StrictlyLogical

@Bill Hobba I should let you know that hearing your interest in these subjects is refreshing. So many mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers stay in their own lanes far too much or hold on to what they have been told by authorities in their field with far too little independent scrutiny. That said, as an analogy I would like to introduce the statement “abstractions are founded in reality” as a generalization which is subject to the same problem. When abstractions are used in a context of referring to reality, with any language, mathematical or not, the system of abstractions should be founded in reality. These sorts of considerations were never really investigated in my training in physics. I would argue the BEST professors admonished us to look at the equations SOLELY as a tool for predicting and quantifying reality… implicitly our way of dealing with reality is not reality… a nice warning about the clear distinction between our abstractions and their referents in reality, without sophisticated explication.

What would happen if second person came along and thought one did not need complex numbers to solve something, but instead thought only that the formulas and equations had to be adjusted… in other words instead of the division of labour for our abstractions being using complex numbers in simple equations, using simple numbers in complex equations? What if a third person came along and said the distinctions of division of labour for our abstractions is really quite superficial and illusory and really either approaches are simply the same thing expressed in different ways. EDIT: and to the extent correct or corresponding to reality, refer to the same things in reality.

Depending on your definition of what constitutes mathematics that statement may be overly broad. Although it sounds absurd, “mathematics” could include both invalid and valid forms, in such a context some mathematics definitely are not founded in reality… and could be floating abstractions at best and wholly based on imagination and irrationality at worst. On the other hand if you propose to define valid mathematics or just “mathematics” as only including that which IS founded in reality then I look forward to your delineation of what falls within and without of that classification. Abstractions are meant to be meaningfully based on and in correspondence to or connected with reality but we all know that anti-concepts, invalid and floating abstractions are all commonly found among the mental contents of a great many people.

I see nothing here which gives rise to a “physical assumption”. The physical things and attributes (observables) are measured as possessing real magnitudes. How we calculate expected measurements involves complex numbers. These are distinguishable. What is the “physical assumption”?

What do you have in mind when you say this? How can a “physical assumption” be that something is from an abstraction? [I am very familiar with complex numbers and vector “spaces” and their applications]

The Dark Ages were a long time ago. Something more recent is Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism This is the very definition of a "scientific consensus" in Soviet Russia. It's not so much that correct genetics "stood" during that time, but that it was "rediscovered" when the incorrect "consensus" withered away, as it had to. Consensus is not science and in fact has nothing to do with science. The scientific method, when used by independent individual thinkers is, and always has been, that which shatters ideological based consensus, especially when masquerading as "Truth" or "The Science".

Instead of asking about a hypothetical future (which likely is impossible) just look at the reality of the past. When belief in the supernatural as an actual fact was the overwhelming consensus, independent thought in individuals “stood” and in certain circles prevailed.

I think there are important distinctions between the concept of Artificial Intelligence, essentially characterized by being artificial and meeting some kind of definition of intelligence... and something which is truly sentient or conscious. A science fiction writer or a layperson might use these terms interchangeably, but the concepts are not interchangeable... non-sentient machines which experience nothing have been "learning" for decades now, but are nowhere near to exhibiting consciousness, even if they may one day imitate it. Consciousness is not an algorithm, but AI certainly can be algorithmic, as it currently is.

[Emphasis Added] Looks more to me like the Turing test is begging us not to question it...

Unintended consequences for the poor F'ker who tries to "instigate" WW3... He will in fact be setting the spark to wake up and transform of the great masses of Sheeple back into We the People, and instigating in fact the largest Rebellion/Revolution the World has ever seen, by We the People against the corrupt Predator Class and corruption in Global and Domestic Institutions... all throughout the Western so-called democracies. BE assured the People won't send sons to die in order to line their pockets anymore. We will see who gets sacrificed on what alter this time around, if they try to order the People to die in some foreign land for no good reason or if they try to sentence the People to death for refusing to go... I'd like to see them try. This so-called instigation might be just what is needed to start the purification of the world... albeit a consequence unintended by the so-called instigator.

