|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 20:08:11 GMT
How is it "true/false" or "yes/no" to people who assign "orange/plastic" to 0 and 1? But what you're talking about then isn't just the language itself but rather the language's referent. This is a different matter entirely and referents would depend on whatever it is we were trying to model; though I can't imagine a case where "orange/plastic" would be a useful distinction. You're using "language" so that there's no semantic content whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:30:04 GMT
But what you're talking about then isn't just the language itself but rather the language's referent. This is a different matter entirely and referents would depend on whatever it is we were trying to model; though I can't imagine a case where "orange/plastic" would be a useful distinction. You're using "language" so that there's no semantic content whatsoever? In this case I'd rather replace "semantic" with "referent" since the 0/1 would refer to something, presumably something we could point to. So we wouldn't have to say "0 means orange" and then ask about what "orange" means, we could say "0 means " We can even reduce the term "orange" down to numbers that represent the variety of lightwaves and shades. We can get as precise as we need to be. By using such precise referents we do away with ambiguity as much as is humanly possible. The problem with semantics is generally that words refer to complex objects. The goal of having a universally reductive language like binary is to unpack those complexes and reduce them down to their constituent parts, even if that means having to model every particle that makes them up.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 21:22:43 GMT
we could say "0 means " But "means" is semantic content. So you're not proposing a language that has no semantic content.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 5, 2017 21:23:58 GMT
For you, better might mean most closely matching reality... ...but better is a subjective, not an objective, statement. What you personally believe to be better, what you have faith is the best approach to life, is only better for you. Not necessarily for anyone else. You are defending a delusional perception of reality. Please understand that we are talking about what is true, and what isn't.
You tried to sidestep into this is being delusional better or worse conversation, which is just a nonsense conversation.
But to help you out, we are talking about whether faith is a path to truth, and it isn't.
You're still yet to justify why you think your personal subjective values are objective statements of fact that apply to all humans everywhere. ...in other words, you're trying to convert us all to your belief system with no justification for holding that belief system beyond your own personal faith in it. And you accuse me of defending a delusional perception of reality?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 21:47:45 GMT
we could say "0 means " But "means" is semantic content. So you're not proposing a language that has no semantic content. You can just replace "Means" with "refers to" if you wish. Semantics involves more than referents and my point was that such a binary system would just have referents without any additional "meanings" we might traditionally attach to them.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 23:38:31 GMT
You're still yet to justify why you think your personal subjective values are objective statements of fact that apply to all humans everywhere. ...in other words, you're trying to convert us all to your belief system with no justification for holding that belief system beyond your own personal faith in it. And you accuse me of defending a delusional perception of reality? Do you care if your beliefs are true? If you don't, then believe whatever you want. If you do, then there is no justification for accepting a god as true. The only question you need to ask yourself, is do you care if what you believe is true.
Yes, you are defending a delusional perception of reality. All of my beliefs are based on evidence. Theistic views, are not.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 6, 2017 6:41:36 GMT
You're still yet to justify why you think your personal subjective values are objective statements of fact that apply to all humans everywhere. ...in other words, you're trying to convert us all to your belief system with no justification for holding that belief system beyond your own personal faith in it. And you accuse me of defending a delusional perception of reality? Do you care if your beliefs are true? If you don't, then believe whatever you want. If you do, then there is no justification for accepting a god as true. The only question you need to ask yourself, is do you care if what you believe is true.
Yes, you are defending a delusional perception of reality. All of my beliefs are based on evidence. Theistic views, are not.
You're the only one here discussing truth, the thread is about faith...and you've yet to explain why anyone else should base their beliefs upon your personal values, beyond stating your faith that your personal values are actually objective values that apply to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 6, 2017 11:05:20 GMT
You're the only one here discussing truth, the thread is about faith...and you've yet to explain why anyone else should base their beliefs upon your personal values, beyond stating your faith that your personal values are actually objective values that apply to everyone. Yes, and the problem with faith is that it doesn't reveal truth. It's just an excuse to accept something as true with no actual evidence for it.
I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence. I didn't say anything about my personal values, and nothing I do requires faith in the religious sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 6, 2017 11:34:05 GMT
But "means" is semantic content. So you're not proposing a language that has no semantic content. You can just replace "Means" with "refers to" if you wish. Semantics involves more than referents and my point was that such a binary system would just have referents without any additional "meanings" we might traditionally attach to them. How does anything refer to anything else without a person thinking about it in a particular way?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 6, 2017 20:22:55 GMT
You can just replace "Means" with "refers to" if you wish. Semantics involves more than referents and my point was that such a binary system would just have referents without any additional "meanings" we might traditionally attach to them. How does anything refer to anything else without a person thinking about it in a particular way? Because a binary system wouldn't have any of the extraneous "thinking" that human brains do. It just has the symbol and the referent and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 6, 2017 20:37:20 GMT
I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence. I didn't say anything about my personal values, and nothing I do requires faith in the religious sense of the word.
Saying you should base your beliefs on reality is a personal value. Unless you can prove that basing beliefs on reality/evidence is always better for the person, you are just having faith in basing beliefs on reality/evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Mar 6, 2017 22:25:47 GMT
Do you care if your beliefs are true? If you don't, then believe whatever you want. If you do, then there is no justification for accepting a god as true. The only question you need to ask yourself, is do you care if what you believe is true.
Yes, you are defending a delusional perception of reality. All of my beliefs are based on evidence. Theistic views, are not.
