Certainty and the Problem of Induction - Page 5 - GatorCountry.com Swamp Gas Forums

 GatorCountry.com Swamp Gas Forums Certainty and the Problem of Induction
 Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Classifieds Casino Mark Forums Read Chat Room

 03-05-2013, 07:03 PM #81 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Whatever it is it is and it cannot at once be other than that. Right?
 03-05-2013, 07:04 PM #82 WESGATORS Moderator     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,230 Ok, but if it is a combination, then it is a combination. The law of identity does not prevent the object from having multiple purposes. Where are you going with this? Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
 03-05-2013, 07:06 PM #83 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination . Right? (Getting a little nervous?)
 03-05-2013, 07:07 PM #84 WESGATORS Moderator     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,230 The fact that you thought what I wrote was a contradiction should hopefully force you to evaluate how quickly you jump to conclusions about what another is writing. As it turned out, I didn't post anything contradictory, you just didn't understand what I was describing. Now in fairness, I don't put that all on you, but part of the communication process allows us to ask each other what we mean without having to jump to conclusions. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
03-05-2013, 07:11 PM   #85
WESGATORS
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,230

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Burke Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination . Right? (Getting a little nervous?)
Nervous about what? I'm watching the baseball game too, so I guess I'm a little nervous if that's what you are referring to: http://asun.neulion.com/asc/console?id=5039&catId=18

It may be a combination-capable device that is only being utilized for one of its functions. If it is being utilized for multiple features then it is being utilized for multiple features...if it isn't, then it isn't. Are you getting nervous? (that was not a good inning)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

03-05-2013, 07:12 PM   #86
Burke

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,389

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Burke Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination . Right? (Getting a little nervous?)

Don't dodge the question.

 03-05-2013, 07:16 PM #87 WESGATORS Moderator     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,230 If by "it is a combination" you are referring to it's capability of being potentially used for multiple purposes, then yes, if it is capable of being used for multiple purposes it cannot simultaneously be incapable of being used for multiple purposes. If you mean something else, please clarify. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
 03-05-2013, 07:25 PM #88 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 The law of identity holds that A is A. As a corollary of this Aristotle stated that A cannot be non-A, which is his famous law of non-contradiction. You admitted that a chair is a chair, but you refused to admit that it cannot at once be something other than that. That's because you inderstand that if you ever do, you will no longer be able to engage in contradictions as you do. But congratulations, the last guy wouldn't even admit that a chair is a chair. Got real defensive. Told me I was "insecure." He was afraid to even admit that a chair is a chair and I was the one that was insecure! G'night Wes.
 03-05-2013, 08:02 PM #90 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Take a look at a chair, Wes. It is what it is. Right? And it's not something other than that? Right?
 03-06-2013, 07:11 AM #92 WESGATORS Moderator     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,230 Having your cake and eating it too is hardly a contradiction...it's called "greed." Burke, I know what the intent of the proverb is, but the fact is you've substituted my comments for an analogy which does not apply to what I said. If I stated a contradiction, you could identify it by quoting where it exists. You still have not done that. A "conversation something like that" does not qualify for the substitution you have made. Ask your daughter if that image I posted shows "a chair or a bookcase" and see how she responds. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
 03-06-2013, 11:13 AM #93 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Wes, I've made it as plain as it can be made. A baby could understand it. You have chosen to blind yourself to it, because you don't want to be bound by logic. For some reason, you don't want to be taken to where logic takes people. My suspicion: religion, progressive thought, or both.
 03-06-2013, 12:12 PM #94 WESGATORS Moderator     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,230 Burke, you still have yet to identify incompatible concepts that I have presented. Again, the quote function is useful in this regard. You can't just grab a block of text and say "that's a contradiction" be more specific and articulate your point so I can know what it is that you find to be incompatible. Why don't you try to play the role of question answerer (after all: fair = fair)... Suppose it were possible for me to show you a genuine circle to the point where I truthfully claimed that the circle contained only points that were equidistant from its center and you rightfully believed the claim to be true. We would both be confident in expressing that such a presentation would consist of a circle. Now, suppose I modified the circle such that the horizontal diameter was increased by 10^(-15)%, but the vertical diameter remained unchanged. I then honestly express to you the change that was made; and you believe me and accept the change as fact. Would you still call this new object a circle? Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
 03-06-2013, 12:45 PM #95 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Whatever it is it is regardless of what we think or even if we exist. And it cannot at once be other than that. The concept change is a derivative concept that presupposes identity and is irrelevant.
03-06-2013, 01:09 PM   #96
WESGATORS
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,230

