"Modal Infallibility" and the concept of a necessary being

[GrowingSmaller]

So are you taking some kind of kantian transcendental perspective. Logic is like a form of reason?

 

[quatona]

So are you taking some kind of kantian transcendental perspective.

I don´t get much out of this name dropping thing. I have given you my thoughts - I think that labelling them is not a good method of appreciation.
But if it helps you with something, be my guest - just please don´t expect me to participate in this approach.

Logic is like a form of reason?

This doesn´t sound too bad - I don´t see, though, how this would be a good summary of the ideas I have expressed in this thread.
ETA, then again: No.
I´d say that logic is the most basic framework of rules for formalized reasoning in object-based language.
Just like the rules of Badminton aren´t a form of playing Badminton.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am basically the other way round, I think, in that logical order is inbuilt into sensory perception, and that logical reasoning is a cultural response to the object-based sense perception. For the most part, when we are dealing with everyday logic, the logic of joe bloggs, rather than abstract formal sytems.

For example "the sun is bright" and "the night is dark" implies "the sun is not the night" before we would put it into words and reason about it. The order was built into the perception, and the logical reasoning mirrored the perception and sensory order.

An that sense, all properties of objects have a "logical structure". That the tv is not the plant is percieved...
... before it is put into words.

I think that animals without language have sensation, and they can respond to it in a logical manner (eating food to lessen hunger for example, an if-then scenario).

I also think that they must therefore be capable of non-conscious logic. Which is prior to our more evolved systems and "badminton" style logic. Considering we evolved from such style animals, for me human logic is rooted in animal origins.

Considering AI uses human logic and reasoning to the max in a certain respect, and it is very difficult to be a programmer, yet AI is often no mach for the brain of an infant, then it holds by analogy that the brain of an infant uses more reasoning and logic than a programmer of AI.

 

[quatona]

I am basically the other way round, I think, in that logical order is inbuilt into sensory perception, and that logical reasoning is a cultural response to the object-based sense perception.

Then we aren´t that far apart. Remember that my initial objection was: Logic isn´t about the external world. It´s about our thinking.
Now you say it´s about our sensory perception (I am still inclined to disagree - because I think that our perception is determined by language from very early on -, but we seem at least to agree that logic is about the perceiver/thinker, not the external world.

For the most part, when we are dealing with everyday logic, the logic of joe bloggs, rather than abstract formal sytems.

Yes, but lets not forget that our topic was actually modal logic - which certainly isn´t Joe Blogg´s "everyday logic".

For example "the sun is bright" and "the night is dark" implies "the sun is not the night" before we would put it into words and reason about it.

All of these are simple observations/perceptions. We don´t need logic for them.
Of course, for having these perceptions, we don´t need a language - but we need a certain way of thinking about the world. Divisive, digital, separating, object-based thinking.
I seriously doubt that this is - ontologenetically nor phylogenetically - "built into our perception". It´s something we acquire.

The order was built into the perception, and the logical reasoning mirrored the perception and sensory order.

As I said, I doubt that - but in any case, you are talking about logic being built into the perceiver - and that´s pretty much what I tried to tell you: It´s not a property of the external world.

An that sense, all properties of objects have a "logical structure". That the tv is not the plant is percieved...
... before it is put into words.

And here you are making a logical leap: Without explaining the logical steps, you simply move from "logic is built into the perceiver" to "logic is built into the external reality".

Considering AI uses human logic and reasoning to the max in a certain respect, and it is very difficult to be a programmer, yet AI is often no mach for the brain of an infant, then it holds by analogy that the brain of an infant uses more reasoning and logic than a programmer of AI.

Maybe that´s exactly because the brain of an infant isn´t yet trained to this kind of thinking?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I mean or meant it is the object is contingent in that it may or may not exist.

OK; it may or may not exist contingent on some criterion.

Conventionally speaking you see your screen on the computer and know it exists. But if its a contingent object, I think there is also trouble defining it as an object (because it changes properties through time). In fact the concept of time relates to change, so if there is time there is change.

So what you are reading now is different from what your were reading before, and the atomic properties etc of the screen have changэd in the background, subliminally. Its not percieved, but it happens.

So I am interpreting contingency (may or may not be true) in a temporal sense, you may say its the same screen, or you may say its not. I see a screen, this proposition is in a flux, and because of this identity (the idea of subsistence through change) - well thats a strugglesome idea for some. We all have an intuition this is the self same screen, but when analysed it becomes proposition which may or may ot be true.

If we accept that interpretation of contingency, then everything physical is contingent in the same way because everything changes over time; it's a definition with no obvious utility.

It seems to me that my computer screen is contingent on matching its practical definition - 'my device for the display of images from my computer'. When it ceases to match that definition, it is no longer my computer screen. It doesn't matter what it's displaying, or how old it gets, as long as it is a member of the set 'my computer screen'.

We can argue whether it's still 'my' computer screen if I lend it to a colleague, or whether it's still my computer screen if the display panel stops working (i.e. argue the definition), and we can argue whether it's still the 'same' computer screen if the display panel is replaced but the frame, electronics, stand, and cable remain unchanged (i.e. argue its identity), but I really don't understand what you're getting at with your idea of contingency.

 

[Percivale]

I will argue that we can only be infallible about the existence of a necessary being.

For if the being were contingent theres a possible world - perfectly consistent with this one - in which we believe we know it to exist or to be real, but the actual scenario is that we do not so know it.

Take a chair, it may be a dream chair etc. Or a reflection in a hall of mirrors. Or a hallucination.

