zurew

Integration doesn't get you anywhere though, unless you can lay down the "right" way how to integrate things. Unless you can establish normative realism (there are objective standards for what constitutes justified belief, knowledge, or rationality, and these standards are not simply products of human conventions or subjective preferences) - all you have is puzzle pieces that you can put together in multiple ways and nothing tells you which one is the "right" way. Appealing to a subjective preference (like your preferred way of knowing or your preferred epistemic norm) won't solve this ,especially when the paradigms are mutually exclusive. Like if I ask questions like - which meta perspective should be considered valid? The "validity" there will be grounded in a subjective preference or pragmatism or If I ask the question which meta perspective should I choose from the many? The answer to that will be grounded in subjective preference or pragmatism as well. And if someone disagrees when it comes to your answer to any of those questions, you cant appeal to anything that could solve the disagreement (again unless, you can establish normative realism or if we share a same subjective normative ground). And pragmatism doesn't solve this either - because, yes, if we choose a given norm like "efficiency" we can suddenly hierarchically rank things, but nothing objectively tells you that you ought to rank things based on efficiency. And this goes to the human flourishing aspect as well - we can define and pick a norm or multiple norms to track and to measure human flourishing and then to rank political action and other things based on that, but nothing tells you that you should or you ought to rank things based on that variable/aspect - you just chose it, because you care about it.

If the claim is that their version of metaphysics would be necessarily internally incoherent, there are ways to prove that in principle, I just doubt that it will be ever established by anyone. Some presups claim kind of similar that the Christian God is logically necessary and therefore all other views necessary entail a contradiction in them - but of course, none of them could defend such a claim. I take when you say "there can only be one correct metaphysics" to mean there is no other view that can account for all the facts. I dont think thats true. Like I can grant that the Absolute is true, but even in that context , you can tackle and change certain properties of the Absolute presumably , because not all parts are logically necessary - this is similar to the idea "okay the Christian God created the world, but him creating the world is compatible with a God who has a slight preference for Eve to not eat the apple and also compatible with a God who is indifferent whether Eve eats the apple or not. Like just going with any God model where God has these two properties (all knowing, and all powerful) - you can suddenly explain all the facts of the world and there is no contradiction in such a God creating a world like this - but such a God could have a variety of other properties and preferences and desires - so you can have a million different versions of a such a God (each slightly different from the other, but all sharing the all powerful and all knowing property). Asking the question of "which one is logically necessary from the 1 million?" would be a bad question because none of them would entail a contradiction even though each is slightly different from the other. I think thats one way of knowing and it has its own limitations, just as other ways of knowing.

Because it can be useful for certain things, just as how fiction is useful or good or entertaining even if its not true or doesnt exist. But notice that we suddenly let go of epistemology and we switched to pragmatics.

I don't know what that supposed to point out. Whats the argument for that? Do you think that the rules suddenly don't hold up if you change empirical facts about the world? (because again there are obviously rules that have nothing to do with reality)

Its fine

It doesn't, all of the logic terms like 'implication' , 'validity', 'soundness' are all technical definitions with a very specific narrow meaning. No empirical observation is needed for validity to hold up in the technical sense it is defined. One main point is about figuring out what can undermine or establish a given rule (for example how do you check whether the rules of inference is true and what it even means for it to be true)? The other main point is the claim that there are rules that no empirical fact can undermine (they might be true by definition or they might be true because of its axioms or for other reasons) There are a bunch of rules and phrases and inferences where there is no empirical referent (it doesn't make any claim about the world) - in those cases how do you check whether they are true or not? Look up the problem of induction and look up propositional logic and more specifically what soundness and validity is.

Thank you for that valuable input Vynce, you might be able to earn more of his approval now. One of your life goals is achieved , I guess? Essential advice: The next part is you saying how right he is and how profound everything he says and you will be able to progress further.

