Regarding Franko...

[Q-Source]

E-prime is very good at showing up who is depending on a belief system and who is not. I am willing to bet that I am able to defend my own position with the utmost ease in E-Prime and that you will find your position impossible to defend in E-Prime.

Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion or semantics, if this is what you think.

But, it seems to be a good proposition for other topics.

 

[Guest]

hammegk

general question

Re Wolfram: I've only seen exerpts, but at what "level" of perceived materiality does he first propose the existence of cellular automata? Atomic? Sub-Atomic? Field Energetic?

Wolfram doesn't directly state this. He just examines patterns and complexity in nature and examines patterns and complexity in simple algorithms and finds that every sort of complex pattern that occurs in nature can be replicated by a simple algorithm.

That the physical world *IS* a simple algorithm he does not state. And good for him....it would be a violation of E-Prime.....

The physical world *appears* as if it was a simple algorithm.

 

[c4ts]

Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion, if this is what you think.

It is rather unfortunate that some people cannot mentally seperate facts from their own beliefs, and that they would also be inclined to agree with you.

 

[Soubrette]

Pixy (and anyone),

RE : No beliefs.

Ever heard of E-Prime?

Well, here is a site dedicated to freethought and the damage caused by limiting belief systems which are sometimes mistaken for the truth.


Do you want to give it a try?

Oooh I want to give it a try....

Here is a site dedicated to freethought and what in our opinion seems to be the damage caused by limiting belief systems which appears sometimes to be mistaken for the truth.

How d'I do?



Sou

 

[Guest]

Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion or semantics, if this is what you think.

But, it seems to be a good proposition for other topics.

Example :

"The house is blue."

Seems fairly unproblematic. Except actually if you are a dog which sees in black-and-white then the house is grey. 'Blueness' is actually a property of your perception of the house, not of the house. In E-Prime you are forced to say :

"The house appears blue to me."

Which at first seems unneccesarily cumbersome, but strictly speaking it is the only way to eliminate the belief system from the reality.

 

[Guest]

Sou :

Here is a site dedicated to freethought and what in our opinion seems to be the damage caused by limiting belief systems which appears sometimes to be mistaken for the truth.

I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing belief systems with the truth."

 

[Guest]

It is rather unfortunate that some people cannot mentally seperate facts from their own beliefs, and that they would also be inclined to agree with you.

People have a tendency to view other peoples belief systems as belief systems and ignore the fact that their own world view depends on another belief system they call reality.

 

[Soubrette]

Sou :



I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing beliefs systems with the truth."

"the damage" seems such a definite statement though, don't you think?

It smacks of belief

Sou
(Edited to make clear what I was quoting )

 

[Guest]

"the damage" seems such a definite statement though, don't you think?

It smacks of belief

Sou
(Edited to make clear what I was quoting )

Well, like I just said to c4ts, one can examine other peoples belief systems and observe the limitations caused with relative ease. We can objectively examine the limitations of our own belief system only with much more difficulty.

 

[hammegk]

I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing belief systems with the truth."

Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth."

 

[Soubrette]

Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth."

Oooh you're good

Sou

 

[Q-Source]

"The house appears blue to me."

Which at first seems unneccesarily cumbersome, but strictly speaking it is the only way to eliminate the belief system from the reality.

Yes, I see your point. The elimination of our subjective belief-systems leads us to undertand in a better way our Reality (BTW, which reality?).

Do your think it is possible to use E-Prime when we want to analyse objective and subjective facts through the scientific method?

Or do you consider Scientific knowledge as another belief system?

Q-S

P.D. Thank you for the compliment, Geoff . It is good to have you back again, you bring fresh air and beauty to the forum...

 

[Guest]

Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth."

Nope.

There are many uses of "to be" :

TO BE OR NOT TO BE: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking

But the two biggies to avoid are :

(1) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Noun Phrase-2 (Identity)

(2) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Adjective Phrase-1 (Predication)

You said "Nobeliefs.com is a site..."

That is (1) (identiity).

Why is this a problem....

Critical thinkers have argued against using statements having the structure of (1) because they immediately produce high order abstractions that lead the user to premature judgments. Consider the following example:

(3) John is a farmer.

The immediate consequence of such an identification at the very least brings about unjustified abbreviation. For example, consider the following three sentences about "John":

(4) John farms three acres.