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Burke Don't dodge the question.
Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 03-06-2013, 01:28 PM #97 Lawdog88 Gator Country Diamond     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL Posts: 26,913 The essence of Burke's perception, is the embalmed essence of Ayn. The polestar of his ultimate identity, to whom he owes all loyalty, fealty, and adoration. Without whom he would be nothing, and could not trade with the other boys and girls. Sad. __________________ On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
 03-06-2013, 03:13 PM #98 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 (The following several replies are somewhat technical. I'm posting them just to be complete.) Rand's solution to the problem of universals has two essential points: 1. Her identification of what similarity is, and 2. Why and how we choose to integrate perceptions at all. We are swamped with perceptual data. One look out the window at the vast array of things we see coupled with the realization that we are doing this for hours each day for years on end leads to the additional realization that we are inundated with it. Couple this with the fact that our senses are physical entities responding to physical stimuli that yield certain knowledge, and you can see that our problem is not that we are incapable of knowledge but that we are flooded with it. We condense that vast amount of knowledge into concretes that we can handle mentally. Those concretes are concepts and principles. If we see a few birds on a power line, we may be able to tell how many are there without counting, which is what other animals can do somewhat. But if there are more than a very few, we must count them. When we count, we are moving from the perceptual level of the other animals to the conceptual level. Numbers are concepts, and the other animals cannot form concepts as we can do. The whole purpose for the formation of concepts and principles is to condense certain perceptual knowledge into something we can grasp mentally. We integrate things that are similar for this purpose. (To be continued)
 03-06-2013, 03:30 PM #99 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Similarity, according to Rand's theory, is the relationship between two or more existents that possess the same characteristic(s) but in different measure or degree. And they are integrated into units, which are similar existents. A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s) with their measurements omitted. Rand contends that similarity among existents can be perceived. She contends that all existents are measurable either with cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers. One does not have to be able to actually make the measurements, only perceive that they are measurable. She gets into this inure detail in her book. (An "existent" is just anything that exists: entities, attributes, actions, ... anything." (To be continued)
 03-06-2013, 04:34 PM #100 Burke Premium Member   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,389 Definitions: The purpose of a definition is to identify the nature of a concepts referents, to allow one to distinguish them from other things. It's crucial to understand, however, that a definition is not the meaning of a concept. The meaning of a concept is what it actually symbolizes in reality. The meaning of "tree" is every actual tree that exists, that has ever existed, and will ever exist. The definition of "tree," for e.g., helps you identify trees from other things, but the actual trees are what the concept means. Definitions (properly) have a genus and a differentia. "Man" was said by Aristotle to be a "rational animal." That is, he belonged to the genus "animal" and the thing that differentiated him from other animals, the differentia, was his capacity for reason, that is, rationality. But definitions can and do change as our perceptual field and knowledge grow. Suppose a rational alien with two heads and the body similar to an animal showed up. As he would be a rational animal also but otherwise very different from men, we would have to alter our definitions of man. (To be continued)

 Tags certainty, induction, problem

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Gator Country Insider Forums     Gator Insider Bullgator Den         NFL Gridiron         RayGator's Game Threads 2012 Edition     Gator Insider Recruiting         2012 IR Threads     Gator Insider Full Court Press     Diamond Gators     GatorTube - Videos & More     Gator Insider Ticket Swap     Gator Insider Business/Professionals Lady Gators     Lady Gator Sports     ***Lady Gator Nation*** (faux forum) Gator Country Help & Information     Gator Aid Station     Gator Bytes Swamp Gas Sports     Swamp Gas     Nuttin' but Net     Around the Horn - Baseball & Men's Gator Sports!         Motorsports Forum     Awesome Recruiting     The World of Mr. 2 Cents (and other Farks)     Ticket Swap Forum     The Best of the Best Swamp Gas Community     The GatorTail Pub         GatorTail Pub Picture Gallery     Too Hot for Swamp Gas     Gator Country Health and Fitness

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM.