Them vicious circularities!
 

[Note that this is a preliminary thread, meant to collect ideas for another that is in coming]


Most of us here have at some point or another hit the thick brick wall called "circular thinking".

So just let it out, tell us your problems regarding circularity!

Any assumption is circular in nature. Since assumptions are necessary to the practicality of human thought, they are abundant.

Circularity is everywhere. It's what's outside the boundaries of logical thought. It is necessary as a foundation for knowledge. Perhaps those little circles are cranially utilitarian as anchors for concepts.

Is the statement: "God is.", an identity? Maybe my thinking on all this has gone all weird on me. Hehe.

A nefarious conspiracy!

Contrary to what someone may say *ahem*, it is neither "necessary" nor "practical". It can NEVER EVER EVER be demonstrated to be either of these things.

It is inconsistency. It is HYPOCRISY!

Okay then, why is blue, blue?

I say it's an identity, a definition... an arbitrary choice that can be useful for communication. If we agree that blue is blue, then we can communicate on that topic. If not, then we are lost.

Since it's an identity, it's circular. It is because we assume it to be so.

I have just demonstrated why and how circularity is necessary.

Can you actually support your claim that it isn't necessary?

Further, you should note that all humans are hypocrites to some degree.

Wes,

You've just said what I've been going to say about all this circular stuff.

Language is self-referential.
Symbolic thinking is self-referential.
It is this which gives language its power.
So, anything constructed symbolically must therefore contain at least some circularity. It must be self-referential to some extent.

[QUOTE=wesmorris]Okay then, why is blue, blue?

I say it's an identity, a definition... an arbitrary choice that can be useful for communication. If we agree that blue is blue, then we can communicate on that topic. If not, then we are lost.

Since it's an identity, it's circular. It is because we assume it to be so.

I have just demonstrated why and how circularity is necessary.[/quote]

You notice that you did so using a circular argument.

[quote]
Further, you should note that all humans are hypocrites to some degree.[/QUOTE]

True.

[quote]Can you actually support your claim that it isn't necessary?[/quote]

Not that it isn't necessary, but that it shouldn't be necessary given our assumptions.

If we assume circular reasoning is a farce, then there is obviously a problem if we need circular reasoning to support that assumption. This is what I meant. There is an inconsistency, an air of hypocrisy about it. The foundation fails to support itself and yet everyone stands on it.

I feel however that it needn't be so. I suspect the reason for circularity is primarily biological - up there.

[QUOTE=§outh§tar]You notice that you did so using a circular argument.[/quote]

Isn't there a difference between a circular argument and an argument that points out circularity?

[QUOTE]Not that it isn't necessary, but that it shouldn't be necessary given our assumptions.[/QUOTE]

It is the assumptions that are circular. That is the point.

[QUOTE]If we assume circular reasoning is a farce, then there is obviously a problem if we need circular reasoning to support that assumption. This is what I meant. There is an inconsistency, an air of hypocrisy about it. The foundation fails to support itself and yet everyone stands on it.[/QUOTE]

It's not a farce, it's an assumption. Assumptions are needed for practical reasons. If you choose not to assume anything, they you cannot have anyknowledge.

[quote]I feel however that it needn't be so. I suspect the reason for circularity is primarily biological - up there.[/QUOTE]

It is circumstantial.

I tend to think of it not so much as circular but more as spirals.
In that a circle implies no growth how ever a spiral allows for such.

Every time you use self referencing as Wes put's it the reference changes slightly which allows for the growth in our thinking.

A concept held in mind therefore has an opportunity to mature every time it is revisited in your thoughts.

BTW Water: brilliant thread.....I look forward to the more mature version.

Water, exactly what kinds of lines of thought were you wondering about? We need some clarification here because so far, no one has mentioned anything having to do with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is, by definition, a logical fallacy that arises from making an invalid argument.

[QUOTE=wesmorris]Isn't there a difference between a circular argument and an argument that points out circularity?[/quote]

Why is circularity an "arbitrary choice"?


[QUOTE]It is the assumptions that are circular. That is the point.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I said? But how can circular reasoning be considered a fallacy in such case is what I'm trying to say.

[QUOTE]It's not a farce, it's an assumption. Assumptions are needed for practical reasons. If you choose not to assume anything, they you cannot have any knowledge.[/QUOTE]

I've heard this one before.

Why are assumptions needed for practical reasons?

" “ It's not a farce, it's an assumption. Assumptions are needed for practical reasons. If you choose not to assume anything, they you cannot have any knowledge.
”
I've heard this one before.

Why are assumptions needed for practical reasons? "

Not entirely sure what wesmorris was getting at here but....
assumptions are necessary for practical reasons due to the nature of inductive reasoning.

Again, little of this has anything to do with circular reasoning.

[quote]assumptions are necessary for practical reasons due to the nature of inductive reasoning.[/quote]

who determines the nature of inductive reasoning?

'Who' is the wrong question. 'How' is.
The nature of inductive reasoning is determined by the temporal nature of physical reality.

[QUOTE=§outh§tar]Why is circularity an "arbitrary choice"?[/quote]

The arbitrary choice results in circularity. Upon establishing 1=1, you've formed an assumption, a circle, an identity.