(5) John owns and operates a 2,000-acre farm.

(6) John receives $20,000 a year from the government for not growing anything on his farm.

We could even carry this illustration into a different dimension:

(7) John, after living in the city all his life, has just bought a farm.

(8) John grew up on a farm and has farmed there for 61 years.

Despite the fact that (4) through (8) make extremely different statements about "John," most English-speaking people feel comfortable making the jump from any one of (4) through (8) to (3). Critical thinkers trained in general semantics hold that (3) does not represent a valid higher order abstraction which could come from such observations as (4) through (8), but rather a possibly incorrect and certainly inadequate abbreviation of the larger picture.

So when I said "Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought", I deliberately avoided this 'identity' use of 'to be'.

It is hard work writing in E-Prime. Even harder thinking in it. But several people have managed to write entire books in it, and I have even read one of them - after a while you don't notice.

 

[Guest]

Do your think it is possible to use E-Prime when we want to analyse objective and subjective facts through the scientific method?

I believe that any use of E-prime within science can only help rather than hinder the search for truth. It forces clarity. It eliminates certain forms bias. It doesn't affect the scientific method directly - but it does affect the accuracy of communication of the results - especially in the area of subjective and objective, an area which would certainly benefit from closer scrutiny in scientific literature.

Or do you consider Scientific knowledge as another belief system?

I view scientific knowledge as a model of the behaviour of the physical world at the present time. The problems occur when the model gets confused with what actually is. There has been a tendency to confuse scientific knowledge with the philosophical assumption of materialism which underlies it, at which point the map gets confused with the territory.

P.D. Thank you for the compliment, Geoff . It is good to have you back again, you bring fresh air and beauty to the forum... [/B]

[WARMFUZZY]



[/WARMFUZZY]

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Geoff:

I was busy but all the observations I could have made to your model have been done (with a lot more "brilliance" that I could have done) by Pixie and Stimpy.

Now, some pending points:

-To satisfy your need of a minimal belief framework the only way I see correct is Physicalism.
-You have given up in the search for a scientific explanation for consciousness and the origin of the physical. For the latter, I suggest that Q fluctuation and inflationary universe theory can provide a testable answer, and for the former, maybe the cemi field theory of consciousness have the answer (specially to the binding problem) I'm starting a thread about this and I woudl like that "scientific" Geoff participate. Would you?
-For E-prime, i don't see how can you find this model better than Predicate Logic, Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Logical analisys. This takes this particular problem with descriptions, along with observer subjetivity. Also. what is physicalism if not the application of E-Prime to the scientific method?

 

[Interesting Ian]

The problem, dear friend, is that when I study those matters, I'm every time more sure that they take account for all the history, EVEN the mind-body problem and HPC.
BTW, knowledge is knowledge, no matter from what source you get it.
So, my agenda now is to get what is missing in my vision of the universe. My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Maybe you are the one that is recurring to unnecesary entities to explain phenomena? Maybe you could get rid of preconceived notions about a trascendent reality? maybe you could someday want to now what it feels to validate you beliefs?

Science has got nothing to do with metaphysics. All science does is describe our empirical reality. So in order to obtain what is missing from your vision of the Universe you'll need to forget science and venture into the realms of subjective knowledge.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Science has got nothing to do with metaphysics. All science does is describe our empirical reality. So in order to obtain what is missing from your vision of the Universe you'll need to forget science and venture into the realms of subjective knowledge.

If you don't need metaphysics to explain all your experiences, why bother?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Much of the questions we now answer with science were once exclusively metaphisycal field.

Are you able to give any examples?

- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?

Any knowledge which doesn't exclusively concern itself with the patterns revealed in our sensory perceptions.

- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?

Arguments, logically analysis, a direct knowing etc etc.

 

[c4ts]

Are you able to give any examples?

Aristotle's Metaphysics

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Are you able to give any examples?

Free will

Any knowledge which doesn't exclusively concern itself with the patterns revealed in our sensory perceptions.

An example of a knowledge that don't concern our perceptions?

Arguments, logically analysis, a direct knowing etc etc.

What has logic to do with reality? As long as you know your axioms to be real
Direct knowing? What is its truth value? Can you prove you are not crazy?