/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4558348]

What does /lit/ currently think of free-will? I haven't seem a good ol' fashioned concept-focused philosophy thread in a whole and I think we should change that.

My current stance on free-will looks something like this:
1. If I perceive something reasonable to be real beyond any doubt, it is real.
2. I perceive that my actions are free in the sense that they are uncaused beyond any doubt.
3. Therefore, I have free-will based upon my free actions because of 1&2.

What think?

[Anonymous No.4558368]

This is why philosophy is stupid. All it's concerned about is something being logically consistent, without worrying about being based in empirical reality.

OP's post has a logical consistency, but from a scientific standpoint, it's obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.4558380]

>>4558368
logical consistency doesnt matter here.
He is simply stupid to not see that there are thousands of factors that infulence him.

[Anonymous No.4558389]

>armchair philosophy
>2014

[Anonymous No.4558390]

Discussions about free-will have no point, because each side has own definition of free will.

But the only good answer is no, we dont have realy free will as we know the answers to questions before we decorate them in words.

Fact that knowing somebody well permits you to foresee in 99% his reactions to anything is a crucial argument against free will.

[Anonymous No.4558395]

>philosophy thread
Fuck you, OP, that shit is not philosophy.

>>4558368
Serves you too. That's not philosophy you are criticizing, it is OP's imbecile idea of philosophy and you are retarded as well.

[Anonymous No.4558403]

>>4558389
I can't handle most people talking about philosophy in general face to face even as most of those that do are college freshman. I mostly talk about movies/music with friends/family of that age because I don't want the conversation to switch to "what is the meaning of life" type bullshit.

There was a girl that I was hanging out with, she was holding like a book or something and says "this book is kind of like life, you know? you look at it from one side and it's one thing, but you change perspective a little and it's a new thing" and a whole conversation got started off of that

Dropped that shit harder than I would a bowl of hot potatoes.

[Anonymous No.4558407]

My ontology is constrained, but my will is absolutely. The problem is removed upon distinguishing the context of one's being from one's will.

For example, if I am to choose between A and B, where A is necessarily A and likewise for B, then my choice is contingent, but free because my choice is itself not of necessity. For the purpose of this argument the subject ("I") is to be treated as absolutely simple and seperate from the complex of emotions, thoughts and past experience. So, the subject is only defined by apperception and it's tendency to change perspectives and so the will is clearly free, whereas the things that my will confronts are either contingent or necessary. So, I see no problem with the free will concept unless it is poorly defined.

[Anonymous No.4558410]

read Social Learning Theory
pure determinism is empirically unsound and only considers one portion of epistemology

[Anonymous No.4558412]

>>4558395

It is most certainly philosophy that I'm criticizing.

Just look at all of the famous philosophers that pretentious philosophy majors such as yourself so enjoy quoting. Aristotle, Kant, etc. All of them just fucking said shit because it made sense in their own little logical framework, without worrying about whether or not it made sense in the big picture of reality. I mean, for God'd sake, look at what Aristotle said about anatomy or biology in general. Nonsense. Complete and total nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4558431]

>>4558412

The quality of your critique of Aristotle is ironically non-sensical.

[Anonymous No.4558432]

>>4558412
are we talking about philosophy or biology?

[Anonymous No.4558446]

It's questionable at best.

Consider the fundamental laws of the universe, such as chemical laws, electrical laws, etc. Man is not separate from these, and our thoughts and actions are dependent on the neurochemistry of our brains. For us to determine our own actions, we would have to have a consciousness independent of our brains (otherwise they would be affected by neurochemistry and not truly 'free' will, but 'adapted' will).

I hold that our consciousness is a natural result of biology and dependent on the physical components of the brain. By extension, free will is not possible.

[Anonymous No.4558462]

>>4558446

And yet matter is infinitely divisible or do you have a sufficient reason for imposing limit?

[Anonymous No.4558478]

>>4558462
components of our body arent infinitely divisible.
From the experience we can see that most humans living in same culture share similar reactions.
So get the fuck out with your infinity bullshit

[Anonymous No.4558479]

>>4558462

Infinitely divisible in theory, yet there is no evidence to support that it is so in reality. If one believes in the Big Bang theory, then there must exist a finite amount of mass, so spacial limits are imposed either way.

Regardless, the state of matter is independent from how it acts. An microscopic particle and a galaxy are both affected by the same laws (gravity, heat, magnetism, etc.), albeit in varying capacities.