[QUOTE]How can circular reasoning be considered a fallacy in such case is what I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]

How about in the case of god? That's why I asked: Is "god is" an identity? They are not generally considered fallacy because the whole deal with making an assumption is saying "okay, I'm going to assume this over here and I'm not going to bother to prove it, or as far as I'm concerned it's already proven.". Making it assumption is saying "we'll pretend this isn't a fallacy even though it is unless we prove it".

[quote]I've heard this one before.

Why are assumptions needed for practical reasons?[/QUOTE]

Because there is no basis upon which to build if you do not make one. That and we are always short on data with which to make informed decisions. We make assumptions to simplify problems. Assumptions are necessary because we cannot access infinite information.

[QUOTE=glaucon]We need some clarification here because so far, no one has mentioned anything having to do with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is, by definition, a logical fallacy that arises from making an invalid argument.[/QUOTE]

I believe more accurately, it's when reasoning becomes problematic due to self-reference, e.g. "this is true because this is true".

All reasoning is built upon assumptions/definitions/identities/circles (perhaps even spirals, :) ). Without a foundation, reasoning cannot be constructed.

Your usage of the term is an instance of a broader phenomenon in reasoning. I think of circularity as "self-referential", in which case a number of people have mentioned things about circularity. I personally have mentioned my thoughts on what I see as its full scope.

ha...[I]spiraliture reasoning [/I] doesn.t quite sound right :D

QQ - I think you're right however in that generally speaking the basis for conception is always changing even if only being re-enforced.

In the case of a particular assumption, it's either the assumption in question or a new one we made up later as an instance of the previous version (with new information integrated into it). I like the spiral analogy. I think I know what you meant by it.

It does come down to the depth of that which you wish to discuss at I guess.
The spiral analogy allows for the prgress of time so in effect you have a 4 dimensional circle...if that makes any sense at all.

I would suggest that when people are talking about circular reasoning or logic they are noramlly refereing to an abstraction of logic that appears circular but of course the person is growing as he sees this thus the circle he sees is realy a part of an overal spiral as growth continues for the idea.

I might add that some people hold on to obsolete asssumptions [beliefs] very strongly thus keeping the spiral really tight, others are able to let go of assumptions [beliefs] more easilly thus allowing a higher rate of growth.
just a thought :)

In a closed system, everything must in some way relate to every other thing. The charge of 'circularity' is only useful if the boundaries have been agreed upon, the 'meta-narrative' established. We must do this, because we cannot think in open systems, we can only refer to them from [i]within[/i] our meta-narrative. Now think "Gödel".

It's interesting that postmodern thought largely seems to depend on circularity -- it's a conjunction of 'cause-and-effect' existentialism and deconstructionism. The result is that even logic depends on a closed, self-referencing (self-regulating) system, thus ultimately [i]every[/i] worldview *logically* self-destructs (we cannot say *necessarily*, because such objectivity is impossible in postmodern thinking).

The only way we can make any progress must be using some form of the two-way inductive reasoning, and progressing with some form of faith in our chosen path. [i]Certain[/i] circularities/inconsistencies challenge [i]certain[/i] paths, and we must identify, resolve them, and alter course if necessary, but always be aware that everyone is operating with the same limits.

Firstly, it is a false assumption to suggest that human thought is based on assumptions. Circular reasoning is always infallible when the assumption is correct, but if the assumption is correct then its implications can be had via deduction. The circular argument does not tell too much of import.

I think what you mean by assumptions are really knowledge of our world that we know through being humans, or knowledge conditioned to our adapatation to our world. So for instance, you say "Why is blue, blue"? This is not a question as the question itself is the answer. Blue is blue because blue is blue. We do not make an assumption on what blue is; we do not assume an identity thereby making it circular as you suggest. There are multiple ways to define blue, but assuming ignorance of the varying wavelengths of light, how was/is blue defined? The definition would be reflective of analogies that reference the colour itself. Therefore, a definition would be that blue is like the colour of sky after a rainy day. BUt what does that tell you? The definition is based on the shared experience of sight.

[quote]Circular reasoning is always infallible when the assumption is correct, but if the assumption is correct then its implications can be had via deduction.[/quote]

How does one determine whether or not an assumption is correct?

If it's an assumption, its correctness is not at issue.

[QUOTE=wesmorris]If it's an assumption, its correctness is not at issue.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.
Besides, from a practical point of view, one makes use of an assumption as one does and identity, ergo, incorrgibility.

[QUOTE=§outh§tar]How does one determine whether or not an assumption is correct?[/QUOTE]
See, this is the problem with circularity-- if the assumption is assumed correct and the conclusion draws from or is the assumption, you have no argument as the argument is already assumed. From a practical standpoint, an assumption is only proven correct by verification and not argument.

[quote]If it's an assumption, its correctness is not at issue.[/quote]
I don't get the implications of this statement. If we are talking about them 'vicious circularities' then the assumption's correctness is at issue, else where's the debate?

To determine an assumption as correct one can only test it with other assumptions - me thinks.....

Sorry for being late, I've been busy.

* * *


[QUOTE=wesmorris] Any assumption is circular in nature. [/QUOTE]

Explain. How is any assumption circular in nature?
... because it is ... an assumption?


