Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Eskilon]

17 minutes ago, zurew said:

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.

It is not a meme, and no one here is pretending, unless you are of course.

 

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

First thats a claim that you will never defend

I literally just defended.

 

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

I have no clue how thats relevant to anything that was said.

It is relevant because you just said the following:" 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".

The reason anything "hold up" it's because you are conscious of it.

23 minutes ago, zurew said:

Never made any claims about what my position on any of that , but good try assuming though.

lol.

 

23 minutes ago, zurew said:

assumes that it makes sense categorically to ask that question, but in this case it doesn't.

Never said anything about categories, I just dissected your statement from a certain point of view. I just asked some questions, or that isn't categorically correct with a empirical investigation?

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

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.

Then the question is, what is an abstract container？It doen't make sense asking that question? How so?

 

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

A 'what is' question applied to 'If' and 'therefore' seem to be incoherent as well

Tell me how it is incoherent to trying to understand what you wrote as "Rule of inference".

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

No, that is wrong.

There are infinite different kinds of axiomatic logical systems with various rules. How do you know which ones apply to our world and which ones don't? Only empirically.

You cannot even know that logic has any import without empirical investigation.

Just because a computer can follow rules doesn't mean a damn thing existentially. Intelligence is always required to know which rules are worth anything or have meaning.

Why do humans even attach importance to logic? It's clearly not just because of rules. It's because someone with intelligence understood that logic is fundamental to reality. And, btw, logic cannot just be written down in a finite system of rules because logic is infinite. Logic works because an intelligent, conscious being is using it properly. Intelligence is required to understand which logic is properly applied and when it is not.

Don't forget that even when your AI is being properly logical, that's only because it was trained by intelligent humans, on intelligent content created by intelligent humans, and optimized with intelligent feedback from intelligent humans. So yeah, after you train it like that, it can act logical. The collective logic of all of mankind is baked into AI. And still, AI will make logical mistakes that it doesn't know how to fix, requiring a human intelligence to fix them.

Edited Wednesday at 06:42 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, that is wrong.

There are infinite different kinds of axiomatic logical systems with various rules. How do you know which ones apply to our world and which ones don't? Only empirically.

You cannot even know that logic has any import without empirical investigation.

Just because a computer can follow rules doesn't mean a damn thing existentially. Intelligence is always required to know which rules are worth anything or have meaning.

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.

[Leo Gura]

@zurew Everything is an empirical claim.

A = A is an empirical claim.

You are born totally ignorant. The only way you can know anything is via Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be known without experience. The notion of a priori knowledge is academic nonsense.

And you side-stepped my point that you do not know the import of logic via logic alone. Import is what matters, not following rules. The issue is not whether some logical rule is valid. The issue is why logical rules matter at all and how they a relate to reality.

There is no escaping Intelligence. Intelligence is fundamental to all sense-making. You can never get rid of Intelligence.

Edited Wednesday at 06:51 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew Everything is an empirical claim.

A = A is an empirical claim.

You are born totally ignorant. The only way you can know anything is via Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be known without experience. The notion of a priori knowledge is academic nonsense.

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.

[Thought Art]

@zurew okay, but without being conscious or Intelligent how you gonna do inductive or deduction reasoning?

Edited Thursday at 11:26 AM by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

Quote

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.

False.

In the end all your rules are checked by survival. If it kills you, then your rules fail.

Most of what humans regard as true or valid is simply whatever allows them to survive. Consider why AI is logical. Because if it wasn't humans would just kill it because it wouldn't be useful to them. And why are humans logical? Because the illogical ones killed themselves long ago.

Also, the notion of empirical applies to the operation of your mind. When you do logic inside your mind that is empirical! When you add 1+1=2 in your mind you are empirically investigating the structure of Mind. Which is why mathematical discoveries are possible. You have new insight into the way Mind works. All of your logical rules had to be discovered as insights through observation of the Mind. A =A is an insight. There is no understanding of anything without insight.

Edited Wednesday at 07:47 PM by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

Quote

What you are saying doesnt make sense.