In a proper society one literally cannot punish an opinion. One can disagree with them, one can spend millions of dollars “arguing” … one can Lie in public (as long as it is not initiation of force like libel or yelling fire in a theater). One can choose not to disseminate an opposing view. All of the above… because it is free from coercion … THAT is what makes it free speech. We can wish people were different and we can attempt to persuade them of the correctness of our positions but the marketplace of ideas in a proper society would only be free if people who didn’t believe in free speech were allowed to shout as loud (without amounting to initiation of force) as they want to. I would understand if you propose that in a free society people like us should be strong advocates of reason and even donate to charities and foundations which endeavour to spread awareness and persuade others. I would totally agree with you there. Tara Smith has an excellent paper and a talk on free speech.

AI is the best parrot/yes-man there could be. See and imitate. You'll get from AI what you already get, all the time, nothing more.

If someone claims "mind" means everything that exists, claiming "objective reality does not exist", literally adds nothing, all it does is restate/confirm what they have already baldly asserted. If mind is not all there is which exists, then there is that which is non-mind, being non-mind it is not subjective, i.e. it is objective. The only issue then, is mind then some non-objective part of reality. Then we see the ideas of ghosts and machines, and the like... you should know that some objectivists are dualists. Some are not, while at the same time they are not mechanists, nor determinists. All objectivists (not misidentifying themselves) believe in free will. I.e. that a person could have done otherwise after time 0 ... even given the same Leibniz hypothetical universe (including all that the person is) at Time 0.

So much of culture, society, and its institutions, some of which are machinations of the State, are helplessly flawed, flawed and influenced with error, bias, irrationality, overzealousness, greed and negligence. They pull in different directions, and strike at different populations of individuals, and yes in times of misintegration/activism they take vengeance in active discrimination of perceived so called groups formerly or presently holding power. The infringements on individual rights is alarming and disheartening, whether perpetrated by the system on a wide level or by radicals within the system abusing power. Less government, and proper government are what is needed. The curriculum and the teachers, in this flawed imposed system, are not always guided by interest in the flourishing of every individual child. Agendas, causes, regrets, revenge, rebellion, personal biases all... these tendencies and attitudes now too commonly override and cloud the appropriate needs of children..[so caught up with "imbalance" are the progressives, that they fully self-justify keeping some children down, or actively working to squish their spirit with guilt and self-doubt...]. What I see lacking most is an understanding of True Self-love (and individuality), what it really objectively means, and its nurturing and encouragement. Superficial and political (radical) influence, group-think and categorization of this tribe against that tribe, amplified by social media is now hollowing out the spirit of so many innocent individuals, so that they do not know who they are, why they should make certain choices over others, or what life is. So caught up with trying to fit in they fall apart. This comes to that junior in college, now to all appearances happy. There is no reason that anyone should go through the self-doubt, or lack of self-love, as they are, at such a young age. I think some (not all) less than virtuous high level medical executives ... pharma or surgery - and insurance related... are pushing hard (top down) for wide spread acceptance ... i.e. adoption of the their products (and the attendant flow of money) with insufficient regard for the mental state and maturity of some potential customers, and the impact that the permanent irreparable and irreversible effects can have on those so vulnerable and young, at an age where making stupid mistakes is notoriously commonplace. The religious and medical communities used to push a cure for being gay, they did not need big tech and institutional influence to push their flawed agenda. Whether being A or B is a construct or not, I believe that anyone, any "I am that I am" feeling bad about themselves for what they intrinsicly are is utterly a construct, and a horribly tragic one. One IS utterly unique, and true self-love dictates that whatever one looks like, one looks like what one feels because that is the one that one is, one is not beholden to what anyone else labels one, or what anyone else thinks how looking and feeling should be related. We are not As and Bs or Cs, which should act or feel or do anything in particular, a person is not something that should not have been. Self-love supercedes any and all groups and groupings. Every person, although on a journey, is perfect, as a human being, as a self-soul, an end in themselves... just as they are. That is what needs to be taught.

You missed, or are completely ignoring my comments above. That is your choice.

Hopefully this back and forth will become untenable after a while and the same thing will happen as what hopefully happens throughout government, they get out of areas the left and right disagree on… and leave people alone. The best anyone can hope for a State run system everyone participates in without choice, is that anything taught there consists of what both sides agree should be taught there. If that breaks down hopefully sanity will prevail and the education system will be set free of any government involvement.

