h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Brouwer's foundational theory of mathematics says that you should not count a proof of (There exists x such that P(x)) valid unless the proof actually gives a method of constructing such an x. Similarly, a proof of (A or B) is valid only if it actually exhibits either a proof of A or a proof of B.


Alji

But a proof of A or B could be achieved by showing 1) That A and B are mutually exclusive; and 2) that A and B exhaust all possibilities.

A or not A simply *is* this special case.

Noggin

Thanx, Nogg. I was dozing off earlier but you made my own point perfectly. However, I now wonder whether Alji is quibbling about the domain of the existential quantifier. Sound kinda sexy, don't it!

'There exists an X such that X is either A or not A', requires us to show that an X exists. 'For any X, X is either A or not A' does not! So it depends on the modality of the the logical system we happen to be using whether what Alji says actually applies. On the other hand, to relocate the existential quantifier: 'Either there exists an X that is A, or there does not exist an X that is A' is again axiomatic.

I hate to think what this kind of thing would look like in logical symbolism, but it seems kinda obvious in English.

toxx

...oye, you are killing me with all this maths and logic already...

"The main point is that logic is not a psychological component of human thinking, but a category we use to describe certain kinds of reasoning, after the fact."

Presumably you are excluding those occasions where someone actually works something out by consiously using logic?

I think the point would be that logic is a description of a certain kind of *behaviour*.

Consciousness is just a *narrative* which gets included in the "representation of the world" that constitutes the person whose consciousness it is.

Noggin

"Such a similar term which applies to the tendency to take greater risks when a group is making the decisions, rather than an individual. Clearly, this militates against organising cabin crews to make group decisions."

Same phenomenon, toxx. Working as a group, the individuals in the group shift the risk onto each other, hence the increase in risk adopted by the group as opposed to that adopted by various individuals qua inidividuals. So the training by airlines is to prevent the group decision making process adopting risk shifting by making the individuals alert to the possibility, introducing tools for prevention and thus making the whole process conscious instead of unconscious.

Interestingly, at a summer school once I was part of a group of six who were the subjects in a combined experiment into risky shift and Belbin group roles. The rest of the class were tutored in the roles, set three to a person and each observer had to anlyse the quantity and quality of the interactions by each individual to assess their role persona. In that expercise, curiously, I adopted the role of the chairman (which was a role I had in a job in real life), though nowadays I tend to prefer those of shaper and researcher.

The risky shift outcome was completely disrupted (unknowingly) by me. In two out of the six exercises (we had previously had to make individual responses to the scenarios) I refused to permit the group to be bullied into a decision when we were clearly split on the issue, despite being told by the tutor that we had to come to a group decision. Might have been something to do with the fact that my chairmanship role IRL was that of a middling senior trade union rep. However, there was enough evidence from the remaining four decisions to prove the thesis.

"I agree; thus you can never really trust people."

Maybe not 100%, LB, but you do have to put your trust in people to some extent, or you will live your life almost completely defensively, which will, eventually, give you no intimate relationships (and by that I am not referring to physically intimate, but emtionally so).
This is a complete shot in the dark, but was your father into promising you things you looked forward to - a present or a trip somewhere, or doing something you really wanted to do - and then not delivering? Or were either of your parents the sort of person who were warm and affectionate one minute and then cold and distant the next?

"If you allow to much arbitrarity, though, you end up just contradicting yourself and achieving nothing."

No - it is possible to achieve a lot even if your aims change. It is OK to change your mind, so long as you don't do it all the time. Few people are 100% reliable because we all experience things which impact on us so that we sometimes have to alter our priorities. That's fine, so long as we're honest with other people who have reason to expect us to do something, and we explain why it can't be done. Unless, as I say, it's done all the time. Then it becomes a series of excuses.

"If genuine, you can live a life of sin, and repent and the very last moment only to accepted into God's kingdom."