[Anonymous No.4558509]

I'd say people are a bit railroaded into certain kinds of actions. You could resist some of them, but others may be impossible to do. Don't think that counts as free will.

[Anonymous No.4558522]

>>4558348

Does it really matter? Will the knowledge that your decisions are predetermined change your thinking? Does it not feel free?

[Anonymous No.4558538]

There is no such thing as free will. I'm made of particles, particles that are moved by laws and forces. Would anyone call a particle "free"? No - unless we talk quantum mechanics, that is. But no one would say quantums to have a "will".
Higher mechanisms like life sure can have will, but it can't have free will, since it is made up by unfree particles.

If there is such a thing as free will, there needs to be something non-physical to grant this - a soul, for example. I don't believe in souls. So I see no reason to believe in free will.

[Anonymous No.4558542]

Where would the force of our will come from? How could we actually choose and not have it be determined? Can someone give me a good argument in support of free will?

[Anonymous No.4558570]

Your actions are not uncaused OP. You are inside a dying fucking animal that has constant needs and desires. Your actions are the most causally caused things in the history of causation.

[Anonymous No.4558590]

>>4558542
>Can someone give me a good argument in support of free will?
Short answer: no.

Long answer: quantum physics. Though that would only constitute us as being free, not as having will. Our freedom and our will are completely unrelated to each other.

[Anonymous No.4558606]

>>4558432
isn't biology part of "natural philosophy"?

[Anonymous No.4558610]

>>4558590

Perhaps not even free. Probabilistic models aren't deterministic, but they still fall within a range of values. Any freedom would still be restricted, which is hardly freedom at all.

[Anonymous No.4558620]

>>4558610
In that case we have a hardly restricted freedom, and a mechanism of the mind called will, but no free will.

You okay with that?

[Anonymous No.4558635]

>>4558620

Yep, sounds good.

[Anonymous No.4558682]

>>4558462
lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

space is discretized. i hope this didn't play too critically into your world-view.

[Anonymous No.4558708]

>>4558412

Well see like Aristotle and Kant and the like pretty used a sort of mental technology for more empirical minds to use.

That there was like these "subjects" we could functionalize, describe, and make predictions off of.

You're basing it off of hindsight of a body of empirical research and knowledge. Someone like Aristotle was literally rising up above the muck of superstitious assertions of his time. Yeah he projected a lot of shit but it was better.

The problem with medieval thinkers was they took such shit on crude authoritarian and crude correlation errors.

[Anonymous No.4558834]

>>4558682
>quantum gravity
>string theory

[Anonymous No.4558845]

>>4558834
>>4558834
Thanks for reminding me that I need to check that kid's twitter again.

[Anonymous No.4558847]

>>4558834

Just passing through, but nice strawman. He's right about the finite divisibility of the universe. The same is true of time.

[Anonymous No.4558851]

>>4558847
>Being this anally demolished by a reaction image

Phenomenal. Also you're obviously a samefag.

[Anonymous No.4558854]

It does not exist, thank you base science.
>inb4 potsmokers from philosophy 101.

[Anonymous No.4558883]

>>4558847
>He's right about the finite divisibility of the universe. The same is true of time.
Prove it.

>>4558851
>obviously a samefag
funnily enough, he isn't

[Anonymous No.4558945]

I believe is exists. Science has not definitively proved it one way or another. I believe humans are special and that a soul exists. I also believe in a God but not in the way most people do.

[Anonymous No.4558946]

>>4558945
That's nice, pumpkin.

[Anonymous No.4558952]

>>4558946
Condescension does not move this argument further.

[Anonymous No.4558963]

>>4558952
But there was no argument, just an expression of personal belief.

[Anonymous No.4558964]

>>4558952
What argument? All xe said was "I believe [...]".

[Anonymous No.4558974]

>>4558348

What you perceive isnt always real, therefore that argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.4559605]

>>4558479

Spatial limits are not imposed, as space is infinitely divisible. Now, infinity is not continuous sequence, but the principle of continuous sequence. For if infinity did not exist, a sequence of numbers would terminate on some point on either side and so only the number 1 would be possible. So, infinity is a necessary principle.