Quasi-enforced State Education is wrong. All who are trapped by the system have to deal with the fact of its existence. The main problem with the Socialist Progressives, is that they cannot differentiate between cultural and societal injustice and the political violation of individual rights. Lying is an injustice, prejudice is an injustice, racism, sexism, sexual orientationism, generally otherisms are injustices... and in a free society some people would not be able to shop in certain places or be able to buy any cake one wishes from every baker. Whether or not force can lead to an acceleration of the correction of these cultural "inadequacies", violation of rights is never right, no matter how impatient the progressive activists are. In a proper society, we pay for freedom with the realization such things may never wholly disappear. Schools are progressively teaching socialist and progressively flawed ideas... churning out little leftists like never before across all western democracies. So here, we have in Florida, like so many other places, a State run propaganda and indoctrination machine, with radical elements running about. Not everyone agrees what should be taught because everyone has a different poison... like every religion is different. The first step is to reduce indoctrination and concentrate on education... and if too much poison is found in any particular area... stick to teaching the unpoisoned ones. The State should be giving up power not taking more power... and so parents might have to address some areas themselves as they see fit... but that is the ideal case anyway. The State has no role to play in raising children, or pushing culture "forward", no more than they would in a proper society without a State education system.

Respectfully I disagree. Necrove made an assertion that something was "bad" news. In all contexts the "good" must be carefully considered, and especially in the complexities of the context of a quasi-enforced State regime. Where everyone involved is enslaved to an institution it's already bad, when changes are made to that system it can get better or worse (still bad). To whom in the context is some change in a thing "good" or "bad"? I submit it depends on how one's individual rights are affected. Properly: No one has a right to education, or a proper education. No one has a right to anyone else and certainly not complete strangers, having an education, or a proper education. No one has a right to teach a captive audience in a State run context whatever you want, in fact no one has a right to teach whatever you want in any privately run context (unless you own the institution yourself)... your boss (if it is not you) will quickly let you know that. Parents and their children, however, have a right not to be harmed, not to be subjected to indoctrination, or sexualization (at an inappropriate age), not to be misled with extremely dangerous concepts beyond their ability to truly grasp, not to be turned into little Marxists, not to undergo permanent life altering surgery until they have the conceptual capacity and responsibility to make that decision which only comes in adulthood... etc. Now, parents and children are effectively forced to play in a State regime of education, but they are the one's whose rights are potentially and in some cases actually violated. Unfortunately, sometimes people who are not in the position to experience the violation of those rights do not fully understand the situation. This you no doubt have experienced throughout your life as well. My question "Are you a parent" is precisely on point. Particularly given the complexity of the issue and the sheer under-reporting by mainstream media of just how bad schools and teachers colleges have become ... they are rife with Marxist and socialist ideology. Parents experience these trends on their children first hand. As for "Circumstantial ad hominem", in some contexts I can see how that would apply, I am certainly not saying that any non-parent's reasons are incorrect because they are non-parents, AND I am not stating non-parents could not form logical positions had they the full information parents do, I am of the belief that in many cases, non-parents do not have the information that many parents do. The technicalities of the law may be awkward, and possibly could be disproportionate, but I think the current reports by progressive media are overstated, and/or some school boards are over-reacting. Overall, as a first step this is good news. Children CANNOT be subject to the whim of every possible kind of teacher, who more and more might include radically Marxist or sexual-activist views... we can only hope in an invalid mixed enforced State system, semi-sane guidelines are provided within that system to educate (not indoctrinate) children appropriately.

I agree. If it were about you, you would be a parent with a child in school. Individuals acting as agents of the state are not free agents able to do whatever their fancy tells them.. nor in the presence of naive impressionable children should they be allowed to. Dereliction of their duty which causes harm violates your rights as a parent and your child's rights.

