Was Wittgenstein a fool?

[Kriminal99]

1) Visual, and sound based definitions are entirely possible pre language, just because he didn't understand how they would work doesn't mean they were not possible. Pretty basic philosophy violated there: the absence of dissenting information is the only knowledge a person can have. I know of a very simple system which could easily explain how ostensive definitions could work prior to the existence of a language.

 

2) Long before he existed people knew that some combinations of words were non sensical. People didn't walk around saying tall short person. They did say "What is time" or "Why are we here" because they knew these combinations were NOT nonsensical. Even if you agree that a concept of time only means how it is used, you still can ask yourself what algorithm allows your non infinite mind to know when and how to use it, which would be a pretty good answer to the question "what is time?". Today I might ask someone what time is it, but saying thats all time is is overly simplistic. How did I learn the concept? How would I use it in certain situations like on a spaceship traveling faster than light? These things are what people were asking about when they said things like "What is time?"

 

3) Someone please tell me why Wittgenstein is signfigant or challenge one of these points?

[Panjandrum]

1) Visual, and sound based definitions are entirely possible pre language, just because he didn't understand how they would work doesn't mean they were not possible. Pretty basic philosophy violated there: the absence of dissenting information is the only knowledge a person can have. I know of a very simple system which could easily explain how ostensive definitions could work prior to the existence of a language.

 

Do you have a link?

 

3) Someone please tell me why Wittgenstein is signfigant or challenge one of these points?

 

I know of no reason, other than that he is a jew who lived during the time of nazism, and that his 'philosophy' concords well with postmodernist, relativist psuedo-thought.

 

Interestingly, he has also been blamed for Hitler's hatred of jews, due to his childhood enmity at the school they both attended. I doubt this myself, since Hitler's race-hate is in the tradition of german race 'science'.

[Kriminal99]

Do you have a link?

 

 

 

I know of no reason, other than that he is a jew who lived during the time of nazism, and that his 'philosophy' concords well with postmodernist, relativist psuedo-thought.

 

Interestingly, he has also been blamed for Hitler's hatred of jews, due to his childhood enmity at the school they both attended. I doubt this myself, since Hitler's race-hate is in the tradition of german race 'science'.

 

LOL I didn't know that about those two! IMO there usually is a personal reason in such situations, that prevents the person from sympathizing with the victims of belief sets like this race science you speak of. On the other hand this race science may have created such reasons by pointing to economic statistics or common jewish cultural behavior, or it could have simply been another jewish person hitler had bad interaction with.

 

A link to what? Wittgensteins related claims or the possible explanation of ostensive definitions? The latter is mine and unscientific, yet certainly makes it clear that such a thing is possible, if one cannot through introspection realize it is true.

 

It could simply be that the mind collects images and other perceptions, and creates ostensive definition through comparison and induction.

 

IE you see a book on a table, and someone says book, and you do not know whether the sound of the word book relates to the table, the book, or anything else. Or put another way you simply have no reason to relate them. But then you hear the same sound made another time, but this time the book is not on a table. In fact the only thing similar to the last time you heard it said was the vision of the book. Sure it might be said sometimes when you don't see the book, but in the end your memory might look something like this:

 

((Vision of Book) C (Sound of Word Book)) x 50

((All other perceptions) C (Sound of Word Book)) x (much less than 50)

where C just means coincidently and x (number) just means a number of times you have experienced that.

 

Then of course consider any ideas you have already developed such as the concept of rotation of any object you see, which might consist of the transformations any object makes in your vision as it is rotated, and perhaps that you might learn what many different concepts like pointing means which would help you more often identify when an object was being referred to. Short of actual pointing for example you might just learn that people often face an object they are referring to when they mention it etc. Just things that would help you deduce attributes about the world around you.

 

How would you learn those? Same way...

 

Rotational transformation is easy. All objects can be composed of the same basic geometric shapes which act a certain way when rotated. Anotherwords there is a lot of repetition involved in what you see when different objects are rotated, which means you could learn to predict by considering what you have seen before. Which means you would learn to recognize any object as the same thing even when you see it from different angles, and this is one of the first things you would learn just by looking around you.

 

(Statement "Bob can you hand me that (object)") C (Vision of person picking up an object)x10

 

Anyways the signifigant abilities that would allow us to do this are:

 

Ability to deal with categories rather than always deal with specific perceptions. IE understand the above without considering it different each time its a different object, and instead just label the object (something that this operation is performed on).

 

Ability to store perceptions and remember and compare them, consiously, unconsiously or both.