If the space between objects be infinitely divided, then finite objects would be incapable of movement, so we will divide the objects as well. We cannot bring in empirical theories because an empirical theory supposes the interaction between physical, complex objects and their consequences and applies them retro-actively to what is unobservable. So, we ought not to say that space is dependent on physical mass, for that enforces the type of interaction we see in complex readily-observable bodies onto what cannot be seen. If then we divide infinitely we do not continuously 'scale', but instead reach an infinite principle. This principle is infinitely small, absolutely simple, immaterial, incapable of interaction, possesses no complexity or extension and exists as an infinite plenum which exists prior to time and space.

Each simple unit is only defined by its actions which are completely internal because it is incapable of interaction, but consistent with the action of every other simple unit that exists in order that there be something rather than nothing. Each infinitely simple unit acts at once and so all units in an infinite plenum find their principle in a single Unit which is indistinguishable from Nothing since it is completely itself, both without complexity OR multiplicity.

So, the infinite simple units can be described by their internal actions only, much like you, for your senses only present you an array of 'now this' and 'then that' and your thoughts and emotions are the same 'this' and 'that'. Between this and that is an absolutely simple substance only defined by the fact that it changes perspectives between 'this' and 'that' relative to everything that exists, but not 'directly' niter acting with it. Whereas your hand, in it's complexity, considered as a whole, interacts with your keyboard as complex, physical entities, these entities resolve into infinitely simple units all acting without interacting. You are not controlling your own hand, but it moves relative to your internal perspective because your perspective consists in a hand moving by your will. So, you're not responsible for your hand's moving, but the world accommodates your will because you are a thing with hands in relation to the world. In relation to yourself alone, you are infinitely small, indistinguishable from nothing. So, the world requires that you participate in it freely and you will do so or be destroyed and this perfected.

[Anonymous No.4559638]

>>4559605

um, wat?

[Anonymous No.4559654]

I am staunchly determinist.

Not linearly determinist, but determinist.

[Anonymous No.4559663]

>>4558854
Potsmoking philosopher here

Even I couldn't a whole free will

[Anonymous No.4559676]

>>4559605
You're supposed to take the medicine your doctor gave you.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559692]

HOW EXACTLY DO YOU 'PERCEIVE' THAT YOUR ACTIONS ARE 'FREE'?

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559711]

>>4559605
WHY DO YOU HOLD THE ASSUMPTION THAT 'SPACE IS INFINITELY DIVISIBLE'?

[Anonymous No.4559804]

>>4559711

The only reason to assume otherwise is that interaction is necessary, but interaction is an action between one thing and another and not a sufficient reason to say that a single thing cannot be infinitely divided. It only so happens that the complex things we divide and may observe are still complex and thus interacting. As we can see, infinity is a necessary principle in order for their to be any sequence and without infinity one would never be two and yet a thing is divided from one to two. So, there is no logical reason to assume a limitation on the division of some body for assuming interaction to be necessary is arbitrary. The observation of seeing one thing and another is more primary than seeing that they interact, for if you could not distinguish a thing from another then interaction could not be.

So, one would assume the limitation of interaction only on the grounds that one wishes to craft a TOE which is mechanical.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4559821]

FREE WILL IS LIMITED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE EFFECTED BY FREE WILL.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559822]

>>4559804
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU IDIOT
HAVE YOU EVER DIVISED "SPACE" INFINITELY?
YOU CANT
ITS NONSENSICAL

[Anonymous No.4559841]

>>4559822
Measure the space between two points, divide and repeat.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559862]

>>4559841
CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THIS HAS CONTINUED TO BE DONE 'INFINITELY' OR IS THIS PURELY CONCEPTUAL (AKA UNREAL) ABSTRACTION YOU ARE SPECULATING ABOUT?

[Anonymous No.4559867]

>>4559862
>what are real numbers

wtf is up with all the cruise controlled tripfags?

[Anonymous No.4559875]

>>4558348
Baseless folk psychology that has no reason to be taken seriously in a world that has moved beyond animism.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559879]

>>4559867
"REAL NUMBERS" HAVE NO ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE, THEY ARE LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTIONS WHICH HAVE NO TRUTH-VALUE

[Anonymous No.4559888]

>>4559879
What are they abstracted from?

