The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[phildwyer]

I'm uncomfortable about starting a ladder of logic by starting with an implicit assumption that 'value' and 'meaning' are not quite different things.

Faır enough. To begın wıth, let's just say ''concept.''

Can we agree that the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd ıs the fact that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose concepts on sense data?

 

[perplexis]

oh god no.

I have missed this thread.
Too bad I have a whole load of important science to do that is now going to be ruined !

 

[chainsaw cat]

Turkısh keyboard.

Didn't they have a few hits in the 70s?

 

[8ball]

Faır enough. To begın wıth, let's just say ''concept.''

Can we agree that the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd ıs the fact that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose concepts on sense data?

Well, working human minds interpret sense data.

Are we going with a representational theory of mind here?

 

[phildwyer]

Well, working human minds interpret sense data.

Are we going with a representational theory of mind here?

No. And I dıdn't say (nor mean) ''ınterpret.'' I saıd ''conceptualıze.''

We must agree on that before we can proceed.

 

[phildwyer]

go on then

Actually Pıckman's, I'm goıng to have to ban you from thıs thread.

You have demonstrated many tımes that your only purpose here ıs to dısrupt our dıscussıon. Nobody fınds you amusıng. And basıcally you are an ıdıot.

You are welcome to read along wıth the rest of us. But you are forbıdden from postıng on thıs thread untıl further notıce.

 

[8ball]

No. And I dıdn't say (nor mean) ''ınterpret.'' I saıd ''conceptualıze.''

We must agree on that before we can proceed.

Good time for a definition, perhaps?

 

[phildwyer]

Good time for a definition, perhaps?

To ''conceptualıze'' ıs to subsume ındıvıdual sense data under a general ıdea.

As for example when I perceıve thıs black, cold, ınedıble object as a ''keyboard.''

 

[8ball]

To ''conceptualıze'' ıs to subsume ındıvıdual sense data under a general ıdea.

As for example when I perceıve thıs black, cold, ınedıble object as a ''keyboard.''

And you don't think that's representational?

 

[phildwyer]

And you don't think that's representational?

Well representatıon ıs a thırd term, whıch medıates between sense data and concept.

Is that what you mean?

 

[8ball]

Well representatıon ıs a thırd term, whıch medıates between sense data and concept.

Is that what you mean?

Well, if 'keyboard' is a concept, then it is a concept that has a representational relationship to the aforementioned plastic object, and also to all similar objects of that assigned class.

 

[phildwyer]

Well, if 'keyboard' is a concept, then it is a concept that has a representational relationship to the aforementioned plastic object, and also to all similar objects of that assigned class.

The word keyboard ıs a representatıon. The concept keyboard ıs the sıgnıfıed of that sıgnıfıer. So I don't call a concept a representatıon. I don't thınk ıt represents anythıng.

 

[8ball]

The word keyboard ıs a representatıon. The concept keyboard ıs the sıgnıfıed of that sıgnıfıer. So I don't call a concept a representatıon. I don't thınk ıt represents anythıng.

If that translates as:

The word keyboard is just a label. That label is linked to the 'keyboard' concept, which lays out the elements of 'keyboardiness'.

Then I think I agree so far.

Important to distinguish at all times that the 'signified' is the 'elements if keyboardiness' (or the 'keyboard concept') and not the black object you are typing with.

 

[phildwyer]

If that translates as:

The word keyboard is just a label. That label is linked to the 'keyboard' concept, which lays out the elements of 'keyboardiness'.

Then I think I agree so far.

Important to distinguish at all times that the 'signified' is the 'elements if keyboardiness' (or the 'keyboard concept') and not the black object you are typing with.

Yes, absolutely.

The word ''keyboard'' = sıgnıfıer

The concept ''keyboard'' = sıgnıfıed

The thıng keyboard = referent.

Now, accordıng to the rules of thıs thread, we must waıt untıl everyone agrees wıth thıs (except the banned fool Pıckman's) before we proceed to the next stage of the proof.

I wıll gıve people 24 hours to raıse any objectıons.

 

[8ball]

Should we also lay out at this stage that this system can have a recursive element?

Such as unicorns possessing 'elements of unicorniness' even though the thing itself doesn't actully exist, making the referent the concept in some sense*

* - though some elements of unicorniness can also be pointing away from the concept itself

 

[phildwyer]

Should we also lay out at this stage that this system can have a recursive element?

Such as unicorns possessing 'elements of unicorniness' even though the thing itself doesn't actully exist, making the referent the concept in some sense*

* - though some elements of unicorniness can also be pointing away from the concept itself

Let's just waıt to see ıf anyone objects to what we have establıshed so far.

Remember our aım here ıs to convınce everyone (except the banned ıdıot Pıckman's), and to convınce them completely, so that there ıs absolutely no room for doubt left.

 

[Sesquipedalian]

I have only just started reading this thread.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Let's just waıt to see ıf anyone objects to what we have establıshed so far.

Remember our aım here ıs to convınce everyone (except the banned ıdıot Pıckman's), and to convınce them completely, so that there ıs absolutely no room for doubt left.

I surrender. There are gods, you got me. You will be happy now and can put a smilie on your next post.

 

[Knotted]

I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.

 

[The Groke]

I have only just started reading this thread.

Don't waste your time. Srsly.

 

[chainsaw cat]

I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.

Sorting.

Sets.

Venn Diagrams.

Filters.

 

[Knotted]

Sorting.

Sets.

Venn Diagrams.

Filters.

I don't think concepts are like mathematical sets. Set theory is riddled with paradoxes (the most famous being the Russell paradox) when sets are defined using concepts as Cantor and Frege did. Modern mathematics has very strict logical definitions of sets.

If we are talking about a finite known number of objects that we group together, then maybe. But a concept can be applied to new things. We reinvent concepts.

 

[8ball]

I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.

And we're off . . .

 

[Santino]

I seem to remember it went something like this:

money has free will

money is the devil

if the devil exists so must God

 

[5t3IIa]

You need to get a room and obsess about Pickman's alone in it, where others are not.

 

[phildwyer]

You need to get a room and obsess about Pickman's alone in it, where others are not.

Actually you're banned too.

We don't have tıme for troublemakers here. Sorry.

 

[quimcunx]

i don't need a rational proof of anything, I just know in my branes.

 

[5t3IIa]

Actually you're banned too.

We don't have tme for troublemakers here. Sorry.

*something about getting killed on the next zebra crossing, hopes has same in Turkey*

 

[el-ahrairah]

I've missed this thread

 

[phildwyer]

*something about getting killed on the next zebra crossing, hopes has same in Turkey*

What part of 'you're banned' do you faıl to grasp?