You're the only one here discussing truth, the thread is about faith...and you've yet to explain why anyone else should base their beliefs upon your personal values, beyond stating your faith that your personal values are actually objective values that apply to everyone. It's his thread. And the thread is about both faith and truth. My two cents: there is nothing meritorious about faith. If you are rewarded in the hereafter for your faith, then you are essentially rewarded for a lucky guess. After all, one must assume that you wouldn't be rewarded for having faith in the wrong thing, even though you had just as much reason to have faith in the wrong thing as the right thing. If we are denied evidence, why should we be punished for guessing incorrectly? After all, without evidence, guesswork is all that remains.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 6, 2017 22:34:20 GMT
How does anything refer to anything else without a person thinking about it in a particular way? Because a binary system wouldn't have any of the extraneous "thinking" that human brains do. It just has the symbol and the referent and that's it. The way to answer the question I asked is this: "It would refer to something (or 'reference would work' or however you'd like to say it) without a person thinking about it in a particular way by _____________" and then you'd fill in the blank, explaining how it would work.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 6, 2017 22:44:47 GMT
Because a binary system wouldn't have any of the extraneous "thinking" that human brains do. It just has the symbol and the referent and that's it. The way to answer the question I asked is this: "It would refer to something (or 'reference would work' or however you'd like to say it) without a person thinking about it in a particular way by _____________" and then you'd fill in the blank, explaining how it would work. I don't understand what relevance you see in what a person thinks about it. If 0 = then how does what a person thinks about it matter?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 2:04:15 GMT
Saying you should base your beliefs on reality is a personal value. Unless you can prove that basing beliefs on reality/evidence is always better for the person, you are just having faith in basing beliefs on reality/evidence. You just said that. Wow. No comment needed.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 7, 2017 4:16:55 GMT
You're the only one here discussing truth, the thread is about faith...and you've yet to explain why anyone else should base their beliefs upon your personal values, beyond stating your faith that your personal values are actually objective values that apply to everyone. Yes, and the problem with faith is that it doesn't reveal truth. It's just an excuse to accept something as true with no actual evidence for it.
I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence. I didn't say anything about my personal values, and nothing I do requires faith in the religious sense of the word.
Prioritising truth over all else is subjective, a reflection of your own personal value system...if you've got a better justification than your faith for claiming that truth is paramount to all humans, this would be a good time to share it. Otherwise, I'm rejecting what you're saying on the same basis that I reject the justifications of the religious - your personal faith just isn't enough to convert me, although it's more than enough to justify your own beliefs. I'll need much better evidence that that if you want me to change my subjective belief system to match yours, though.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 4:20:00 GMT
Yes, and the problem with faith is that it doesn't reveal truth. It's just an excuse to accept something as true with no actual evidence for it.
I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence. I didn't say anything about my personal values, and nothing I do requires faith in the religious sense of the word.
Prioritising truth over all else is subjective, a reflection of your own personal value system...if you've got a better justification than your faith for claiming that truth is paramount to all humans, this would be a good time to share it. Otherwise, I'm rejecting what you're saying on the same basis that I reject the justifications of the religious - your personal faith just isn't enough to convert me, although it's more than enough to justify your own beliefs. I'll need much better evidence that that if you want me to change my subjective belief system to match yours, though. I'm not. I'm simply saying that claiming things to be true without evidence, is nonsense. Why would you hold such things to be true?
And once again, I don't use faith at all. What is it you think I used faith for specifically?
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 7, 2017 4:22:08 GMT
You're the only one here discussing truth, the thread is about faith...and you've yet to explain why anyone else should base their beliefs upon your personal values, beyond stating your faith that your personal values are actually objective values that apply to everyone. It's his thread. And the thread is about both faith and truth. My two cents: there is nothing meritorious about faith. If you are rewarded in the hereafter for your faith, then you are essentially rewarded for a lucky guess. After all, one must assume that you wouldn't be rewarded for having faith in the wrong thing, even though you had just as much reason to have faith in the wrong thing as the right thing. If we are denied evidence, why should we be punished for guessing incorrectly? After all, without evidence, guesswork is all that remains. What has the hereafter got to do with anything? The merits of faith lie in our social cohesion and the way in which we relate to each other. Humans are social creatures. When I think about who I have faith in, it's other humans who come to mind, not deities. (And I'm a polytheist) I'd hate to be the significant other - or otherwise a family member or close friend - of any of you who think faith is only a religious thing, experienced by theists in relation to their god.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 4:25:56 GMT
The merits of faith lie in our social cohesion and the way in which we relate to each other. Humans are social creatures. When I think about who I have faith in, it's other humans who come to mind, not deities. (And I'm a polytheist) What is a merit of faith?
You don't have faith in other humans, you have trust, respect, confidence, etc.
You don't get to pretend your use of the word faith in regards to people, is the same definition of the word you are using to justify a god. You're using the same word to mean two different things in order to produce a false equivalency.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 7, 2017 4:30:27 GMT
I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence. I didn't say anything about my personal values, and nothing I do requires faith in the religious sense of the word.
Saying you should base your beliefs on reality is a personal value. Unless you can prove that basing beliefs on reality/evidence is always better for the person, you are just having faith in basing beliefs on reality/evidence. It's not just me pointing out that you seem to be using your own faith in your own subjective belief system in order to justify your claim that everyone should convert to that particular belief system... ...unless you have some sort of objective evidence that basing beliefs on reality/truth is always more beneficial for everyone.
|
|