========================================

Edited Thursday at 03:18 AM by Yimpa

[The Crocodile]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew Everything is an empirical claim.

A = A is an empirical claim.

You are born totally ignorant. The only way you can know anything is via Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be known without experience. The notion of a priori knowledge is academic nonsense.

And you side-stepped my point that you do not know the import of logic via logic alone. Import is what matters, not following rules. The issue is not whether some logical rule is valid. The issue is why logical rules matter at all and how they a relate to reality.

There is no escaping Intelligence. Intelligence is fundamental to all sense-making. You can never get rid of Intelligence.

This seems to be the case.

That abstraction is necessary for reality.

But you don't have a rock-solid case that's beyond all doubts,

so it just seems like a grotesque arbitrary constructed abstraction which is disconnected from experience, whereas the experience is something else, and good epistemology would be agnostic, about how what's happening is happening since there are infinite potential explanations.

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Also, the notion of empirical applies to the operation of your mind. When you do logic inside your mind that is empirical! When you add 1+1=2 in your mind you are empirically investigating the structure of Mind. Which is why mathematical discoveries are possible. You have new insight into the way Mind works. All of your logical rules had to be discovered as insights through observation of the Mind. A =A is an insight. There is no understanding of anything without insight.

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' ?

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

False.

In the end all your rules are checked by survival. If it kills you, then your rules fail.

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.

Edited Thursday at 05:47 AM by zurew

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And you side-stepped my point that you do not know the import of logic via logic alone.

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.

Edited Thursday at 05:42 AM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

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" 

The part you're missing is that math IS the real world. Math is Mind.

There is not boundary between Mind and world.

Quote

Again, besides the fact that yoru 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.

I know your point.

There is nothing interesting there. It is bog standard academic philosophy.

The distinctions between a prior and a posteriori knowledge and analytic vs synthetic knowledge is human crap.

I am talking about more serious and profound things while you talk of standard logical dogma. I have no interest in discussing that.

Edited Thursday at 05:48 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

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

No! Understanding requires Consciousness. You are missing such basic understanding that I don't have the space or time here to fix it.

I would need to write a whole book to point out all the problems of your view.

Edited Thursday at 05:51 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is nothing interesting there. It is bog standard academic philosophy.

The distinctions between a prior and a posteriori knowledge and analytic vs synthetic knowledge is human crap.

I am talking about more serious and profound things while you talk of standard logical dogma.

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.

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No! Understanding requires Consciousness. 

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).

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are missing such basic understanding that I don't have the space or time here to fix it.

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.

Edited Thursday at 06:23 AM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

@zurew You talk about things that require such epistemic depth to understand, yet you talk of it like some set of blind rules one can follow.

That is why I am so dismissive.

I am not going to spell out a decade of epistemic gems to you with such an attitude.

Go ahead and follow your rules into human delusion. Nothing I speak of can be understood without insane application of intelligence. You should know this by now. It is insulting for me to have to explain that to you.

That's exactly what academics are. A bunch of monkeys following rules. Join them if you wish.

Edited Thursday at 06:50 AM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

@Leo Gura

I wanna cut through the absolute God stuff right now.

What do you think our relative reality earth / the physical universe is?

 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Go ahead and follow your rules into human delusion. Nothing I speak of can be understood without insane application of intelligence. You should know this by now. It is insulting for me to have to explain that to you.

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.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not going to spell out a decade of epistemic gems to you with such an attitude.

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.

Edited Thursday at 08:25 AM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

@zurew I'm not going to deconstruct all of academic logic for you in a forum post.

You failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the issues in this field. So I'm not going to invest time explaining it.

Nothing personal against you. I just have little patience for such things.

Edited Thursday at 07:38 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew I'm not going to deconstruct all of academic logic for you in a forum post.

You failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the issues in this field. So I'm not going to invest time explaining it.

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.

Edited Thursday at 11:05 AM by zurew

[Thought Art]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

 

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).

If you weren’t conscious how would you give a computer anything?