 

Anyways Im not sure which if any aspects of this Wittgenstein or you might have a problem with, so rather than try to preempt any counter argument just ask about whatever I have left un addressed...

[Panjandrum]

Yes, I meant the pre-lingual ostensive definitions. You might also consider the existance of aphasia as a clear proof that thought without language is possible. I have often wondered what would be the outcome if I were permitted to experiment on aphaisics, manufacturing them in childhood and finding a teaching technique that allows them to learn as much as a non-aphaisic. Would their retardation be evident, beyond the superficiali lack of language? Or is language an indespensible asset needed to achieve the highest levels of thought? Sadly, modern morality would forbid such an interesting and useful experiment.

 

From your descriptions, may I take it that you are a follower of Russel?

[Kriminal99]

Yes, I meant the pre-lingual ostensive definitions. You might also consider the existance of aphasia as a clear proof that thought without language is possible. I have often wondered what would be the outcome if I were permitted to experiment on aphaisics, manufacturing them in childhood and finding a teaching technique that allows them to learn as much as a non-aphaisic. Would their retardation be evident, beyond the superficiali lack of language? Or is language an indespensible asset needed to achieve the highest levels of thought? Sadly, modern morality would forbid such an interesting and useful experiment.

 

From your descriptions, may I take it that you are a follower of Russel?

 

To be perfectly honest, I have found it unesseccary to read other people's philosophy. I took a few philosophy classes in college and was forced to read some, but I found that I already understood most ideas I was exposed to. The way I look at it noone is responsible for the nature of the world around us, and any claim by a philosopher is either one of two things: Wrong, or a direct result of the nature of the world. If it's a result of the nature of the world, then the same belief would be inspired by more people after him without any exposure to his ideas. If I ever wrote anything, it would be anonymously or under the label of a variable allowing anyone to take ownership and be a proponent of the work.

 

To stregthen my arguments, and gain exposure to opposing ideas, I just discuss it with people who disagree with me. Let someone who likes and already understands an opposing school of thought discern it from any previous writings or his own experience, and then he (a live person) can explain said thinking much more easily in order to defend his viewpoint. If there is no such person to support a given viewpoint that was voiced in the past, then I consider that viewpoint to be failed.

 

Don't aphasiacs tend to have some language capacity though?

[jkellmd]

The answer to your question is a resounding yes. Godel was the master, we still don't understand him. Einstein never completely did (some here might consider that faint praise, though).

[Panjandrum]

^^Agreed, Goedel is the supreme master of logic and number theory, but I am not certain I would describe him as a philosopher.

 

To my mind, Wittgenstein was no more than an arrogant and self-satisfied shadow of Shopenhauer, himself a weak philosopher whose 'ideas' were most eloquently expanded and taken to thier logical limits by Nietzche.

[jkellmd]

...Shopenhauer, himself a weak philosopher whose 'ideas' were most eloquently expanded and taken to thier logical limits by Nietzche.

 

Schopenhauer had a lot to say, much that is controversial by todays ideas of political correctness, and much that is colored by his strange personal experiences.

 

That said, his work was a springboard for Nietzche (the lineage of ideas is reasonably well-accepted), especially his ideas regarding religion and women. He represents an interesting intellectual turn away from the enlightenment ideals, and was one of most cogent philosophical writers of his age. I especially appreciated the lack of overdense allegory found throughout Nietzche's better works. A nice little tool, but laid on a little thick. Why the obfuscation? Nietzche had little to fear by way of religio-political reprisal. Goethe and Schopenhauer had already fired the opening shots. I've always wondered at the over-reverence of Nietzche. He seems to be the hero of narcissists eveywhere.

[Jehu]

It could simply be that the mind collects images and other perceptions, and creates ostensive definition through comparison and induction.

 

IE you see a book on a table, and someone says book, and you do not know whether the sound of the word book relates to the table, the book, or anything else. Or put another way you simply have no reason to relate them. But then you hear the same sound made another time, but this time the book is not on a table. In fact the only thing similar to the last time you heard it said was the vision of the book. Sure it might be said sometimes when you don't see the book, but in the end your memory might look something like this:

 

((Vision of Book) C (Sound of Word Book)) x 50

((All other perceptions) C (Sound of Word Book)) x (much less than 50)

where C just means coincidently and x (number) just means a number of times you have experienced that.