[Anonymous No.4559892]

>>4558348
Your notion of reasonableness seems to involve closing your eyes to neuroscience, which isn't reasonable at all.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4559893]

>>4559888
SENSE EXPERIENCE OBVIOUSLY

[Anonymous No.4559918]

>>4559879

>numbers have no truth value

When has math ever failed to describe an observable phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.4559923]

>>4559879
>doesn't recognize the divine truths of Euclid, Plato and Pythagoras
get lost, pleb

[Anonymous No.4559975]

>>4559879
Sugartits, only linguistic abstractions (i.e. sentences) can be true or false. A state of the world, cannot be true or false. This is contemporary philosophy 101

[Anonymous No.4559977]

>>4559879
>ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE
erm... I don't think you know what these words mean.

[Anonymous No.4559979]

>>4559975
This is what the demiurge wants you to believe.

[Anonymous No.4559983]

>>4559979
if there is a demiurge I cannot so speak of it. hence it is useless to entertain the idea at all.

[Anonymous No.4559995]

>>4559983
But the demiurge speaks so much of you...

[Anonymous No.4560005]

>>4559983
>overcoming the physical realm and finding spiritual union with the true godhead
>useless

[Anonymous No.4560008]

>>4560005
>Proving you've had an experience of that form
>Impossible

Not that it matters, if you really subscribe to that philosophy you shouldn't give a fuck about anyone else.

[Anonymous No.4560028]

>>4560005
speaking of it is quite useless. as is thinking about it. as, in a sense, it is principally impossible.

[Anonymous No.4560031]

>>4560008
>implying that there are not symbiotic post-humans with bodies of light unshackled by matter walking the earth this day

[Anonymous No.4560035]

>>4560031
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4560037]

>>4560031
>implying it's not raining out and if they were so wise they wouldn't just stay in today

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560039]

>>4559918
YOUR POST ADMITS THAT THE OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON IS WHERE LIES THE TRUTH-VALUE. MATH IS MERELY LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTIONS.

>>4559975
WRONG. THEY DESCRIBE TRUE OR FALSE PHENOMENA.

>A state of the world, cannot be true or false. This is contemporary philosophy 101
YEAH NAH YOU'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS DIPSHIT

>>4559977
ARE YOU TELEPATHIC OR JUST POISONING THE WELL??

[Anonymous No.4560070]

>>4560039
Is the morningstar true? Is the eveningstar false?

Try opening up a book on the subject before you post.

[Anonymous No.4560075]

>>4560039
>JUST POISONING THE WELL
no u

There is no such thing as ontological existence. Ontology is the study of what is or what exists. There only is ontic existence. Ontology is a speaking of, it does not contain existence, it reveals it.

[Anonymous No.4560088]

>>4560039
>TRUE OR FALSE PHENOMENA
the only true or false phenomena we ever encounter are linguistic, i.e. sentences or descriptions. A state of the world may make a sentence true or false, but this does not mean that this state of the world is what is itself true or false. It isn't a very dificult, nor a very controversial idea.

[Anonymous No.4560098]

>>4560039
9/10
I really want to punch you in the face.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560101]

>>4560070
YES, IT IS TRUE THAT THE MORNING AND EVENING STAR EXIST. MISUSING LANGUAGE TO ABSURDITY ISN'T A REFUTATION OF MY ARGUMENT.

>>4560075
>There is no such thing as ontological existence.
PROVE IT.

>Ontology is the study of what is or what exists.
YES, AND THERE ARE LEVELS OF EXISTENCE.

>>4560088
YES, AND THE SENTENCES AND DESCRIPTIONS REFER TO THE TRUE OR FALSE PHENOMENA. THERE IS NO STATE OF THE WORLD ABOUT MATH, MATH IS ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WORLD. LINGUISTIC STATEMENTS ARE ONLY TRUE OR FALSE IN VIRTUE OF THEIR RELATIONS TO OTHER LANGUAGE WHICH ARE LINGUISTIC PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE WORLD.

IT ISN'T A VERY DIFFICULT, NOR A VERY CONTROVERSIAL IDEA.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560104]

>>4560098
EXCELLENT ARGUMENT

[Anonymous No.4560110]

>>4560101

You confuse existence and non-existence with truth and falsity.

[Anonymous No.4560113]

>>4560101
>There is no such thing as ontological existence.
>PROVE IT.
Can't prove a negative. Burden of proof is on you.