[QUOTE]Circularity is everywhere. It's what's outside the boundaries of logical thought. It is necessary as a foundation for knowledge. Perhaps those little circles are cranially utilitarian as anchors for concepts.[/QUOTE]

I don't get this. How is circularity everywhere? Where is the circularity in how the books are set on the shelves in my room?


[QUOTE=wesmorris] Okay then, why is blue, blue?

I say it's an identity, a definition... an arbitrary choice that can be useful for communication. If we agree that blue is blue, then we can communicate on that topic. If not, then we are lost.

[B]Since it's an identity, it's circular.[/B] It is because we assume it to be so.[/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR=Blue][this colour][/COLOR][/B] = blue

This may be a definition (and best understood in the sense of a prototype) -- but saying it is circular?! How?


[QUOTE=wesmorris]Further, you should note that all humans are hypocrites to some degree. [/QUOTE]

By calling a certain inherent uncertainty of being a human a "hypocrisy", you give away your deeply rooted perfectionism, and the wish to be something that seems to be impossible for you to get at.
:p


* * *

[QUOTE=invert_nexus] Language is self-referential.
Symbolic thinking is self-referential.
It is this which gives language its power.
So, anything constructed symbolically must therefore contain at least some circularity. It must be self-referential to some extent. [/QUOTE]

I do not think that language is self-referential and just that. If it would be, we could not use it to communicate about extralingual phenomena.

All those things that we give names with language, "tables", "computers" etc., [B]they are not part of language, they exist externally from it[/B]. We do say that there is a reality. What we do with language is that we *refer* to this reality. Hence, language is not just self-referential.

(Unless you are arguing from solipsism.)

* * *

[QUOTE=wesmorris] It is the assumptions that are circular. That is the point.[/QUOTE]

Repeating:
How exactly are assumptions circular?

Say that I assume that there is no mice in my shoes. Where exactly is the circularity of this assumption?



* * *

[QUOTE=Quantum Quack]I tend to think of it not so much as circular but more as spirals.
[B]In that a circle implies no growth how ever a spiral allows for such.[/B]

[B]Every time you use self referencing as Wes put's it the reference changes slightly which allows for the growth in our thinking. [/B]

A concept held in mind therefore has an opportunity to mature every time it is revisited in your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.
If references change, how can we still talk about circularity?


[QUOTE]BTW Water: brilliant thread.....I look forward to the more mature version. [/QUOTE]

Thank you. :)

* * *


[QUOTE=glaucon] Water, exactly what kinds of lines of thought were you wondering about? We need some clarification here because so far, no one has mentioned anything having to do with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is, by definition, a logical fallacy that arises from making an invalid argument. [/QUOTE]

Over time, in various threads, a sort of a "circle of circularity-issue-havers developed" (hah!) -- most of them have gathered here in this thread.
So, we sort of know what is the thing that irks.

I just thought it best to in[ve]stigate!


* * *

[QUOTE=§outh§tar]
[QUOTE=wesmorris]It is the assumptions that are circular. That is the point.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I said? But how can circular reasoning be considered a fallacy in such case is what I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. More interesting. Exactly.

Saying that x is inherently circular, and then dismissing x because of this circularity (as circularity is supposedly invalid) is not a valid step, in my opinion.


[QUOTE][QUOTE]It's not a farce, it's an assumption. Assumptions are needed for practical reasons. If you choose not to assume anything, they you cannot have any knowledge.[/QUOTE]

I've heard this one before.

Why are assumptions needed for practical reasons? [/QUOTE]

I think we are back at the issue of time perspectives we choose to observe something.

I can in return, ex post say about something that it was an assumption -- yet this does not mean that at the time of action I really thought of that as an assumption.

E.g. I intend to go out, I walk out of my room, put on my shoes. Do I, at that time, really assume that there are no mice in my shoes?

If I later on find a mouse in my shoe, then, yes, then I could say that before I put my foot in the shoe, I was indeed assuming that there were no mice.

But if we are to think in this way, then we must also say that I was assuming that there were also no cockroaches, space ships, cars, lions, and ALL other things in my shoes. To me, this is nonsensical.

We make assumptions that make sense given the circumstances, and this radically shrinks the amount of assumptions that seem plausible.

If I know that my cat brought a mouse into the house and played with it around the shoes, then I have reason to assume that there might be a mouse in my shoes.

The amount of plausible assumptions is thus limited. I don't understand how we can claim them to be circular.


* * *

[QUOTE=wesmorris]
The arbitrary choice results in circularity. Upon establishing 1=1, you've formed an assumption, a circle, an identity. [/QUOTE]

This needs a lot of clarification.

Establishing that "1=1" is not the same as establishing "calculator = small machine that calculates automatically".


[QUOTE=wesmorris][QUOTE]Why are assumptions needed for practical reasons? [/QUOTE]

Because there is no basis upon which to build if you do not make one. [/QUOTE]

Would you call the way little children operate "based on assumptions"?
If you train a dog, and he is conditioned into something, does the dog operate on assumptions?


[QUOTE=wesmorris] I believe more accurately, it's when reasoning becomes problematic due to self-reference, e.g. "this is true because this is true".[/QUOTE]

What is really problematic is the methodology, the kind of logic that we use. Indeed, methodology is when our thinking goes self-referential.
It is possible to think logically without knowing one single theoretical logical term.


