, but using sufficiently different terminologies to make the things stated opposing.

A good example is a religion a bit older than christianity, eastern "vede"-based religions. Any good translator will be able to tell you their holy book's title translates to "the sciences" and yet have one of those religious people talk to a critically-minded western semi-scientist and the debate will errupt in flames soon enough. The point being that "vede" is sciences being taught 5000 years ago and thus having a far different focus from the western "science", which is relatively young and suffers from an emotional / cultural tendency to oppose older beliefs.

Science isn't a modern invention, scientist-minded people existed troughout history. As their findings were slowly distorted trough time due to lack of understanding on behalf of certain people (much like the modern problem of the concept of programming in Assembly being distorted trough time due to the very same reasons), they became awkward and hard to believe. Both protected themselves by maintaining a hierachy, where layers of people devote more and more of their lives to understanding the concepts accurately.

tom tobias wrote:
My favorite theist group, Zoroastrianism, KNOWS, with certainty, that the sun is the god which created earth, and all of us occupants of this third rock. No amount of data can persuade a devout Zoroastrian, or shake his/her views on the question of the divine nature of the sun. When Galileo, one of my heroes, a scientist, and most definitely not a theist, lost his eyesight, attempting to study the nature of sunspots, by staring at them through his telescope, he was most certainly NOT motivated to seeking a divine presence, acknowledging Zarathustra's claim, or "better understanding God". He did not sacrifice his vision in an attempt to explain or justify theism.


Some semi-science is hard to beliveve. Some semi-religion is being hard to understand as well. Americans always tend to provide prefect examples of both.

The problem is that the wordings are slightly distorted. Not saying they are wrong, or have strayed from the truth, what I am pointing out is very different from those concepts. There may very well be people in there who properly understand the words they use to describe their ideas.

It takes time, effort and understanding to comprehend the deeper meanings behind a religion. People may find it hard to express themselves properly, so they use very strange, and often decieving wording. These are very abstract psychological / perspective-based / introvert / yet sometimes empirical concepts we are talking about. There will always be people who take that wording and missunderstand it... that is way too easy to do. Both scientists and religious people do that. One example of a scientist doing that is on that website.
Post 11 May 2007, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I am beggining to see vid's point about your usage of short symbols.

But then again I wouldn't be a good ASM coder if I couldn't take in some random abbervations to replace concepts in my mind.


I, personally, think it's rather amusing and fun.

Quote:
If I read all of this right, I believe the problem is that you are neglecting the effect of perspective and the possibility for more.. evolved methods at solving the problem.


Of course. Actually, i ended up having to keep making variables as i went. And my argument is that, take the child custody for example, i feel sure that the child knows more variables than anyone else there. I think that the child could provide more sub-variables for C than anyone else, because it's about the child. In other words, i'm trying to say that since (if there is a God) God isn't talking, no one will have the answer, and that i feel this is a pointless argument. I believe that people should request one's position before that one hands it out.

Quote:
Math usually deals with those kinds of methods... tends to "rise above" the conecepts involved, much like your D, however not above in the meaning of including both perspectives but as in purposefully ignoring them (thus much easier to achieve).


Assuming that were possible, i feel that that would be an adequet (sp?) way of handling things. To me, though, the problem is that it's not always the case, and that the D must know more. D, would then have to listen (or even be) H, right?

Quote:
It is not scientists versus religious people really, it's critics versus religious people. An actual scientist (that matches his own defenition of one) would be a perfectly good D, since the system of axioms and logic is in essence completely detached from any essence... I believe this is what vid was describing.


I say the problem is that D needs to be neutral. The scientists leave me with the impression that they're people. All people have a stance as far as i'm concerned. Not to mention, some scientists learn from other scientists, which also have a stance on the issue, or so it seems to me. Then, you would seemingly have to find a truely neutral (which would possibly require brain reading technology to check) to be D, right?

Quote:
The second point, perspective, is the point that from the prespectives of people as inteligent beings, differ. If X and Y are looking at A and B, and Y claims that B has an absolute location, X must understand that this particular statement means that B's location is fixed relatively to Y, while not necesarily fixed against A and/or X. It gets more complicated than that too. In essence, since the perspectives of X and Y differ, if understanding is to be achieved, neither can afford to interpret a stated absolute perspective as an actual one. The problem is that both X and Y talk using natural language, which makes the point that X's statement that Y's perspective is not absolute sound like "Y is wrong and X is right". If understanding is to be achieved, both must understand the shorcomings of the platform our communication is based upon, also understanding that the issue of communication itself is irrelevant to the points discussed.