>YES, AND THERE ARE LEVELS OF EXISTENCE
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.4560119]

>>4560101
>YES, AND THE SENTENCES AND DESCRIPTIONS REFER TO THE TRUE OR FALSE PHENOMENA. THERE IS NO STATE OF THE WORLD ABOUT MATH, MATH IS ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WORLD. LINGUISTIC STATEMENTS ARE ONLY TRUE OR FALSE IN VIRTUE OF THEIR RELATIONS TO OTHER LANGUAGE WHICH ARE LINGUISTIC PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE WORLD
so many contradictions here

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560124]

>>4560110
PLEASE EDUCATE ME IN YOUR DISTINCTION

>>4560113
>Can't prove a negative. Burden of proof is on you.
EXACTLY
SO YOU CANNOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IT, YOU WITHDRAW COMMENTS ON THE TRUTH-VALUE LIKE AN AGNOSTIC WOULD WITH GOD.

>Prove it.
ATOMS
WATER

>>4560119
>so many contradictions here
EXCELLENT ARGUMENT

[Anonymous No.4560128]

>>4560124
>EXCELLENT ARGUMENT
You only uttered unfounded porpositions. If there is no argument, I do not need to provide a counter-argument.

[Anonymous No.4560137]

>>4560124
>PLEASE EDUCATE ME IN YOUR DISTINCTION
You exist.

"You are a faggot" is either true or false.

[Anonymous No.4560139]

>>4558348
I feel that I am right
Therefore I am right

AM I PHILOSIFER YET?

[Anonymous No.4560143]

>>4560124
>ATOMS
>WATER
Uttering two words is not enough to argue for the existence of multiple "levels" of existence.

[Anonymous No.4560160]

>>4558368
You're a fucking retard. Of course you can make a logically consistent argument with any premise, because the premise can be anything. Establish that the premise is false and you've not PROVEN the conclusion false, but you've dismantled the ARGUMENT.

As for the OP,
>1. If I perceive something reasonable to be real beyond any doubt, it is real.
Is patently false and could easily be given a counter-argument, meaning his argument is really shitty and probably bait.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560164]

>>4560128
>You only uttered unfounded porpositions.
UNFOUNDED? PLEASE DEFINE

YOU'RE STRAIGHT OUT OF BABBYS FIRST WITTGENSTEIN, EVEN WITH THE USE OF "UTTER" EVERY SENTENCE.

>>4560137
"YOU EXIST" IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE

>>4560143
>Uttering two words is not enough to argue for the existence of multiple "levels" of existence.
I CAN DEFINE LEVELS HOWEVER I LIKE, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT CUTIE.

[Anonymous No.4560168]

>>4560124
>YOU WITHDRAW COMMENTS ON THE TRUTH-VALUE LIKE AN AGNOSTIC WOULD WITH GOD.
No, I hadn't said anyting about truth values yet. If you want to know, I do assert something about them. That is: they are a function of some sentences. There is no non-linguistic phenomenon that we can rightfully call true or false.

A painting is not true or false
A tree is not true or false
A rock is not true or false
Jezus is not true or false
Napoleon is not true or false

Only statements about these things can be true or false.

[Anonymous No.4560173]

>>4560164
>"YOU EXIST" IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE
wrong, existence is a second order predicate.

confirmed uneducated pleb. gtfo.

[Anonymous No.4560176]

>>4560164
>"YOU EXIST"
Well, atleast you recognize it to be a sentence.

[Anonymous No.4560177]

>>4560164
>I CAN DEFINE
please do. 'cause you haven't so far.

[Anonymous No.4560186]

ITT: idiots try to prove their worth by "out-filosofizing" the other idiots on 4chan when no one knows a damn thing they're talking about

[Anonymous No.4560190]

>>4558403
Same, I love studying philosophy but when it comes to RL conversions it makes me cringe.

[Anonymous No.4560197]

>>4560186
>filoso
nederlands?

[Anonymous No.4560198]

>>4560190
Just use the Agrippan technique when you don't want to talk about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4560205]

>>4560198
kill them?

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560215]

>>4560168
>No, I hadn't said anyting about truth values yet.
THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION, NOT AN OBSERVATION, SILLY. AND YES YOU DID, YOU SAID "There is no such thing as ontological existence." -- WHICH AMOUNTS TO "'ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE' DOES NOT EXIST"

>A painting is not true or false
>A tree is not true or false
>A rock is not true or false
>Jezus is not true or false
>Napoleon is not true or false
YES, IT IS TRUE OR FALSE THAT THE PAINTING, TREE, ROCK, JESUS, OR NAPOLEON EXIST. MISUSING LANGUAGE TO ABSURDITY ISN'T A REFUTATION OF MY ARGUMENT.
I'M GLAD YOU AGREE THAT MATH ISN'T TRUE THOUGH, SWEETIE. THANKS FOR AGREEING WITH MY ORIGINAL POINT.