Thats not the point, the point is that the rules can be applied without any need for being conscious. You can have an unconscious thing applying rules of inference and showing some of the implications (doesnt say anything about whats necessary to gather the rules, it only makes a claim about whats necessary to apply the rules) - thats the point. But this is all besides the main point because 1) this doesn't engage with the original topic at hand 2) You can believe that there is no distinction like Leo without taking any position on this particular thing (about what is needed to check entailments). Here is one thing Leo completely fails to track - if he uses the term empirical in a way 'anything that you do when you are conscious, including thinking', and if people who take the aprori position use empirical like 'observing the world, doing experiments in the world, getting sense data from the world', then you can see that the same term is used in 2 completely different ways, and there might not be even any substantial disagreement between the two position - because an apriori person could believe that thinking requires consciousness and say that thinking is non empirical given his definition , and Leo can say that thinking requires consciousness but given his unique definition of 'empirical', thinking would be categorized as an empirical thing. Substantially the two positions would be exactly the same, the label that would be put on the position would be the only different thing. And this is again not even interesting this is just semantics garbage that needs to be done, because otherwise equivocation is what happens.

Thats fine, I can say the same thing - you failed to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of logic and how the terms and semantics are used. You lack so much on this, that you dont have the basic language to point to particular things about a given logic or an operation, and your mind cant make particular distinctions and categorizations, because you lack all of those concepts in this field. We did this play with Gödel's incompleteness theorem as well ,where you inferred a bunch of things about metaphysics that don't really apply or we don't have any good reason to think they have any connection to metaphysics the way you outlined it under scrutiny , and once you were challenged on it (it became clear that own source disagreed with you). So yes, I have good reason to think that your confidence doesn't match with the level of research you do on any of the topics surrounding math and logic. And to be clear to others, there are people who deny the apriori-aposteriori and synthetic - analytic distinctions, who also have a very good understanding of logic, and not just classical logic ,but other logics as well. They know what an implication is, what an entailment is, what a truth-table is, what the limitations of a given logic is, how proofs work , what the problem of induction is, what the rules of inference is and how to check whether they hold up or not, they know about different types of reasonings and the limitation of each and so on. There are ways to go to challenge apriori-aposteriori distinction without ever needing to equivocate.

You are changing topics and claims so rapidly you cant stay and defend one point at a time and then assume a whole baggege of views that no one took or asserted. I didnt take any position on intelligence, consciousness,understanding - what we did here is that you have made a bunch of claims about logic and then you allegedly tried to challenge the acedemic position on it, but you literally used idiosyncratic definitions that arent aligned with their view at all, and once you were called out on that you started assterting how deep and profound what you are saying and never addressed the fact that you engaged in equivocation. You dodged all of my questions, you havent clarified any of your positions and you just assumed a bunch of things about my position, you moved on with a dismissive and belittling attitude and now I am the bad guy for not quietly playing into the disimissive and submissive frame that you set up for me. Should we pretend that the belittling ,dismissive , question dodging guy were the good faith guy all along? If you dont want to engage, then dont engage, no one is forcing you to engage - I don't know why the garbage rhetoric needs to be used, where you frame other people to have an out of the conversation. Yeah, because your whole work is completely fragile and utterly allergic to any ounce of rigor and clarity. One little pushback and challenge and you immediatelly need to adapt the teacher-student frame, because its too challenging to actually address the questions and criticisms.

Just to be clear, none of what you said actually managed to challenge anything of that 'dogma'. What do you think you managed to challenge there? All you did is equivocate on the meaning of the terms, you havent responded to a single mainstream position, its like : great, you managed to critique a view that no one holds - very profound and serious work. Thats a great non-sequitur. Who was talking about "understanding", the only claim that was said to check the entailments you can use pure logic. You can claim otherwise, but you can literally run the experiment of giving a computer rules of inference and an argument and it will list you the entailments of said argument (purely applying rules of inference, no consciousness needed there). There might be more ways to collect even more social credit and approval from all forum users , you just need to assert and imply a 100 more times how intelligent you are, how everyone who challenges you are below you and it will be persuasive for everyone.

