I think if you travel back in time and the second you come into existence on that time, the universe creates a different timeline because history doesn't recognize you as a part of that time. So I think even if you kill your parents, nothing happens to you, you prevent the existence of a different you.
The construction of bodies are bound by matter(The Nater)and(The Stars), according to logic by Aristotle(If the stars exist, then nature must also. If the Nature exists, then they must have an origin point.
This makes so little sense to me. Holmes is much more real in my life than many people I know. The Deleuzean category of the "ideal real" seems much more intuitive in this case.
There would not be a path to travel through time, not a real, i.e. an ontological possibility to become loose of, detached from our time and to go on a trip
Think Lakoff is arguing that Mathematics, for instance, is a language that humans construct hence mathematical entities are not mind-independent. I guess similarly, Logic is a language, and its laws don't apply outside of our minds. I don't know much about this topic though, so I might be wrong.
@@paulsmart7236 Yes, but the question here, as the title suggests, is not the sense of reality but its rules. The question here is not about concepts (senses) but rules of inference and so on... So no, Berto's view is not correct and, in fact, that's not Berto's view at all !!
@@xw213xlastname8 Two thoughts. First, although logic can be formulated as an axiomatic system that doesn't necessarily comport with (natural) reality, it could be the case that it does comport with reality. It could be perfectly isomorphic, and quite possibly is. And so when we perform a logical inference based on observed premises we would expect the symbolic but nevertheless observed result to have an isomorphic counterpart in the real world. We would expect to observe it and to describe it. This may not seem like a particularly strong claim, but consider that we are only able to observe and describe in terms of our inner representation of experience in either case: whether of the real world or the symbolic world is of little importance if they are isomorphic. My second thought concerns that old conundrum about whether mathematics is invented or discovered. Okay, presumably √2 is irrational in every universe, since it doesn't rely on any properties of natural reality but only on axiomatic formalism. So it doesn't need a mind thinking about it in order for it to be true. Also, every mathematical proof must proceed as a finite sequence of discrete verifiable steps. And these proofs have an existence similar to that of √2 itself or of its properties. A valid proof is valid whether or not a mind is present to observe it and work through the steps. So a mind is not required, it would seem. But wait. Consider a proof which is not quite correct. It too proceeds with a finite number of discrete verifiable steps, but at least one of those steps cannot be performed. Including these as well, we have in total a large, indeed countably infinite, set of proofs, of which only a subset are verifiably correct. The rest are not, but they're still equally lying around, patterns of bits or symbols, waiting to be discovered and, sadly, rejected. And, I'd like to conjecture, it takes a mind to distinguish between them, to extract the signal from the noise. I'm not sure what meets the test of being a "mind" but that's not the main insight that I'm trying to share. I'm just trying to develop an argument that it seems to be a false dichotomy to ask whether abstractions are "invented" or "discovered." Sure, the field of all possible encodings of all possible abstractions is lying there having independent existence, but if we're interested in picking out the good ones, that's going to take some work by somebody.
@bethanienaylor Faith is the absence of reason. Beth, how many unfalsified claims do you believe that cannot be demonstrated? One? Two? More? Or just one?
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
I think if you travel back in time and the second you come into existence on that time, the universe creates a different timeline because history doesn't recognize you as a part of that time. So I think even if you kill your parents, nothing happens to you, you prevent the existence of a different you.
yeah but that would not be in the same respect, hence the laws of logic still holds although the paradox is indeed avoided.
The construction of bodies are bound by matter(The Nater)and(The Stars), according to logic by Aristotle(If the stars exist, then nature must also. If the Nature exists, then they must have an origin point.
This makes so little sense to me. Holmes is much more real in my life than many people I know. The Deleuzean category of the "ideal real" seems much more intuitive in this case.
It was just a simple example to look at something
no, actually that's the concept of "effectiveness" or "wirklichkeit" from classical german idealism :P
KomissarLohmann I always thought virtuality/actuality was a version of Wirklichkeit...
@@ailblentyn
Your own behaviours do not define reality. How you feel and act do not equal existence.
It's interesting that you used Sherlock Holmes as your example, rather than god(s). 😊
Bro tryna have a starering contest with me lol
Is logic just a clever little word game created by language to confuse our brains, or did logic sneakily come up with its own name to describe itself?
There would not be a path to travel through time, not a real, i.e. an ontological possibility to become loose of, detached from our time and to go on a trip
Sherlock holmes exists as physical information in our neurons
two different kind of existence
@@FrancisMetal Still existence to me, but that’s contentious matter. There’s philosophers who denies that Sherlock exists at all
George Lakoff would beg to differ.
Can you elaborate on this?:) Curious to find out more about your standpoint!
Think Lakoff is arguing that Mathematics, for instance, is a language that humans construct hence mathematical entities are not mind-independent. I guess similarly, Logic is a language, and its laws don't apply outside of our minds.
I don't know much about this topic though, so I might be wrong.
The sense of reality is mind-dependent, so Berto's view is correct.
@@paulsmart7236 Yes, but the question here, as the title suggests, is not the sense of reality but its rules. The question here is not about concepts (senses) but rules of inference and so on... So no, Berto's view is not correct and, in fact, that's not Berto's view at all !!
@@xw213xlastname8
Two thoughts. First, although logic can be formulated as an axiomatic system that doesn't necessarily comport with (natural) reality, it could be the case that it does comport with reality. It could be perfectly isomorphic, and quite possibly is. And so when we perform a logical inference based on observed premises we would expect the symbolic but nevertheless observed result to have an isomorphic counterpart in the real world. We would expect to observe it and to describe it.
This may not seem like a particularly strong claim, but consider that we are only able to observe and describe in terms of our inner representation of experience in either case: whether of the real world or the symbolic world is of little importance if they are isomorphic.
My second thought concerns that old conundrum about whether mathematics is invented or discovered. Okay, presumably √2 is irrational in every universe, since it doesn't rely on any properties of natural reality but only on axiomatic formalism. So it doesn't need a mind thinking about it in order for it to be true. Also, every mathematical proof must proceed as a finite sequence of discrete verifiable steps. And these proofs have an existence similar to that of √2 itself or of its properties. A valid proof is valid whether or not a mind is present to observe it and work through the steps. So a mind is not required, it would seem.
But wait. Consider a proof which is not quite correct. It too proceeds with a finite number of discrete verifiable steps, but at least one of those steps cannot be performed. Including these as well, we have in total a large, indeed countably infinite, set of proofs, of which only a subset are verifiably correct. The rest are not, but they're still equally lying around, patterns of bits or symbols, waiting to be discovered and, sadly, rejected.
And, I'd like to conjecture, it takes a mind to distinguish between them, to extract the signal from the noise. I'm not sure what meets the test of being a "mind" but that's not the main insight that I'm trying to share.
I'm just trying to develop an argument that it seems to be a false dichotomy to ask whether abstractions are "invented" or "discovered." Sure, the field of all possible encodings of all possible abstractions is lying there having independent existence, but if we're interested in picking out the good ones, that's going to take some work by somebody.
So by this alone, aliens are real....
I am reptilian, and use gift card pronoun
People understand the GAWD concept is illogical, but dogma and indoctrination cause beliefs without Falsification or demonstration.
Faith can only be tested
Edit: that's what I've been told.
@@bethanienaylor Faith is a fool with no reason.
@@vinnymarchegiano faith is a mustard seed that once tested and proven, grows and grows
@@bethanienaylor thats extremely nonsensical
@bethanienaylor Faith is the absence of reason. Beth, how many unfalsified claims do you believe that cannot be demonstrated? One? Two? More? Or just one?