>>4560173
SECOND-ORDER PREDICATES DON'T EXIST. THEY ARE MERELY LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTIONS.

>>4560177
I ALREADY DID. DEFINITIONS ARE IN DESCRIPTIONS. I DESCRIBED WATER AND ATOMS AS TWO LEVELS, SILLY.

[Anonymous No.4560236]

>>4560215
again, you equate existence with truth, without any form of argument other than: JUST BECAUSE I SAY SO.

[Anonymous No.4560241]

>>4560215
definitions are descriptions, but descriptions are not definitions. try again.

Atoms and water are at two different epistemic levels, this has little to do with the question of whether or not they are on two different ontological levels. They are not, there is only one ontological level: the world of ontic existence.

[Anonymous No.4560248]

>>4560215
>MISUSING LANGUAGE TO ABSURDITY ISN'T A REFUTATION OF MY ARGUMENT.
Exactly. I never formulated a sentence of the form "it is true or false that [x]exists." You formulated these sentences, thereby reducing your argument to a strawman.

I will spell it out for you: encountering a phenomena x [painting/rock/person/whatever], is not encountering truth it is encountering an existent thing, of which true and false things may be said.

>I'M GLAD YOU AGREE THAT MATH ISN'T TRUE THOUGH
I don't know what makes you think this.

[Anonymous No.4560251]

>>4560215
>SECOND-ORDER PREDICATES DON'T EXIST
what are you even saying, they exist in formal languages - which we know exist all over the place.

[Anonymous No.4560255]

>>4560215
>ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE' DOES NOT EXIST
You have yet to make an argument in favour of it existing.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560262]

>>4560236
WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF TRUTH, FRIEND :^ )?

>>4560241
>descriptions are not definitions.
BUT THEY ARE. BACK TO LANGUAGE1014U

>Atoms and water are at two different epistemic levels, this has little to do with the question of whether or not they are on two different ontological levels.
HERE KID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience

>>4560248
>You formulated these sentences, thereby reducing your argument to a strawman.
I'M STRAWMANNING MY OWN ARGUMENT? ARE YOU SURE? >>4559862
MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENT IS THAT ABSTRACTIONS (LANGUAGE WITH NO SENSIBLE REFERENT) ARE 'UNREAL' (DON'T EXIST). YOU ATTEMPTED TO GIVE ME A BABBY LECTURE ABOUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUTH AND EXISTENCE (WHICH ISN'T THERE)

>I will spell it out for you: encountering a phenomena x [painting/rock/person/whatever], is not encountering truth it is encountering an existent thing, of which true and false things may be said.
ENCOUNTERING EXISTENCE IS ENCOUNTERING TRUTH ON MY ACCOUNT. WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF TRUTH, FRIENDO :^ )?

>>4560251
>they exist in formal languages
YES, LANGUAGE WHICH BY SYMBOLS OR SOUNDS ARE SENSIBLE AND THEREFORE EXIST. MATH AND SECOND ORDER PREDICATES EXIST ONLY INSOFAR AS THEIR SYNTAX AND SOUNDS DO. THEIR REFERENTS HAVE NO EXISTENCE -- THIS IS WHAT'S AT STAKE.

>>4560255
IT'S SELF CONTRADICTORY. LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION.

[Anonymous No.4560287]

>>4560262
>definition of truth
warranted assertibility

>but they are
no. squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not squares. These are descriptions of rectangles and squares, but they are not definitions.

>supervenience
levels of properties, not levels of existence.

> ABSTRACTIONS (LANGUAGE WITH NO SENSIBLE REFERENT) ARE 'UNREAL' (DON'T EXIST)
Real, means actual. It is cognant with Germanic words such as wirklich and werkelijk, these are related to work, through the greek ergon, from which energy derives as well.

If they are "unreal" as you claim, you have to also explain how it is that they are able to effect change in the world, i.e. they work.

>REFERENT
Oh boy. lets not go there.

>DISTINCTION TRUTH AND EXISTENCE (WHICH ISN'T THERE)
Still no argument

>ENCOUNTERING EXISTENCE IS ENCOUNTERING TRUTH ON MY ACCOUN
Opinion is not the same as a sound argument

>YOUR DEFINITION OF TRUTH
read Dewey's 'Propositions, Warranted Assertibility, and Truth' It's not that long.