Yes you do know the "import of logic" via logic, because you just need to apply the rules of inference and you can recognize all the entailments. if P then Q ; P therefore Q. I don't need to know anything about what P is or what Q is, after laying down premise 1) If P then Q and premise 2) P, the conclusion of C) Therefore Q follows because of the rules of inference. I can switch P and Q for anything and this entailment will hold up and I don't need to know any fact about the world. All the entailments are embedded , before you apply the rules of inference, it doesn't matter when you apply it, the facts are there even before your recognize them.

All of what you are saying would be applicable to any other arbitrary set of rules. Its cool that you bring up math , because that goes against what you try to establish - a very large portion of math that is accepted to be true isn't applicable to the real world. Thats not how math work or how discovery in math work. "Umm let me go check the real world, do some experiments and then after that write down my theorems" Again, besides the fact that you havent answered a single question I asked you , and havent responded to a single problem I raised to you - you use an Idiosyncratic definition for 'observation' and especially for 'empirical' and for 'apriori' as well and then pretend that people who take apriori knowledge to be possible are committed to a position that they aren't actually committed to, you just equivocate on the meaning of those terms and use them in a completely different way than how they use them. I will ask more questions knowing that you will probably dodge all of these as well. Do you think that people who say apriori knowledge, they mean knowledge that one is borned with or truth that can be recognized without being conscious? Because the hint is that they dont, thats a complete mischaracterization of their view. None of them use the phrase 'apriori' that way. The idea is that no amount of observing the real world and no amount of experimentation and no amount of sensory input will establish or undermine any apriori truths. And so far you haven't been able to show otherwise. Your usage of empirical is Idiosyncratic as well. "Are you conscious when you recognize/realize/think , okay then thats empirical" - congratulation, you made 'empirical' an all encompassing term, but no other people use the term this way and when you try to respond to them that they are wrong, again you equivocate on the meaning of the term and you are responding to ghosts. If you want to respond to them, you need to use the terms in the way they use it. When you say A=A. What do you think 'A' refers to in the real world? What kind of embedded empirical claim is in 'A=A' ? What does 'checked by survival' even mean when there is no referent of the real world in a given phrase or rule. Again, what you are saying doesn't make any sense.

What you are saying doesnt make sense. What you are saying doesn't apply to inductive reasoning let alone to deductive rules of inference. There is a reason why there is still such a thing as a problem of induction, because you never empirically prove/investigate the rule itself, what you do is this: you take all the instances that are compatible with a given rule and then assume that the rule will apply in the future, but you have 0 way of establishing empirically that the rule true or that it exist ("Okay I have observed this x thing 5 times, therefore it will apply in the exact same way given this set of conditions"). But even when it comes to those rules, those rules are already specified (and some has embedded empirical statements in them) and even there you cannot establish what you want, but if I make the rules even more abstract (like modus ponens) that are completely devoid of empirical statements- you have 0 way to check that empirically.

You havent answered any of my questions, you conveniently sidestepped all of them. How do you empirically check/test for any rules of inference? What do you think, what kind of embedded empirical claim is in the following statement - 'If P then Q; P; Therefore Q' There is literally 0 empirical claim there, it makes no claim about the world, but go ahead show us the embedded empirical claim.

I would just say that there are certain epistemic norms (that we use in the hypothetical to investigate the number of oranges) that are compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysics (physicalism, idealism) Therefore we can solve the disagreement about the oranges by appealing to an epistemic norm that we are both okay with, without needing to first resolve our disagreement about metaphyiscs (we don't need to have the same foundation in that sense). That was my point. You seem to be saying more than that, but I don't really track that.