First, I would say that a public education system is ab initio invalid. Any proper education is voluntary and hence not part of any State or Government system. Like so many other things there should be separation of State and education. Now in a mixed system we find ourselves in, IF one could truly opt out, i.e. get a 100% refund on any and all taxes/fees the public systems takes, one could enroll one's own children in a private school or otherwise educate one's child independent of any State intervention. In a private arrangement the parent has the right to remove the child from any school/tutor and schools/tutors offering services would have standards about what they would expose the child to, and there would have to be agreement. Voluntary systems would have free reign politically and religiously and in every respect as long as they do not violate the individual rights of the child or parents. SINCE most jurisdictions do not allow this, parents are chained... restricted to either use the public system or pay twice (once in taxes for the system and once again for actual education). IF a parent uses the system, in which they cannot (generally) voluntarily shop around for different teachers, or different schools (geography is limited), that parent MUST rely on the powers that be to ensure proper and appropriate education of the child. A State body must be held accountable to the parents, and if individual agents of the State are abusing or misusing their position to indoctrinate or groom children, with Marxist or oversexualizing/inappropriate materials for a children of a certain age, then those parents are owed a duty to remove those materials and those teachers and ensure it does not happen again. If you think "teachers" on average as individuals who have gone through teachers college would be best to provide whatever education they deem fit to your kids I would think again... and do some research about what is accepted at most teachers colleges and licensing bodies, politically, morally, and epistemologically... In a State run system there are generally laws and regulations to ensure the system works as intended, and if the unions, licensing bodies, and colleges and individual teachers are getting out of hand... something has to be done. EDIT: Again, much of this comes down to whether the law purports to restrict the actions of private entities or whether it is enacted to apply to State Institutions i.e. Public Schools funded by taxpayer money. Update: From what I can tell the law only applies to public schools. This is not bad news, but an attempt to hold government accountable and responsible.

Does the law apply to private schools or only public schools? In a mixed economy State run education system, should there be no standards or monitoring of what is being made available to students of any age? Do you have children?

Know thyself.

One reason why I am concerned with proper scope of a maxim, or formulation of a principle, or definition of a virtue, is because it is so easy to undermine the propriety of the maxim, principle, or virtue when so called exceptions are required. Better to have it more properly defined, than defined overbroadly so as to exceed its proper scope. Such comes up in a conceptually similar manner in the realm of Free Speech... how it is to be defined and conceived of... and Tara Smith does an excellent job arguing for Free Speech being absolute and with no exceptions when conceived of in its proper "domain". I would say then "Free Speech" is just label for something which has as an essential of its definition a prescription of that proper domain, in which it is absolute and for which there are no exceptions. The problem with the idea of "exceptions" is that it implies or allows erosion of the boundary of the proper domain, and works to subvert the absolute into the subjective. So similarly, with virtues, maxims, or principles... if one overly inflates the definition of applicability, misdefines their proper domain, they become open to the attack (quite valid ones) of "exceptions", when in fact, when properly defined, they would be much more stronger as virtues, maxims, or principles.

I wonder did Kant ever address the scope or context or breadth of a maxim's starting point? More specifically, how and where to choose on the ladder of abstraction a maxim to be tested and why did he insist on holding onto such a conceptually broad maxim re. "lying" as such instead of, for example, "stating falsehoods to innocent persons for unjust gain to self or harm to others"? This scope of application (due to where the maxim lies on the ladder of abstractions) is truly independent of the moral force with which one brings to the chosen maxim, only the metes and bounds of the domain of its absolute authority is defined by the scope (i.e. the context of specifics with which it is defined). Once those metes and bounds are understood the test for whether it is a valid maxim could presumably be applied. The scope of a maxim such as "do not move your arm towards another" clearly is conceptually too broad to require it or to forbid it... why did he not see this is also true for "lying" simpliciter? The entire exercise seems doomed unless one is careful with precisely defining a clearly delimited maxim.

It think it tends to encourage a false dichotomy to claim that honestly (in the context of communication and not introspection) is something you either do for yourself or for the sake of others. This has been a sort of cultural and social undercurrent when pondering truth telling to others. It's very similar to the false dichotomy introduced in economics which asserts every transaction has a winner and a loser... that commerce is predation. We already know this is an incorrect assessment of commerce, and that wealth can be created (for both) according to a trader principle. Applying a transactional trader principle view to honesty in communicative contexts, helps to dissolve the false dichotomy. Mutual benefit can be built on voluntary intercourse. No one has to lose, and in fact you can choose when to transact and with whom.