And that would be D, or so i feel it would be... To me, the deeper an argument goes, the further apart the two arguers get, making them more seperate. If you don't know what i mean, i see that over time, the religious people will start supporting and condemning common issues with each other and the other side would do the same, making A and B for each issue, turn into A and B for everything. I believe that the longer we go without a D, we end up becomming more of two distinct X and Y for EVERY G. Though, i didn't say that above, i do believe that this is a forecomming issue. I also believe, that the further X and Y fall away, the more hostile they become towards each other. I've noticed that in history, when the X and Y are furthest apart, the extreems happen. Things like war.

Quote:
The point that you have overlooked here is that the perspective which defines the terminology, is not absolute. There is no such thing as an absolute perspective. Thus the theists and the scientists might be talking about the same things, but using sufficiently different terminologies to make the things stated opposing.


Sometimes i've seen that is not always the case, but usually such arguments are ignored leaving the only real problem being terminology. It seems i have this issue alot, because i take my terminology from a vast number of groups, and sometimes, in the past, came up with my own deffinitions based on context, which isn't always the same as those around me. The apparent result is that many people who i talk with in school can barely follow even one sentance that i say to them. The results seem to be rather aggrivating, sometimes hostile.

Quote:
the western "science", which is relatively young and suffers from an emotional / cultural tendency to oppose older beliefs.


I find this interesting that you use the word western. In the past, i've heard that asia is considered to be "less logical" than everyone else. I beg to differ, but no one listens to me. Your lack of centrism (or what i believe to be) must be honored.

Quote:
Science isn't a modern invention, scientist-minded people existed troughout history. As their findings were slowly distorted trough time due to lack of understanding on behalf of certain people (much like the modern problem of the concept of programming in Assembly being distorted trough time due to the very same reasons), they became awkward and hard to believe. Both protected themselves by maintaining a hierachy, where layers of people devote more and more of their lives to understanding the concepts accurately.


I believe this is only part of the reason for debate, but i do believe this is one reson why the debate has never found an equal ground for debate, even if that equal ground were to not be a good spot.

Quote:
The problem is that the wordings are slightly distorted. Not saying they are wrong, or have strayed from the truth, what I am pointing out is very different from those concepts. There may very well be people in there who properly understand the words they use to describe their ideas.


Sometimes i believe that not only words get lost over time, but concepts as well. Perhaps "cuss words" are an example. Below, in the quotes, is a theory of mine, but to avoid saying "i think" and "i believe" alot, i'll just put it in a quote.

Quote:
Cuss, could be derived from curse. Words like "the f word" and such have a tendancy to be used as insults, or curses (in old english). Curses are deemed bad. As time goes on, the reson why cuss words are bad is lost, and therefor even non-insulting usage of the words becomes condemned.


I've taken a big interest in that theory of mine, but never took the time to research it.

Quote:
It takes time, effort and understanding to comprehend the deeper meanings behind a religion. People may find it hard to express themselves properly, so they use very strange, and often decieving wording. These are very abstract psychological / perspective-based / introvert / yet sometimes empirical concepts we are talking about. There will always be people who take that wording and missunderstand it... that is way too easy to do. Both scientists and religious people do that. One example of a scientist doing that is on that website.


BEWARE: Christian example below.

It reminds me of japanese. I was taught that whenever something is obvious it is omitted. In english, as i have seen, we can't do this. There are grammar rules that say we must keep a word there, but those weren't always around, too (or so it seems). A word could gain or loose a deffinition to make things more simple or complicated, and not everyone will learn those meanings. I've seen that a common thing that is taken from the bible and poked fun at was "Jesus ascended." Ascention, at the time the bible was translated to english (which also means there could have been mistranslation there) it could have reffered to hiarchy of existance in general, physical ascention, or a concept or two that we have lost over the years. The loss of concept, i believe, comes from the loss of deffinitions to words, so when the concept is re-read, it is interpreted differently, then re-written, then re-read differently, then re-written. During that time, a lost concept could have existed, that made the whole thing simple and even scientifically fit.
Post 11 May 2007, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
DustWolf wrote:
...Just a mix of incompatible grammars. "A theism" is one instance of theism...
Definitely NOT.
When I wrote "A theism", I sought to highlight the Latin origins of the English word atheism, in other words, a = without, theism = belief in supernatural powers. I did not intend to suggest a single instance of theism, though that interpretation is logical, in view of the commonly understood meaning of the English word "a", an indefinite article. No, here however, I was typing the LATIN symbol "a", not the English "a". Sort of like using the same pins for both data and address lines. Takes a while to become accustomed to such a strange architecture....(That puts me about 40 years behind everyone else, for I still prefer separate data and address lines....)
Post 12 May 2007, 12:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.