Right, because we are going with that level 0 epistemology meme, where we pretend that the things we arent conscious of those things arent true / they dont exist. First thats a claim that you will probably never defend, but regardless, it would be a level 0 mistake to confuse the things that are needed to for an inquiry vs what is the truthmaker (what makes a given proposition true or false). "When I think/inquire about sleeping I am conscious, therefore in order to sleep, I need to be conscious " I have no clue how thats relevant to anything that was said. But an ant cant conceptualize what gravity is, and yet it still affected by it. Never made any claims about what my position on any of that , but good try assuming though. You still havent answered my question you just asserted some vague notion of 'empirically become conscious of that' - tell us with clarity , what kind of empirical research can be done to test or to arrive at any rule of inference? First some of your questions doesn't even make sense, because the very idea that you would ask 'how do you know', assumes that it makes sense categorically to ask that question, but in this case it doesn't. Both P and Q are just abstract containers for any content that you want to use. So the idea of asking "how do you know what a P or Q is" doesn't make much sense. A 'what is' question applied to 'If' and 'therefore' seem to be incoherent as well, or I have 0 clue what is being asked there.

Aside from the fact that you can give literally any arbitrary set of rules to the computer - I shouldnt have brought up the computer example, because you managed to grab on the irrelevant part (being conscious). Please tell us , what kind of empirical investigation needs to done to arrive at or to check the rules of inference. "Let me empirically investigate the following rule of inference 'if P then Q ; P ; therefore Q' " What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

The blog post on logic is just wrong. You can literally give all the axioms and rules of a given logic to a computer and it can apply those rules and give you the results without that computer ever needing to investigate anything in the world or without it needing to know any laws of nature or without that computer having to have any conscious experience at all. You don't need to do any experiment and you don't need to observe anything in the world in order for those rules to hold up. You can change all the laws of nature and it will still hold up, it isn't depended on it at all - this is why possible world semantics appeal to laws of logic - because its compatible with an infinite number of different worlds where each world have different laws of nature. Do you think when you run a consistency check on someone's view , you actually do an empirical investigation? Tell us, what kind of empirical investigation could establish the rules of inference to be false? Modus Tollens (MT) - If P implies Q, and Q is false, then P is false. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) - If P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)- If P or Q is true, and P is false, then Q is true. Addition (Add) - If P is true, then P or Q is true.

That sounds like an absolute ground would just mean a necessary precondition for all knowledge. But regardless, its seems very straightforward to me, that 2 people don't need to have the exact same metaphyiscs in order to solve disagreements about relative stuff. You can have an idealist and a physicalist solving their disagreements about how many oranges are on the table, without first needing to solve their metaphysical differences. If being can be used as the most fundamental justification, then how do you argue against someone who propose a different metaphysics than you , redefine that metaphysics as 'ultimately true' and use the same move as what you did by collapsing the distinction between epistemology and ontology and claim that his metaphysics is a necessary precondition for all knowledge? ---------------------- Here is person A's proposed metaphysics : Hi person A, why do you think you are justified in thinking that your metaphysics is true? 'Well, because its a necessary precondition for all knowledge ' And what do you take that necessary precondition to be ? 'Well, my metaphysics'. Why couldn't anyone make the exact same move with their version of metaphysics? That only make sense if you collapse the difference between epistemology and ontology. Otherwise the notion of an epistemic ground existing seems like an incoherent thing to say. What would it even mean for an epistemic method/tool to exist?

What does 'absolute ground' mean in an epistemic and non-ontological context? Is that claim something about whats a necessary precondition for any knowledge to be possible? Depending on what you mean by that 'absolute ground' in an epistemic context, I will probably have issues with that.

Yes, you want a goal and then a norm or a set of norms attached to it (that can help you with measuring your progression or digression) and then with respect to your selected norm certain actions and perspectives will score lower than others. I am not sure though that relativists are commited to the idea that given a goal oriented norm all ideas/actions/perspectives will score the exact same. I thought they rejected the idea that there is some kind of metaphysically true norm that we should abide by independent of our goals.

Would be interesting to check who is completely unfamiliar with the model but still think and live according to tier 2 patterns (whatever that is) This would rule out mimicking with a good chance. Cause yeah, especially in this environment, where that behavior is highly rewarded by most users - it makes sense to mimick it if you want to earn social credit from certain people.