[QUOTE]All reasoning is built upon assumptions/definitions/identities/circles (perhaps even spirals, ).[/QUOTE]

If it is spirals, then -- Christmas lights!
If we say it is about spirals, out go circularities!


[QUOTE]Without a foundation, reasoning cannot be constructed.[/QUOTE]

But what is this foundation? How would you identify it?

* * *

[QUOTE=Quantum Quack]
I would suggest that when people are talking about circular reasoning or logic they are [B]noramlly refereing to an abstraction of logic that appears circular[/B] but of course the person is growing as he sees this thus the circle he sees is realy a part of an overal spiral as growth continues for the idea.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. We can talk about something only if we make a freeze frame of it. But if that phenomeon exists in time, a freeze frame description will not be true to that phenomenon.


[QUOTE]I might add that some people hold on to obsolete asssumptions [beliefs] very strongly thus [B]keeping the spiral really tight[/B], others are able to let go of assumptions [beliefs] more easilly thus allowing a higher rate of growth.[/QUOTE]

And such tightly kept spirals then look like circles.


* * *

[QUOTE=Jenyar]
In a closed system, everything must in some way relate to every other thing. The charge of 'circularity' is only useful if the boundaries have been agreed upon, the 'meta-narrative' established. We must do this, because we cannot think in open systems, we can only refer to them from within our meta-narrative. Now think "Gödel".[/QUOTE]

How wonderfully delicious, thank you!

We may not be able to think in open systems, but we aren't thinking in closed systems either! If we would be, mankind would have made no progress. (But we have made some progress, in some way, methinks.)

If anything, we agree to the boundaries of a system, treat it as if it were a closed system -- and then [how wonderfully] we forget about it all, and redefine the system and its boundaries.

Now, this looks rather whimsical, but it is exactly what science does.


[QUOTE]The only way we can make any progress must be using some form of the two-way inductive reasoning, and progressing with some form of faith in our chosen path. [B]Certain circularities/inconsistencies challenge certain paths[/B], and we must identify, resolve them, and alter course if necessary, but always be aware that everyone is operating with the same limits. [/QUOTE]

If we have agreed to be in a closed system with defined boundaries -- how then can there be inconsistencies?
Either it is not a closed system to begin with, or the boundaries were not exactly defined.


* * *

[QUOTE=thefountainhed] Firstly, it is a false assumption to suggest that human thought is based on assumptions. [/QUOTE]

Then clarify. (I have pointed out this issue to Wes before.)
What could we say that the human thought is based on?
Some axioms, maybe?


[QUOTE]I think what you mean by assumptions are really knowledge of our world that we know through being humans, or knowledge conditioned to our adapatation to our world. So for instance, you say "Why is blue, blue"? This is not a question as the question itself is the answer. Blue is blue because blue is blue. We do not make an assumption on what blue is; we do not assume an identity thereby making it circular as you suggest. There are multiple ways to define blue, but assuming ignorance of the varying wavelengths of light, how was/is blue defined? The definition would be reflective of analogies that reference the colour itself. Therefore, a definition would be that blue is like the colour of sky after a rainy day. BUt what does that tell you? The definition is based on the shared experience of sight. [/QUOTE]

That's the thing. We take that "blue is blue" as a given.

We do not analyze this "blue is blue" -- even though, on a meta-level, we *can* analyze it. But just because we *can* analyze it does not mean that our analysis is correct, or necessary.


* * *

[QUOTE=§outh§tar]
[QUOTE=thefountainhed]Circular reasoning is always infallible when the assumption is correct, but if the assumption is correct then its implications can be had via deduction.[/QUOTE]

How does one determine whether or not an assumption is correct? [/QUOTE]

Ex post. With the benefit of hindsight.

Note that knowledge of phenomena is in advance functioning as the benefit of hindsight, but without actually being the benefit of hindsight.

* * *

[QUOTE=wesmorris]
If it's an assumption, its correctness is not at issue. [/QUOTE]

It is an issue if we are to learn something. We can learn something only *after* the thing has been completed though.

* * *

[QUOTE=thefountainhed]
See, this is the problem with circularity-- if the assumption is assumed correct and the conclusion draws from or is the assumption, you have no argument as the argument is already assumed. From a practical standpoint, an assumption is only proven correct by verification and not argument. [/QUOTE]

Exactly.
Good to have you here.

Water,

[quote]I do not think that language is self-referential and just that. If it would be, we could not use it to communicate about extralingual phenomena.[/quote]

It's complicated and perhaps theoretical, but I've recently read a book that makes an excellent argument on symbolic thinking. The author has some strange ideas, but I like his ideas on symbolism.
It fits with your holism, by the way.
I'll try to explain a little bit here, but if you want, I've transcribed a doc (or pdf if you prefer) that I could email you. I think you'd find it interesting.

So. Let's see here.

First, this is from Symbolic Species by Terrence Deacon.

Alright.

The thing about language is the reference problem. How do we refer to things? And how do 'lesser' animals refer to things? What makes our means of reference different to theirs?