>THEIR REFERENTS HAVE NO EXISTENCE -- THIS IS WHAT'S AT STAKE.
For you. Yes. But most people need not take recourse to existence in order to state something true. E.g. I can truthfully say that Odysseus does not exist. I.e. it "has" no "referent" yet that does not invalidate the statement as false.

>LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION.
You can only appeal to that if your own thought is logical. Which it isn't as far as I can tell.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560301]

>>4560287
>warranted assertibility
AND WHAT ARE YOUR CRITERIA FOR BEING WARRANTED M8?

>no. squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not squares.
STRAWMAN. I'M ASSERTING DESCRIPTIONS AS WHAT DEFINITIONS ARE. PROVE ME WRONG.

>levels of properties, not levels of existence.
PROPERTIES AND EXISTENCE ARE SYNONYMOUS.

>Real, means actual.
YES, ALSO MEANS EXIST ON MY DEFINITION. ALL LANGUAGE ISN'T USED ETYMOLOGICALLY FRIEND -- IT GROWS.

>If they are "unreal" as you claim, you have to also explain how it is that they are able to effect change in the world, i.e. they work.
SHOW ME HOW MATH AFFECTS CHANGE IN THE WORLD.

>Still no argument
STILL NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF TRUTH ON YOUR ACCOUNT.

>Opinion is not the same as a sound argument
WHY ARE YOU CONFUSING ME UNMUDDYING HOW I USE MY LANGUAGE WITH AN ARGUMENT?

>read Dewey's 'Propositions, Warranted Assertibility, and Truth' It's not that long.
LOL
YEAH NAH
TELL ME YOUR DEFINITION YOU FUCKING LOSER

> But most people need not take recourse to existence in order to state something true. E.g. I can truthfully say that Odysseus does not exist.
ODYSSEUS EXISTS IN SOME USAGES OF THE WORD. THE SCULPTURE FOR EXAMPLE. THAT'S ONE REFERENT. PLEASE USE A BETTER EXAMPLE.

>You can only appeal to that if your own thought is logical. Which it isn't as far as I can tell.
THANKS FOR THE ADVICE YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE DOING TOO WELL YOURSELF ;^ )

[Anonymous No.4560309]

>>4560301
>m8
>prove me wrong
>lol
>yeah nah
>loser
> ;^)
this has gone on for far too long

well done

[Anonymous No.4560312]

>>4560301
>SHOW ME HOW MATH AFFECTS CHANGE IN THE WORLD
your distinction between atoms and water, predicted, discovered, and formalized through the use of matematical language

[Anonymous No.4560318]

>>4560312
>m8matical

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560320]

>>4560309
THIS IS 4CHAN WHY ARE YOU STIGMATIZING COLLOQUIALISMS YOU ALIENATED ABJECT PIECE OF SHIT?

>>4560312
HOW DID YOU GET FROM MATH MEASURING SOMETHING TO MATH AFFECTING SOMETHING?

[Anonymous No.4560329]

>>4560320
Affecting our understanding of the world dickwad

[Anonymous No.4560330]

>>4560320
>smileys
>accepted on 4chan
lurk more friend

[Anonymous No.4560331]

>>4560320
Take more/less meds plz
Your caps lock trip fagging attention demanding behavior is the only abject thing around here

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560336]

>>4560329
LOL GOOD TRY

>>4560330
>CONFORMISM
>4CHAN
LURK MORE FRIEND

>>4560331
HMM I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONLY THANKS FOR THE CONCERN

[Anonymous No.4560339]

>>4560336
>LOL GOOD TRY
excellent argument

[Anonymous No.4560342]

>>4560336
>rejects conformism
>appeals to colloquilaisms
>appeals to law of non contradiction

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560350]

>>4560339
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW UNDERSTANDING IS AFFECTED BY MEASUREMENT -- WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING UNDERSTOOD??

>>4560342
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROBLEM?

[Anonymous No.4560354]

>>4560350
>PROBLEM
yes

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560358]

>>4560354
HMM, ODD.

[Anonymous No.4560359]

>>4560350
>EXPLAIN TO ME HOW UNDERSTANDING IS AFFECTED BY MEASUREMENT -- WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING UNDERSTOOD??
lol good try

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4560370]

>>4560359
excellent ;)