Deconstructing Rationality Coming Soon

[Reciprocality]

I'll also ask a more open ended question, have you considered whether substitutional quantification can allow us to rescue logic from paradox and thus without the embarrassing appeal to ontological or pragmatic constraints on what counts as subjects in propositions?

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I'll also ask a more open ended question, have you considered whether substitutional quantification

I'm already off.

[Carl-Richard]

23 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I'll also ask a more open ended question, have you considered whether substitutional quantification can allow us to rescue logic from paradox and thus without the embarrassing appeal to ontological or pragmatic constraints

___________________________________________

on what counts as subjects in propositions?

Your sentence is literally illogical.

Edited yesterday at 08:50 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jodistrict]

36 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your sentence is literally illogical.

I asked ChatGPT

"Great question — and yes, the idea of using substitutional quantification to avoid ontological commitments and sidestep paradoxes has been considered extensively. But the situation is subtle. Let’s walk through it carefully and clearly."

I won't bore you with the details.  

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Jodistrict said:

I asked ChatGPT

"Great question — and yes, the idea of using substitutional quantification to avoid ontological commitments and sidestep paradoxes has been considered extensively. But the situation is subtle. Let’s walk through it carefully and clearly."

I won't bore you with the details.  

Even ChatGPT cut off the last part of the sentence. That tells you something.

Edited yesterday at 09:28 PM by Carl-Richard

[Reciprocality]

47 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your sentence is literally illogical.

@Carl-Richard It is easy to solve paradoxes by proposing constraints on what counts as a subject in a statement, such as through simplicity (rationalistic ontology) or simply uniqueness of morphological (non-semantic) composites.

From here the liars paradox would be refuted by not meeting the criterion of subjects in statements, since the subject already involves a higher order property (semantics).

But this does not satisfy those who seek an ontologically invariant logic that applies synthetically beyond the experiential ground from where that logic draws its concepts, and this is where substitutional quantification comes in--where "other-reference" is baked in to the relation between the quantification over subjects and the dispersion of subjects satisfying quantification at all, hence substitution.

Edited yesterday at 09:35 PM by Reciprocality

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Carl-Richard It is easy to solve paradoxes by proposing constraints on what counts as a subject in a statement, such as through simplicity (rationalistic ontology) or simply uniqueness of morphological (non-semantic) composites.

From here the liars paradox would be refuted by not meeting the criterion of subjects in statements, since the subject already involves a higher order property (semantics).

But this does not satisfy those who seek an ontologically invariant logic that applies synthetically beyond the experiential ground from where that logic draws its concepts, and this is where substitutional quantification comes in--where "other-reference" is baked in to the relation between the quantification over subjects and the dispersion of subjects satisfying quantification at all, hence substitution.

Read Steven Pinker's tweets on how to write so people can understand you.

Edited yesterday at 09:53 PM by Carl-Richard

[Reciprocality]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Read Steven Pinker's tweets on how to write so people can understand you.

It is not so much writing itself that is at issue there, it is more so the conception of a generalised other person, which funnily is the actual crux in our metaphysical speculations, more specifically: how to be freed from that concept and the immensity of the narratives connected to it

[UnbornTao]

From ChatGPT:

Quote

1. “I have inadvertently released a gaseous effusion from my posterior.”
2. “A subtle auditory manifestation has emerged from my nether regions.”
3. “I seem to have expelled a minor atmospheric disturbance from my derrière.”
4. “An olfactory proclamation has just issued forth from my posterior cavity.”
5. “I have contributed to the local air pressure with a personal flatulent emission.”

In common parlance, one might say: "I farted."

Edited yesterday at 10:12 PM by UnbornTao

[Phil King]

38 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

this does not satisfy those who seek an ontologically invariant logic that applies synthetically beyond the experiential ground from where that logic draws its concepts, and this is where substitutional quantification comes in--where "other-reference" is baked in to the relation between the quantification over subjects and the dispersion of subjects satisfying quantification at al

 

[Jodistrict]

20 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Read Steven Pinker's tweets on how to write so people can understand you.

I hope he includes a section on honesty.

"In 2006 Pinker provided to Alan Dershowitz, a personal friend of Pinker's who was Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney, Pinker's own interpretation of the wording of a federal law pertaining to the enticement of minors into illegal sex acts via the internet. Dershowitz included Pinker's opinion in a letter to the court during proceedings that resulted in a plea deal in which all federal sex trafficking charges against Epstein were dropped"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker#:~:text=Pinker argued that language depends,to manipulate symbols for grammar.

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@Leo Gura  Will the video involve paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic, fussy logic, mereology, process philosophy, coherence theory of truth and underdetermination as a basis for a holistic or relativistic alternatives to what you see as rigid rationality

Most of that goes way above Leo's head. Your idea  about where people are at when it comes to logic and academic philosophy is way off (imo).

Most people here understand and use the term "logic" as "reasonableness" and  as "rational" and they dont use it in a technical way like you do.

 

My assumption is that the video will be something about exploring the difference between logically possible (where 'logic' is used in a technical way) and what seems reasonable to people (which is obviously a much narrower set that contains much less things and doesnt even remotely exhaust the possibility space). And it  will be probably also about how one's sense of 'reasonable' and 'reasonableness' is informed and limited by culture and other people and other things like technology , survival and foundational beliefs.

 

Like you shouldnt   invoke paraconsistent logic and the problem of the liar's paradox, because most people dont think that contradictions can be meaningful and they dont need to deal with problems like that. But sure, if your goal is to make people realize that affirming certain contradicitons can be reasonable, then invoking paraconsistent logic could make sense.

Edited 23 hours ago by zurew

[LordFall]

Looking forward to it. As an intellectual i'm interested in exploring the limits of logic. Do you separate logic and rationality? 

[integral]

So we're gonna learn rationality is God for 3 hours, love it

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

@Reciprocality @Carl-Richard

Appreciating this exchange. It feels like the heart of it is a tension between wanting a clean, consistent system (a perfect map) and acknowledging that the territory of reality might be inherently messy. The pragmatic constraint Reciprocality outlined works, but his search for a purer solution via substitutional quantification is fascinating, even if the language could benefit from being easier to decipher.

But what if the paradox itself is the point? Not a bug to be fixed, but a feature that points to the limits of our models and the deeper, contradictory nature of things? Just a thought from a sleepless night.

[Leo Gura]

Take it easy. Don't make this personal.

[museumoftrees]

Can't wait

 

[LoneWonderer]

looking foward 

[zurew]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

In common parlance, one might say: "I farted."

Said the zen master, to wake you up.

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Said the zen master, to wake you up.

As long as it works...