Deacon splits these into three categories (these categories are not really his by the way. They've been used in different ways by cognitive philosophers for quite some time. And perhaps in most detail by Charles Sanders Peirce.
These three categories are: [i]icon, index, and symbol[/i].

Here's what they mean in a simple explanation.

Iconic reference is the simplest form of reference and is the default means of referring to something else. It is distinguished by the [i]not-doing[/i] rather than the doing. Let me explain. Iconic reference is one thing resembling another. An example in the book is given like this. Imagine a bird scanning the bark of trees for moths to eat. It's scanning and looking for differences that would indicate the presence of a moth. So, if it were to be said to be thinking, it'd be thinking something similar to (bark, bark, bark, bark, bark) until it came across something that [i]didn't[/i] look like bark (bark, bark, bark, not-bark, bark). The not bark [i]indicates[/i] a difference to bark and a possible food source. An introspective bird might spend some time thinking on the similarities that the moth's wings have to the bark on which it tried to hide. It's those similarities which are interpreted [i]iconically[/i].

See?

Ok. Next. Indexical thinking. I've already shown you an example of indexical thinking if you were quick enough to realize it. The [i]difference[/i] to the bark of the moth's wings [i]indicated[/i] the presence of the moth. Indexical thinking is correlative and indicative. One might smell the smell of a skunk and this would [i]indicate[/i] the presence of a skunk.

See?

Alright. Symbolic reference. This one's trickier, but it's the important bit.
First, you need to realize that the means of reference are stackable. First is iconic thinking, the default. If we were lazy enough in our awareness then everything could be iconic of each other. (Stuff, stuff, stuff.) One needs to acquire a variety of iconic references in order to use them to correlate things in time and space to create an index.
An index is made up of iconic associations.
And in a similar manner, symboic reference is made up a multitude of indexical references.

Think of your dog learning that 'outside' means to go outside and go for a walk. It doesn't [i]really[/i] understand what the word means, it first has iconized the sound so that it can recognize it when it occurs and it has than indexed that sound to another event in time and space: going outside for a walk. This is the extent of its thinking and its reference. And if you stopped using 'outside' to indicate going outside but instead used something else, then eventually the dog would lose the index that it had created and either replace it with another or none.
Indexes need constant reinforcement.

But, think of the skunk. How many skunks have you seen in your life?
How many Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Or unicorns?
Or justice?

Symbolic reference hangs in without concrete reinforcement from the real world because it is supported by other means.

Let me explain. As I said, this is the tricky bit.
Think about having a complex system of indexical and iconical correlations that allow you to get along quite well in the world. Animals do quite well, you know. They don't [i]need[/i] symbolic language to thrive. We're freaks in this.
Anyway, you have this huge array of indexical associations. You have a rote memorization of 'When a then b". There are layers of indexical associations. Indexes of indexes, etc... But they are exceedingly difficult and time consuming to go through. We hit a wall of how much our minds can remember. How much we can correlate.

But, consider if you stop looking at how the indexes relate to the physical world, but rather look at how the [i]relate to themselves[/i]. You begin to notice various [i]rules[/i] that interconnect the indexes. In this way, you gain a huge mnemonic advantage over indexical methods of reference. You remember more. And also are able to shift things about.

Symbolic thinking is a method of interchangeable parts.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's complicated and not easily explained in a simple form, I'm afraid. I recommend you read that doc I've prepared.


And how does this relate to holism, you ask?
The shift from indexical memorization to symbolic understanding is that holistic shift you're always on about. It's when everything gels together and you're no longer struggling to remember the facts but instead incorporate them into a clear system.

[quote]All those things that we give names with language, "tables", "computers" etc., they are not part of language, they exist externally from it. We do say that there is a reality. What we do with language is that we *refer* to this reality. Hence, language is not just self-referential.[/quote]

Yes. We refer to reality. But that's just it. Symbolic thinking is a shift [i]away[/i] from reality. It is this shift that allows us to speak of things [i]that don't even exist in reality[/i]. And also to speak of things that do exist, somewhere, but not in our experience.

The important thing to realize is that we're not dealing with tables and chairs. We're dealing with 'tables' and 'chairs'. Each of which is defined (connected to) by another series of words (symbols) which are in turn defined by others and others and others. Language is the ultimate in self-reference. You remove this self-reference and the whole thing falls apart.

I believe it was Gendanken that mentioned in a thread somewhere about philosophers who started carrying around all the things that they wanted to talk about instead of talking about them? Can you imagine? That's what you'd have to do with out this self-referencing ability of language.

[quote](Unless you are arguing from solipsism.)[/quote]

In a way. I'm not saying that the phsyical world only exists in the mind, but it is [i]interpreted[/i] in the mind. The meaning which we ascribe to things is solely in the mind.

Tables and chairs without meaning are nothing but bits of wood arranged in a strange fashion that might be said to resemble something or perhaps to indicate the presence of something else.


And. Before you say it. Ex Post Facto.
Yes, it is. But that's how it goes. We build our methods of reference from earlier methods of reference. This is done Ex Post Facto.
This doesn't mean that a system that is constructed Ex Post Facto from the various rote memorizations that go into it cannot be used [i]now[/i] after it's been constructed. Only the construction takes place after the fact. Once constructed, it can be used in real time.