No i havent . I was going with what you provided. You were crticizing the system partly because you claimed that they provide trash results and then you claimed that your approach generated good result - By appealing to results you basically appeal to empirical evidence (information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation). So there can be a talk about what constitutes better evidence. And there can a be a seperate talk about how you can gain knowledge/evidence without experimentation , but in both cases eventually you will have to appeal to results (empirical evidence) Sure it would be convenient for you to claim that the main reason those things are not included is because of profit - they might be or they might not hit their epistemic standard or we can conjure up other reasons. But again this goes back to my example of determining mind state by counting insects - doing more shit or taking into account more shit doesn't necessarily mean that your approach is automatically better. As long as you have no clear way to weigh the things on your list , your talk will be empty, doctors have many ways to weigh things for instance evidence hierarchy. The way you show their closed mindedness is by taking their own epistemic framework and showing that some of the methods that they reject , given their standards shouldnt be rejected and they should be taken seriously. Thats how you change paradigms - you appeal to some meta norms and then given those norms you demonstrate that your stuff scores very well or you establish why the currently existing and used meta norms are trash and you intoduce new ones (but all of the things you listed seem to be compatible with the current ones and they can all be scored using the evidence hierarchy) but its very unlikely that you can pull that off, given that you dont have anything even remotely flashed out. Running your n=1 is not gonna be persuasive and if you want to argue that it should be then again we can apply that same standard to anything else where people coming up with a random causal explanation should be immediately taken seriously. First step for you would be to drop the arrogance bullshit and acknowledge that there is room for error. The very fact that you dont even consider the possibility that you could be wrong shows that you are not serious about any of this, you are just bitter because doctors couldnt solve your issue and now you are running a campaign against them. Some of your valid criticisms become invisible , because you pretend to know more than what you actually know and you make a bunch of claims about doctors that you cant substantiate when pushed on it , the only thing you can do is to appeal to your personal experience which is not nothing but its extremely limited and your biases will distort a lot.

Nope, what I am asking for is beyond science, you cant solve this level of disagreement with just an experiment - we are talking about philosophy of science (that I assumed people here gave a fuck about, especially people who wants to criticize the scientific community). What we are talking more specifically is justification and establishing different epistemic norms to judge things by. Without establishing what kind of norms are reasonable to judge things by in this context, we end up in this fucking mess where its unclear what kind of metanorms your are using to establish that your approach is better than for instance the scientific community's approach. Without clarifying this, my random norm of 'if I count 100 insects on the street that will mean yes' will have no less weight than you asking your girlfriend whether she wants to be your wife , and she says yes. What kind of metanorms can you appeal to, to showcase that you asking your girlfriend makes much more sense to gain information about her mental state than me counting insects on the street? Or should I combine the two norms to be more holistic and give some weight to the insect one? WIthout you answering that question, we can apply the same thing to hypothesis - what does it mean to have a better hypothesis? What kind of variables do you check to differentiate between multiple hypothesis? Without having a clear idea about that , you will appeal to vague words and random norms and you saying buzzwords like holistic and it will sound profound to some people here ,but it very quickly falls apart, because you havent thought about it deeply enough. And this is just one issue, the other issue is your unsubstantiated claims when you paint with a broad brush the whole scientific community based on your personal experience. Btw do you know whats one answer to the parsing question? You can narrow down the set by appealing to studies and evidence within those studies to strengthen parts of your hypothesis, but that would be an issue for you, because earlier you had a long session about doctors being memorizing and appeal to authority monkeys. You can also appeal to scientific knowledge without needing to reinvent the wheel from scratch - but again that will go against your requirement where doctors need to question everything and independently need to verify everything. Another way to narrow down the set is by repeating the same approach over and over again under different circumstances and with different time delays with different people and trying it on a lot of people (you know conducting studies that you dismissed, because thats biased) Me asking you and giving you the opportunity to map out your epistemology where you can showcase your norms and show us why your approach is actually better and explain to us unconscious normies what we are missing is unfair (after you making yourself an authority on this topic by claiming to be the best on earth) and I am asking for too much, but you demanding doctors to play 20 different roles, and to be experts in 20 different fields and to know philosophy of science and to run experiments and to also do research and to also treat patients is realistic and a fair standard.