 

Do you seriously mean to imply here, that the average person possesses the capability of distinguishing, from the myriad things that are present in any given instance of visual perception, that it is the “book” that is the common factor in all those instances where the term, “book” was used, and all this from memory? Surely it makes more sense to say that we learn to associate certain objects with certain designations by simply having someone point to or display the object while repeating the appropriate name, and the same is true of properties and activities as well. More complex notions, however, cannot be pointed to in this fashion, and so require the use of another sort of pointer, the symbolic elements of a higher language. This is not to say that pointing itself is not a language, for human beings communicated by way of bodily gestures, long before we developed the ability to speak. What Wittgenstein was simply trying to tell us, is that words have no intrinsic meaning, nor do they convey any meaning, but are merely conventionally prescribed pointers to the concepts that are already present in our own minds. In such cases as we do not understand a word (i.e., we possess no associated concept), we are simply pointed to that set of simpler concepts (which we do possess) that will enable us to construct the more complex concept, with which the word is to be associated. Thus when we ask what the word time means, Wittgenstein would probably answer that it does not mean anything, it merely denotes a conventionally prescribed concept, and that is all.

 

Regards, Jehu

[Kriminal99]

Do you seriously mean to imply here, that the average person possesses the capability of distinguishing, from the myriad things that are present in any given instance of visual perception, that it is the “book” that is the common factor in all those instances where the term, “book” was used, and all this from memory? Surely it makes more sense to say that we learn to associate certain objects with certain designations by simply having someone point to or display the object while repeating the appropriate name, and the same is true of properties and activities as well. More complex notions, however, cannot be pointed to in this fashion, and so require the use of another sort of pointer, the symbolic elements of a higher language. This is not to say that pointing itself is not a language, for human beings communicated by way of bodily gestures, long before we developed the ability to speak. What Wittgenstein was simply trying to tell us, is that words have no intrinsic meaning, nor do they convey any meaning, but are merely conventionally prescribed pointers to the concepts that are already present in our own minds. In such cases as we do not understand a word (i.e., we possess no associated concept), we are simply pointed to that set of simpler concepts (which we do possess) that will enable us to construct the more complex concept, with which the word is to be associated. Thus when we ask what the word time means, Wittgenstein would probably answer that it does not mean anything, it merely denotes a conventionally prescribed concept, and that is all.

 

Regards, Jehu

 

Yes I believe the process I outlined is possible. Yes people do learn the signifigance of pointing with hands and from the intended type of concept by its placement within a sentence. I believe this is governed by the process listed above, in addition to speeding it up later on.

 

A mind governed by this system might have a concept of pointing. It might contain visual memories of someone pointing to an object, and then interacting with that object at some point in the future. Therefore pointing, in a signifigant portion of a person's past experience, would come to imply that the object pointed to would be interacted with by someone, or was being pointed to for you to interact with it. This time the connection would be through sequence and closeness of time instead of through simultaneous perception.

 

The way sentence structure points could also be realized through this system. (Take out) the (Trash)... (Throw) the (Ball) A person on their own would simply realize similarities between the placement of words in sentences and even prior to being named would recognize categories which would explain the range of words they have seen in that type. Of course later they would just come to call those nouns and verbs or subjects and predicates.

 

Both concepts of pointing would be learned through induction... once sufficient verbs and objects were learned to do so, the person would have experiences of the form

 

(Verb) the (Noun) xSome large number again even without having names for the concepts of verb and noun.

 

These concepts would be functions of perceptiual memories- as even the simplest objects must be in order to encompass all the perceptions they might provide. IE the way a book might smell, the sounds a book might make, the way a book looks from different angles, and how it might feel if a book was dropped on your toe are all things that are easily remembered when talking about a book...

 

You didn't really explain your skepticism really well... To answer what you might be thinking to the best of my ability I am implying that a person has a sort of computer attached to them that processes past memories rather than doing it consiously. The results of this process might be communicated through emotions, perhaps usually of a very subtle nature.

[Jehu]

 

Both concepts of pointing would be learned through induction...

 

You didn't really explain your skepticism really well...

 

Very well, but tell me, as your system of learning seems to be founded entirely upon the mental process of inductive inference, how is it that anyone is able to learn the basic rules of inference, for must they not, according to your theory, already have a command of the rules in order to learn them? However, if you claim that they do not have a prior command of the rules, would they not then be just as likely to arrive at invalid conclusions, as at valid ones? Now the logical conclusion, as I see it, is that in order for your scheme to be tenable, we must all be born with an a príori command of the rules of logical inference, and if this is the case, then this does not bode well for the Physicalists’ view of reality, for as I understand it, matter itself is not cognizant.