This is where many of these ex post factos 'fallacies' seem to come from. Not realizing the layered aspect of reference.

[quote]If you train a dog, and he is conditioned into something, does the dog operate on assumptions?[/quote]

He operates on indexical association. He operates on [i]correlation[/i].

[quote]It is possible to think logically without knowing one single theoretical logical term.[/quote]

Even logic itself?
Let's say that the symbol 'logically' can be attributed to a methodology without actually using that word, so we can say that one can act 'logically' without being aware of logic. But, can one be aware of oneself acting logically if one does not know logic exists?
It's the meaning ascribed to a method that is the key. And meaning must be defined through this shift to symbolism. Else it's all rote memorization.

[quote]If we say it is about spirals, out go circularities![/quote]

Spirals. Figure 8's. It's all in the perspective isn't it?

[quote]If anything, we agree to the boundaries of a system, treat it as if it were a closed system -- and then [how wonderfully] we forget about it all, and redefine the system and its boundaries.[/quote]

This is symbolism in a nutshell. Sort of. Symbolism is a defined code. We all agree on the meaning of certain letters and sounds. But these codes change over time. And the changine of the code is, to a great extent, seperate from our conscious intention. We are carriers of a parasite called language.
(By the way, there is also an interesting theory in Deacon's book that gets around Universal Grammar because of this parasite theory.)

[quote]If we have agreed to be in a closed system with defined boundaries -- how then can there be inconsistencies?
Either it is not a closed system to begin with, or the boundaries were not exactly defined.[/quote]

Because we share a symbolic system. But our shared symbolic code is individually built by our own unique collections of icons and indices.
Icon and index are thus qualia. Uniquely personal and incommunicable.

There are methods of communication that are not symbolic. Emotions indicate the state of another. As do the rest, body language, scent, etc... All indexical. I don't think that any method of communication is iconical.

Alright. Long enough. Am I making sense here? Or do I need to break it down further.

Invert, I fear you need to distinguish between thought and language, for you interchange the two many times in your post to make your point seem muddled.

For example, can iconic thought exist without langauge? YOur post suggests that it can, and I believe that it can. If iconic thought exists in a being then this implies indexing. The higher implication therefore becomes that without language, symbolic thought is impossible. Or its corollary, language creates symbolic thinking.

[QUOTE=water]Sorry for being late, I've been busy.[/quote]

What a bastard.

[QUOTE]Explain. How is any assumption circular in nature?
... because it is ... an assumption?[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. Identity, blah. Don't feign like you don't get it. Hehe.

[QUOTE]I don't get this. How is circularity everywhere? Where is the circularity in how the books are set on the shelves in my room?[/QUOTE]

Well ultimatley you could say that they are set there the way they are set there because that's how they're sitting. Identity. They just are.

[QUOTE][B][COLOR=Blue][this colour][/COLOR][/B] = blue

This may be a definition (and best understood in the sense of a prototype) -- but saying it is circular?! How?[/QUOTE]

It's easy if you know how to type or speak. Signing is trickier, but I understand it's doable.

[QUOTE]By calling a certain inherent uncertainty of being a human a "hypocrisy", you give away your deeply rooted perfectionism, and the wish to be something that seems to be impossible for you to get at.
:p[/QUOTE]

*giggle*

Becoming tessie is not on my agenda. Hypocracy is a term of logic and appropriate in the context it was used. I'm a hypocrite. I accept it. Do you accept your own hypocracy? Of course you do. You understand that logic doesn't apply to all aspect of being. I would venture to guess that you are more than your hypocracy.

[QUOTE]Repeating:
How exactly are assumptions circular?[/QUOTE]

It's logically equivalent to faith, identity, blah. You agreed in your announcement thread for chrissake.

[QUOTE]Say that I assume that there is no mice in my shoes. Where exactly is the circularity of this assumption?[/QUOTE]

That questioning your assumption cannot dent it, because you've already assumed it... so no logical argument can convince you otherwise.

[QUOTE]I just thought it best to in[ve]stigate![/QUOTE]

I like that.

[QUOTE]Interesting. More interesting. Exactly.[/QUOTE]

Pffffft.

[QUOTE]Saying that x is inherently circular, and then dismissing x because of this circularity (as circularity is supposedly invalid) is not a valid step, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I covered this in your other thread. Circularity is only invalid in the context of logic. Since we agree that logic doesn't neccesarily apply to being, circularity is conditionally invalid. Mainly, it's invalid if we don't agree, or mother nature contradicts our presumption.


[QUOTE]E.g. I intend to go out, I walk out of my room, put on my shoes. Do I, at that time, really assume that there are no mice in my shoes?[/QUOTE]

You either assume it or don't address it. Either way is the same. As I mentioned somewhere, for there to be faith or assumption, there must be the potential for skepticism. Basically your experience has taught you not to bother to be skeptical on that issue, as it presents a low risk to you even on the off chance it happens.

[QUOTE]If I know that my cat brought a mouse into the house and played with it around the shoes, then I have reason to assume that there might be a mouse in my shoes.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[QUOTE]The amount of plausible assumptions is thus limited. I don't understand how we can claim them to be circular.[/QUOTE]

You're getting yourself all twisted up. It's circular because it's logically equivalent to circularity. End of story. If you assume something, you've assumed it. Perhaps you're considering "tentative assumptions" which aren't really assumptions at all, but markers of risk. "Should I apply skepticism"? To do so takes effort, effort is energy, energy is conserved.