So, if infalliblity is possible (i.e logically possible), then a necessary being must exist (according to the principles of this axiomatic system)?

Infallibility is possible, in this world, therefore an necessary being does exist.

Graph created here ( http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/graphing/classic/line_chart.asp?temp=1979973 )


Or maybe its a binary graph like this:

Graph created here: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/graphing/classic/bar_pie_chart.asp?temp=2025099

And there is only contingency and uncertainty...?

I think the logic of this argument is backwards: since you must know that something is necessary before you know if you can be infallible in announcing it's existence, you don't know if infallibility is possible regarding that being/object until you know it is necessary, thus this argument can never prove whether a necessary being exists, unless you already know it does.

 

[Percivale]

But if that's true we can't define unicorns into being real, and that makes me sad...

Unicorns are real--or were; there's only a few degenerate descendants of them still living on the plains of africa. (check out 'running rhinocerus')

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Then we aren´t that far apart. Remember that my initial objection was: Logic isn´t about the external world. It´s about our thinking.
Now you say it´s about our sensory perception (I am still inclined to disagree - because I think that our perception is determined by language from very early on -, but we seem at least to agree that logic is about the perceiver/thinker, not the external world.

Yes, but lets not forget that our topic was actually modal logic - which certainly isn´t Joe Blogg´s "everyday logic".


All of these are simple observations/perceptions. We don´t need logic for them.
Of course, for having these perceptions, we don´t need a language - but we need a certain way of thinking about the world. Divisive, digital, separating, object-based thinking.
I seriously doubt that this is - ontologenetically nor phylogenetically - "built into our perception". It´s something we acquire.


As I said, I doubt that - but in any case, you are talking about logic being built into the perceiver - and that´s pretty much what I tried to tell you: It´s not a property of the external world.


And here you are making a logical leap: Without explaining the logical steps, you simply move from "logic is built into the perceiver" to "logic is built into the external reality".




Maybe that´s exactly because the brain of an infant isn´t yet trained to this kind of thinking?

Thanks will get back soon...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the logic of this argument is backwards: since you must know that something is necessary before you know if you can be infallible in announcing it's existence, you don't know if infallibility is possible regarding that being/object until you know it is necessary, thus this argument can never prove whether a necessary being exists, unless you already know it does.

Makes sense. I was thinking though that infallibility for humans, is it actually ruled out? If not than its possible.

 

[Percivale]

Makes sense. I was thinking though that infallibility for humans, is it actually ruled out? If not than its possible.

One must be clear what infallibility you're talking about. As Decartes reasoned, when I say, "I exist" I am infallible in making that statement, since there is no way to doubt it. That doesn't mean I know anything else infallibly.

 

[variant]

Given my experiences with modal logic I am not fully convinced that there are any necessary beings.

 

[variant]

One must be clear what infallibility you're talking about. As Decartes reasoned, when I say, "I exist" I am infallible in making that statement, since there is no way to doubt it. That doesn't mean I know anything else infallibly.

And it discounts the possibility that the self is in fact an illusion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Illusion: Just one element in the self concept is false, and you have fallibility in "I" think therefore I am. Just imagine of all those theories of self over the years. Not all can be right. Maybe none are right. I imagine my hair to be one degree less grey than it is. My self is in error.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Given my experiences with modal logic I am not fully convinced that there are any necessary beings.

Me too, but there may be necessary truths relating to "analytic" relationships, eg 1+1=2...

 

[variant]

Me too, but there may be necessary truths relating to "analytic" relationships, eg 1+1=2...

I'm pretty sure "analytic" relationships are artificial, and I don't think sentience is necessary.

Modal logic helps us with organizing our thoughts (maybe) but who is to say thinking is necessary in and of itself?

 

[variant]

Illusion: Just one element in the self concept is false, and you have fallibility in "I" think therefore I am. Just imagine of all those theories of self over the years. Not all can be right. Maybe none are right. I imagine my hair to be one degree less grey than it is. My self is in error.

I am just saying there is plenty of room for doubt that there is an I at all.

Descartes was a lightweight in terms of total doubt.

 

[Percivale]

I am just saying there is plenty of room for doubt that there is an I at all.

Descartes was a lightweight in terms of total doubt.

I guess I should have been more exact. Decartes concluded, "a thinking thing exists." That statement cannot be denied without accepting it.

 

[variant]

I guess I should have been more exact. Decartes concluded, "a thinking thing exists." That statement cannot be denied without accepting it.

Only if you accept that it's not possible to believe you are a thinking thing without actually doing any thinking as a thing.

I know it's a stretch but we have to consider the possibility that "thinking" or "thing" are very ill defined as to what is actually happening.

 

[Eudaimonist]

People who bring up modal arguments seem to be necessary beings, because these arguments never seem to go away. In all possible universes, someone will still bring up these arguments. Therefore, advocates of modal arguments are necessary beings. Oh, and therefore God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Percivale]

Only if you accept that it's not possible to believe you are a thinking thing without actually doing any thinking as a thing.

I know it's a stretch but we have to consider the possibility that "thinking" or "thing" are very ill defined as to what is actually happening.

well, believing, as well as doubting, are forms of thinking, so, no its not possible, to believe something without thinking; and thing is about as undefined a word as you can get. Come on, don't tell me you really think there is any possibility that nothing at all exists.

I don't care much for modal arguments, they often are just sophistry I think. I'm more into pragmatism; I figure if there's a decent amount of evidence for something and it works well, might as well believe it.