 

With regard to my “scepticism”, it is really quite simple. We hold that all things, be they ideas, sensations, objects, properties or activities, possess no self-inhering or absolute nature, but are merely contingent. Being contingent, all things arise and persist as a result of external causes and conditions, just as does a shadow or a motion picture. The identity of these external causes and conditions are cognizant awareness and knowledge, for it is within the sphere of cognizance that all things reside. Furthermore, we hold that this cognizance is the true nature of reality, that is to say, that which is real, independent, and immutable, while all things are only apparent.

 

Regards’ Jehu

[Kriminal99]

Very well, but tell me, as your system of learning seems to be founded entirely upon the mental process of inductive inference, how is it that anyone is able to learn the basic rules of inference, for must they not, according to your theory, already have a command of the rules in order to learn them? However, if you claim that they do not have a prior command of the rules, would they not then be just as likely to arrive at invalid conclusions, as at valid ones? Now the logical conclusion, as I see it, is that in order for your scheme to be tenable, we must all be born with an a príori command of the rules of logical inference, and if this is the case, then this does not bode well for the Physicalists’ view of reality, for as I understand it, matter itself is not cognizant.

 

With regard to my “scepticism”, it is really quite simple. We hold that all things, be they ideas, sensations, objects, properties or activities, possess no self-inhering or absolute nature, but are merely contingent. Being contingent, all things arise and persist as a result of external causes and conditions, just as does a shadow or a motion picture. The identity of these external causes and conditions are cognizant awareness and knowledge, for it is within the sphere of cognizance that all things reside. Furthermore, we hold that this cognizance is the true nature of reality, that is to say, that which is real, independent, and immutable, while all things are only apparent.

 

Regards’ Jehu

 

Yes I believe a faculty for induction is probably hardwired. However more importantly there can be no doubt that we all have one as we use it every day. This is more of a matter of saying something like:

 

Given that we

1. Have a faculty for induction

2. Can store perceptions as memories

3. Can break up and recombine these memories to form new memories

 

Can we come up with a simple system to explain human thought?

 

I believe the answer is yes, and it is started above.

 

Anyways our computers are capable of induction... You put in some kind of input and it stores it and can tell you things about the input it recieved in the past. Evolution would be quick to produce inductive faculties that drove behavior as being able to learn from past experiences is infinitely valuable in this sense.

 

This inductive faculty need not be a part of consiousness. Our consiousness might simply be something which experiences different emotions and feelings... and this inductive faculty provides those emotions which drive us based on the situation. So you might ask me, does my consiousness know through an inductive process that I need to shift my weight a certain way on a bus when it swerves to keep my balance and the answer might be no. My consiousness only feels and moves towards feeling good, and in order to feel good in this case it might need to provide some output which causes me to keep my balance which consists of moving in a certain manner. What manipulates my consiousness so that I must do these things to feel good? This outside inductive faculty... perhaps created by evolution.

 

To illustrate I often picture water passing through a maze or an electric circuit where the fluid or charge is just trying to get from point a to b, but there is a system manipulating the circuit design or maze... the inductive faculty. The charge getting from point a to b is really the extent of consiousness in this model. But in this model when a person speaks of I, they would probably be talking not just about their consiousness but also of the inductive faculty. This is because a sense of "I" is gained from perceptions of how things react to you, like an image of yourself in the mirror or hearing yourself talk.

 

So you believe everything is mind dependent like that Bishop character. But how does this contradict what I claim?

[Jehu]

Anyways our computers are capable of induction... You put in some kind of input and it stores it and can tell you things about the input it recieved in the past. Evolution would be quick to produce inductive faculties that drove behavior as being able to learn from past experiences is infinitely valuable in this sense.

 

This inductive faculty need not be a part of consiousness. Our consiousness might simply be something which experiences different emotions and feelings... and this inductive faculty provides those emotions which drive us based on the situation. So you might ask me, does my consiousness know through an inductive process that I need to shift my weight a certain way on a bus when it swerves to keep my balance and the answer might be no. My consiousness only feels and moves towards feeling good, and in order to feel good in this case it might need to provide some output which causes me to keep my balance which consists of moving in a certain manner. What manipulates my consiousness so that I must do these things to feel good? This outside inductive faculty... perhaps created by evolution.

 

 

So you believe everything is mind dependent like that Bishop character. But how does this contradict what I claim?