[QUOTE]This needs a lot of clarification.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying.

[QUOTE]Establishing that "1=1" is not the same as establishing "calculator = small machine that calculates automatically".[/QUOTE]

I think it is. It's an identity.

[QUOTE]Would you call the way little children operate "based on assumptions"?
If you train a dog, and he is conditioned into something, does the dog operate on assumptions?[/QUOTE]

Can you see my thoughts on this based on what I've said? Consider: There is no faith is there is no potential for skepticism. If a child doesn't know to question, assumptions are not there. It's the same thing as faith really as to how it fits into the system of how all this works. Faith = lack of skepticism.


[QUOTE]What is really problematic is the methodology, the kind of logic that we use. Indeed, methodology is when our thinking goes self-referential.[/QUOTE]

Well, the boundaries are self-referential.

It's like a computer. Input -> Logic stuff -> output. The input and output are fuzzy. They mean nothing to the computer. Meaning is derived from abstraction and is as such, subjective. Input is assumed. Output is based on an assumed input.

[QUOTE]It is possible to think logically without knowing one single theoretical logical term.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but I don't see the relevance.

[QUOTE]If it is spirals, then -- Christmas lights![/QUOTE]

LOL. You're good.

[QUOTE]But what is this foundation? How would you identify it?[/QUOTE]

Anything assumed. You can identify it via skepticism, e.g. "How do I know that?".

[QUOTE]We may not be able to think in open systems, but we aren't thinking in closed systems either! If we would be, mankind would have made no progress. (But we have made some progress, in some way, methinks.)[/QUOTE]

Sure, we learn to trust the outputs based on previous inputs and progress from there.

[QUOTE]If we have agreed to be in a closed system with defined boundaries -- how then can there be inconsistencies?[/QUOTE]

Divide by zero. Buffer over-run. All kind of good stuff.

[QUOTE]Either it is not a closed system to begin with, or the boundaries were not exactly defined.[/QUOTE]

Bah, closed systems, open systems... it's all abstract stuff. Ultimately there is only the thing itself. You can define what you want. It may or may not reflect the thing itself and ultimately there is no way to know if it really does. I love the abstract stuff mind you, it is SO utilitarian and fun. Withouth it, humans wouldn't be so fit for survival. That wouldn't be so fun.

[QUOTE]What could we say that the human thought is based on?[/QUOTE]

Subjective experience.

[QUOTE]That's the thing. We take that "blue is blue" as a given.

We do not analyze this "blue is blue" -- even though, on a meta-level, we *can* analyze it. But just because we *can* analyze it does not mean that our analysis is correct, or necessary.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It's only when there are desired consequences from the analysis that we find it necessary. If for instance, your life depended on blue = blue being a true statement, you would likely be highly motivated to analyze it. If it's of no consequence, then the motivation required to perform the analysis is completely lacking. You won't do it. Often the desired consequence of analysis is knowledge. If you desire the consequence of knowing that blue is really really blue, you are thus motivated to perform the analysis.

I could be waay off here but....

[QUOTE]If you desire the consequence of knowing that blue is really really blue, you are thus motivated to perform the analysis.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that there's some serious ontological assumptions going on here. This assumes a 'real' blue,a 'Platonic' type of blue. Being of the nominalist persuasion myself, I'm surprised to see everyone running with this seemingly 'given' status. I know colours (and other percepts) are always subject to special consideration, but in any case, if the quandry here is one of finding the Truth (sic), then shouldn't we be paying more attention to the ontological status of the subject(s) under consideration?

[QUOTE=glaucon]It seems to me that there's some serious ontological assumptions going on here. This assumes a 'real' blue,a 'Platonic' type of blue. Being of the nominalist persuasion myself, I'm surprised to see everyone running with this seemingly 'given' status. I know colours (and other percepts) are always subject to special consideration, but in any case, if the quandry here is one of finding the Truth (sic), then shouldn't we be paying more attention to the ontological status of the subject(s) under consideration?[/QUOTE]

I thought the question was more toward how you gain knowledge of that status.

Regardless my personal concern in the argument is that of utility. That I exist for instance is of little interest to me since I've assumed that I do. Thus my ontological status is irrelevant to me, as I've written it off as uninteresting. It's moot as far as I'm concerned. What concerns me is that I think I do.

I don't care for instance, about my the validity of the input that I just took a drink from a mountain dew, a drag off a cigar and then typed this. If I noted contradictory stimulous later I'd become concerned and apply skepticism to the point of gaining faith in one impression or the other.. or be forced into indeterminance on the issue.

That I exist, or that the stimulous was real are both tentatively assumed. The latter less than the former, but both remain pretty much equivalent I suppose until one new stimulous causes incites skepticism of that which preceded it.

So after that rant, you are correct that there have been major assumptions on my part regarding ontological status. I would offer though removing the assumptions I've made renders the topic ultimately pointless.