Ah, but Christian theology does not permit someone to knowingly decide to live a life of sin and then repent at the last moment - for, philsophically, how can such repentence be genuine?

Anyway, a few of us here don't believe in the Christian God.

"Consciousness is just a *narrative* which gets included in the "representation of the world" that constitutes the person whose consciousness it is."

OK, toxx, but why classify logic as 'post hoc'? What is the standpoint here?

<>

Actually, Heathen, it was Noggin who said that, not toxxin.

But I did think it sounded rather bleak.

az

HS. It is extremely rare for even professional logicians to work things out using logic. The circumstances tend to arise in artificial tasks set by the likes of psychological researchers. Therefore I don't say that it *never* happens, but that if there's another way of arriving at the answer, it will probably be adopted.

I have struggled to work out just how the mind represents such problems. It could be in the form or verbal propositions, or perhaps some analogue of truth tables or Venn diagrams. The usual method is by the construction of mental models, which tend to 'picture' the relevant features of the situation. Usually a sound conclusion can be 'read off' from such a model without resorting to anything resembling logical rules.

Another major interest of mine has been the source of errors in such problems. A common cause is for people to satisfice: to assume that their quick route to the answer is 'good enough'. This isn't something we can know in advance without doing the hard work first!

toxx

Sceptic et al...

>>Anyway, a few of us here don't believe in the Christian God. <<

Well, at least, not as a Triple-O Big-G type god...

He was probably ok when he was still behaving like a local desert wight, and being treated like one - the occasional goat, a bit of milk and honey of an evening, a glass of something nice with his followers at festival time... but all this extra attention seems to have gone to his head... and if he s so great, how come he can't even sort out the trouble in the Jerusalem area? It's been going on now since the romans invaded...

Jez - heathen and happy with her gods especially after this wekend

Why so?

Noggin

Agreed, toxx. I never do philosophy by means of conscious logic. And I've no idea how the models I work with are actually constructed, even when I can analyse them after the event. Not verbally. Or by truth tables, which I have to verbalise to understand.

Noggin

Noggin,

Because consciousness isn't *just* anything. Really it is inexplicable, unknowable, undefinable. To try and pidgeon-hole it in such a strictly cerebral philosophical manner seems a bit sad, it takes away all the possibility for magic (and I don't mean magic in a 'supernatural' sense). It leaves no room for emotion, which is a huge and important aspect of being human.

There are so many things involved with being conscious that we will never know or understand 'consciously'. Which is kind of ironic, especially as we can sometimes understand consciousness better when we are not consciously trying to.

Words and ideas are very good for explaining and understanding many things. But for some other things there are no words. And I have no problem with accepting that. No words are sometimes better than words that don't really fit.

az

philosophy by means of conscious logic::

Surley logic or logicity is sort of like a "map" here you are made aware of possible out comes as to what "could""would" happen "if"

Where as philosophy is the "why" some times the two will over lap to give us the "if" "when" "how" most of it is checked out useing the remaining Sceinces maths/physics/chemistry incedently none of which can explain "gods" as to the rights ang wrongs "individual" to each and every one of us!
My also handy mark

<>

But you're safer if you don't trust them. Perhaps it is a worthwile tradeoff; I haven't decided completely,




<>

Not really, no. My parents were never in the habit of prommising things they thought I'd look forward to. Trips are predictable; we alwyas go on exactly the same vacations every year at exactly the same time of year. As for gifts, my parents never promise gifts. Though my mom does have a habit of sometimes suddenly getting very angry at everyone/everything without clear reason. I suppose you think that that would make me distrust people because my parents are unpredictable--maybe you have a point there, but I think it has more to do with experiances with classmates at school than with my parents.

<>

I'd describe it as a wavefront proceeding through time.

Do you really think me so shallow, az?

Did I specify a verbal narrative? Why not a visual narrative? Or an emotion narrative?

I probably shouldn't have said *just*; I was just having a moment regarding the possible functional form of consciousness. And no, I can't capture the feeling in words.

Noggin