Let me first address your contention that computers are capable of inductive reasoning. The notion that computers are able to accomplish some level of reasoning arises out of the fact that they all contain software elements which embody the cognitive skills of their originating programmers. In other words, whatever intelligence a computer may be said to possess is derived solely from an external source (the programmer), and so is merely contingent (apparent). Consequently, that which we call “artificial intelligence” might be more correctly called “simulated intelligence”, for the term “artificial” implies that there is actual intelligence present, although man made, while in truth, there is only the appearance of intelligence.

 

Now, with regard to whether the faculty of inductive reasoning requires a cognizant agent, I’m afraid a cannot follow your reasoning. Why would I, or anyone else think that shifting my weight in order to maintain my balance would require the intervention of inductive reasoning? Now, I admit that in our infancy, we must utilize this faculty, but once we have mastered the art of walking (or driving), there is no longer any requirement to consciously think about it.

 

Please, do not misunderstand my intent, for I am simply trying, as I’m sure you are, to get to the truth of the matter. What most troubles me about your theory is the lack of substantiating arguments, and your apparent dependence on induction, to the almost total exclusion of deduction. As a philosopher, I simple cannot accept the truth of any proposition based on such a shaky foundation, and as it is you who have asserted the proposition, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate (logically) the validity of that proposition. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon me to point out what I see to be the logical inconsistencies in your theory, so that you might have the opportunity to address them.

 

Now, regarding your question as to how my metaphysical stance impacts your theory, that I’m afraid is a question that you will have to answer. However, if you are willing to shelve your “beliefs” for a time, I would be happy to undertake a metaphysical enquiry with you, for I do not claim to believe anything that I cannot demonstrate deductively.

 

Regards, Jehu

[Kriminal99]

Why must an inductive faculty be intelligent? What makes you think human beings are "intelligent"? How do you define intelligence? How do you know that computers are not consious? Inductive reasoning is not a complicated thing that is attributed only to intelligence. If you look outside and see a plant you see the product of inductive reasoning. Noone had to think about it, but rather a plant need only grow to take advantage of the sunlight. What if there was no light when the plant sprouted? The plant would die. This is inductive reasoning, it just takes generations to prove right or wrong.

 

If you are on a bus, and it swerves, and you regain your balance, do you think consiously about what you are doing? If not how do you know what to do? Do you subconsiously know the laws of physics and calculate what you must do? Does not the model by which we learn such actions (for example learning to ride a bike through trial and error) suggest induction as a means of aquiring the information? Are you saying you agree but you wish to claim induction has no more part in the process past infancy? How does this make sense given what induction is? IE the collection of information that allows you to make predictions about the future. Perhaps you are saying that it could be you simply throw out the past experience once you have determined something to work in a given situation. To disprove this, remember any situation where you experienced somethign that went against what you had experienced in the past. No doubt it is a signifigant event that you remember clearly, but are you incapable of accepting it because your mind had already thrown out the past evidence and just taken it to always be true? Not at all.

 

A substantiating argument, to you, is simply an argument which adresses your hidden concerns with whatever I have said. As I am not psychic, I must rely on your responses to figure out what your concerns are.

 

I am more than happy to listen to what you have to say about my beliefs or yours. I think by your statement "That is somethign you will have to answer" you are implying that your belief precludes mine from being true, yet what I am asking is how that is the case? In order for you to think that they are mutually exclusive, there must be some reason why you think so. I would not think so.

[Jehu]

An inductive faculty need not be intelligent, unless we are speaking of the faculty of inductive reasoning, for “reason” is defined as “the intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises.” What makes me think that “some” human being are intelligent is that there are capable of drawing valid conclusions from valid premises. I did not assert that computers were totally without cognizance, for such an assertion would be nonsensical in light of the fact that I hold cognizance (awareness and knowledge) to be the essential nature of all things. Computers, however, do not possess the necessary structural complexity that would endow them with the higher levels of cognizance that are present in the plant or animal realms, and particularly in the human being. I will concede that plants employ inductive systems, but this does not imply any sort of reasoning. Reasoning entails the systematic manipulation of various kinds of symbols so as to create new symbols, symbols that represent conceptual structures, and this implies the presence of a mind.

 

I do not hold, as many do, that consciousness is seated exclusively in the brain, but believe it to be distributed throughout the body. Consequently, once a bodily activity is learned, there is no longer any need to think about how to perform that activity.

However, because we do not have to think about regaining our balance (except when we are first learning), this does not mean that we are not conscious, for an unconscious person would most certainly be unable to maintain their balance on a bus. I must concede that we do learn such things as walking, dancing, and water skiing, by trial and error, but this does not mean that all things are learned by the same method. What’s more, many such activities must be carried out with such speed as to not allow sufficient time for any sort of information processing.