You are right that we must assume that there exists "blue" and that there is a reality in which this blue exists, along with a predictable correlation between the label and reality. It's interesting to consider that you could find a large subset of the population that would always respond with "blue" (or their lingual equivalent) to the same stimulous... but you can pretty much bet there will be other responses if you ask enough people. So for one set, blue is blue in reality as far as they see it. In another... not so much.

I'm curious:

What is the ontological status of logic? Hmm.

The experience of a given moment is the derivative of the function of its host.

I know that sounds like pyschobabble, but it means something to me.

There is something about the concept of the derivative and its relationship to the integral that seems so applicable to consciousness. I just can't figure out exactly how to say anything useful about it. It's just some vague but powerful impression in my mind.

*sigh*

Nevermind. Pardon the non-sequiter please. It was some related something or other I was thinking aboot.

Really which of the choices you opt for regarding any choice is mandated by your emotional attachment to your pre-decision prediction of it.

If you are for instance, emotionally attached to the projected creature comfort offered by a slurp of mountain dew and a drag off of a cigar... you'll reach for them and indulge. Even if your actions are from habit, the habit persists predicated upon an attachment to it. It becomes part of your mechanism for survival as you see it.

I say all that because I think it's imperative to at least [i]my[/i] understanding of the nature of knowing. To know how the mind knows you must know the mind. Talk about circularity.

:rolleyes:

I don't call me Nerd Overlord for nuthin.

[QUOTE]I'm curious:
What is the ontological status of logic? Hmm.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if you're joking here or not, so...
I imagine the answer to that depends upon whether or not you think logic obtains beyond human existence or, if you believe it to be contingently related to our existence. Personally, I would favour the latter. While it's true that there appears to be some 'reasonably' structured 'behaviour' in the natural world, I would be hard pressed to take this as evidence of some type of logic. One could also argue that the seemingly structured 'behaviour' we observe in the natural world seems to be so simply due to the fact that our method of analysis (scientific method) seeks such order. Nevertheless, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea that a pre-human, natural logic does indeed obtain in our universe (although I think Godel would be.. :-) ).
Whew!

Next:
I think you're 'derivative/integral' though process idea makes sense. My only issue would be that the mental act of 'integration' would seem to imply some sort of temporal retrograde movement.

[QUOTE=glaucon]Not sure if you're joking here or not, so...[/quote]

You know now that I think about it I'm not sure either. The question did occur to me and leave me stumped. I think it can only be answered with the assumptions I stated/implied above.

[QUOTE]I imagine the answer to that depends upon whether or not you think logic obtains beyond human existence or, if you believe it to be contingently related to our existence. Personally, I would favour the latter. While it's true that there appears to be some 'reasonably' structured 'behaviour' in the natural world, I would be hard pressed to take this as evidence of some type of logic. One could also argue that the seemingly structured 'behaviour' we observe in the natural world seems to be so simply due to the fact that our method of analysis (scientific method) seeks such order. Nevertheless, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea that a pre-human, natural logic does indeed obtain in our universe (although I think Godel would be.. :-) ).
Whew![/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[quote]Next:
I think you're 'derivative/integral' though process idea makes sense. My only issue would be that the mental act of 'integration' would seem to imply some
sort of temporal retrograde movement.[/QUOTE]

Thank you and [i]exactly[/i], er.. well, maybe not exactly as we're speaking in very broad, ill-defined terms but it seems that some of our assumptions align, perhaps allowing us a progression of logic on their basis.

Consider that at least subjectively, time is available to the mind in some sort of 'temporal retrograde movement', in the sense that your experience can be thought of as "the time you exprienced" and is somewhat as such to you, but it all inter-related through re-enforcement/destruction of subjectively experienced time upon itself (concepts).

The concept of "imaginary time" as a spatial dimension as used by Hawking, though I barely comprehend it, seems tantalizing as an explanation for the capacity of mind to experience more time at one time than just that time. I don't know how well I can support all that though.

I'm really sorry if this is turning into a thread-jack. I'll stop if there are objections.

wes,

To continue moving on the tangent...

This calculus/mind thing stuck in my head all day....
I was thinking this really makes sense. It helps explain the non-discrete nature of the mind; we're never aware of individual moments in time; we're always 'moving' through it. This nicely mirrors the iterating nature of calculus processes. Following this model, I wonder what the limit set on our mind is? :-)

Well, would it be a subjective infinity?

Hey look I'm back on topic.

I think it more of the eventuations of thought that we need to take not of.

Circularities are a common fuel for eventuations, the action of purpose.
I believe that, no matter what you do in life, you have done what you were meant to do. That is the eventuating me. I cannot avoid myself and the decisions I make, therefore, I am who I am meant to be. Whatever the purpose is..... or isnt !

???
We're dealing with logic here, not teleological silliness.

If we take the spirit of "I think therefore I am" to be true, then we have clearly demonstrated the dependence of logic upon premise. "I am" is based upon itself. "I" presumes itself. Thought leads to "I". Why?

Because it does. (blah physics blah blah)

*shrug*

Do you have to think you are in order to think your thoughts are a result of thinking?

There is some of the trouble with circularity. It's valid on a subjective basis regardless of what logic dictates. Unless contradicted by circumstance, logic isn't necessarily relevant.

It's cool to me that when I think about circularity it seems I find me repeating myself more than usual.