 

Induction, as I understand it, is “the inference of general laws the observation of from particular instances.” Now, since walking, dancing, or any other similar activity does not require that we infer any sort of general law, but merely that we adjust the tensions of various muscles in a systematic way, I do not believe that induction is a critical factor in learning such activities. What I am saying is that our past experiences contribute to the building of conceptual structures, and that it is these structures or concepts are called to mind when a given word is spoken or written down. What’s more, it is because of the presence of the traces of past experiences that we tend to react to certain situations, rather than seeing them as they truly are, and acting accordingly.

 

It is obvious that you have given a great deal of thought to the subject, and so must be sincere in your quest to understand how the whole thing works. It is also clear that what divides us is principally our metaphysical stances. Therefore, lets us both set aside our beliefs and opinions, and enquire into the matter together. Then, perhaps, we may come to some common metaphysical ground from where we can then begin to communicate more meaningfully. Let me begin by offering the following definitions, some of which I have gleaned from the Oxford Dictionary, and others which I have deduced from those standard definitions.

 

Let us begin by first defining precisely what we mean by “the nature of reality”, for if we are to succeed in our enquiry, we must have a clear idea of what it is that we wish to discover.

 

By the term, “nature”, we mean, “that set of qualities or characteristics that are essential to a thing’s being perceived or thought about.”

 

By the term, “thing”, we mean, “any sort of mentation, sensation, object, property, or activity.”

 

By the term, “essential”, we mean, “that which is necessary and sufficient.”

 

By the term, “reality”, we mean, “that which is real and existent, and which underlies the appearance of all things.”

 

Therefore, by the term, “the nature of reality”, we mean, “that set of qualities and characteristics that are necessary and sufficient to any class of thing’s being perceived or thought about.”

 

Lets us christen these essential qualities and characteristics the, “primitive elements of reality”, for they are more fundamental than is any “thing”.

 

For your consideration and comments,

 

Regards, Jehu

[Kriminal99]

One definition of reasoning is the "basis for an action", perhaps a physical deterministic basis, at least according to dictionary.com. This is the definition I have been using.

 

Just like one definition of memory means something that was physically impacted by past events.

 

I do not believe that the human mind is much more than a computer. My model for the human mind would be some sort of "induction computer" similar to the aforementioned plant which returns emotions as results. Then the consious aspect of the mind would be simply something capable of feeling that also directs actions with the goal of feeling more good emotions. But by directing actions, I still mean that it is the inductive computer that determines how actions should be directed to experience the good emotions. Anotherwords the consious faculty need not do much more than feel.

 

The general law involved in induction related to something like riding a bike would be like:

 

When I am moving sufficient speed turning the wheel slightly results in the bike turning.

 

This is the law by which we reason (perhaps using the above definition of reason) that manipulating muscle tensions in the order necessary to turn the wheel will result in the bike turning.

[Jehu]

I do not believe that the human mind is much more than a computer. My model for the human mind would be some sort of "induction computer" similar to the aforementioned plant which returns emotions as results. Then the consious aspect of the mind would be simply something capable of feeling that also directs actions with the goal of feeling more good emotions. But by directing actions, I still mean that it is the inductive computer that determines how actions should be directed to experience the good emotions. Anotherwords the consious faculty need not do much more than feel.

 

The general law involved in induction related to something like riding a bike would be like:

 

When I am moving sufficient speed turning the wheel slightly results in the bike turning.

 

This is the law by which we reason (perhaps using the above definition of reason) that manipulating muscle tensions in the order necessary to turn the wheel will result in the bike turning.

 

Reason: “The intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises.”, (Oxford English Dictionary). This is the definition that I have been using, so its not much wonder that we can not communicate with one another.

 

Now, although I am well aware that there is no logical argument that will combat a belief, I am curious as to how you rationalize the fact that you are cognizant, and apparently know that you are cognizant, but still categorically deny that this cognizance has any true existential status, while at the same time, affirming the absolute reality of some external world, that you have no immediate access to, other than through the very cognizance that you deny? Now, if you’ll forgive for saying so, I find this stance to be completely illogical.

 

In addition, how do you reconcile the fact that your system is both inductive and deterministic, with the fact that induction allows for the eventuality of a false conclusion (effect), even though its substantiating premises (causes) are true? How then can any deterministic system rest upon an inductive foundation, for it would never be certain whether the coming together of two things would or would not result in an effect.

 

Jehu