Anthropomorphism

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Jimbo
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:21 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Post by Jimbo »

https://dobrador.com/category/animals/rodents/page/85/

"Logic and reason can only mean things to creatures that need them."
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Post by noddy »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
noddy wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Off the wall question here, but can rationalism be considered anthropomorphic? If the measure of all things is human sense data, logic and perception; when does it if it does happen, that the human becomes conflated with the universal. Rationality may not merge the physical with the metaphysical, but when it rules it out what is left but the human - and isn't that anthropormorphic?......'>........
not really, or atleast, if thats true, then all words are back to meaningless ;)

our limitations are many, our ability to rationalise is limited to those limitations (boom tish) but the rules of maths and logic and pure rational systems are independendant of them, even if we arent

those rules could (will?) go on to develop super computers with super sensors that breakthrough all our human feebleness, maths and logic have a structural life of their own, already the most advanced computer systems are beyond the grok of any one human, the layers upon layers of structured logic are too much for a single persons puny brain to hold all the infomation at once.



spengler likes using music for this problem space, its a nice blend of the maths and the bits that dont quite fit in the maths :)
Using a disembodied logic system to create a conscious is not at all obvious, it's hard to see how that would work. Logic and reason can only mean things to creatures that need them..... by definition they would have to be subjective........'>......
yah.

as always we have eleventy million variations on the definition of the word rational before we can move on to if it can be applied - kmich's political rationality thread has dipped a toe in those murky waters.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Anthropomorphism

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
yah.

as always we have eleventy million variations on the definition of the word rational before we can move on to if it can be applied - kmich's political rationality thread has dipped a toe in those murky waters.
Yep. that's why I decided not to pursue a degree in philosophy. Most discussions seem to break down into endless parsing of terms.

Short answer to, why are people irrational about politics (or religion, or whose girlfriend is cutest, or whose mama makes the best cookies)? Relative experience, which does not transfer, and subjective definitions, which aren't agreed upon.

Yeah.... but.....
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Post by Parodite »

Logic and reason seem to be driven by necessity and (observed) causality of sorts, using agreed upon terms and contexts to communicate the goods.

When the price of 1 apple is 50 $ cents, it is quite reasonable to assume that when you buy 4 you will be asked to pay 2 $ at the counter. As a consequence of this reasonable assumption it is not very likely disagreements and fights will erupt at the counter over what needs to be payed. These are all reasonable and rational transactions because 99.9999% of the people can do the simple math.

Somebody who finds it unreasonable to pay 2 $ for 4 apples will be regarded as unreasonable, irrational. However, there might be a reasonable explanation for irrational behavior when the "irrational" person turns out to have Dyscalculia which would only mean that the calculator in the brain has some typos in its code or is maybe missing some subroutines disabling it to produce the correct answer. The wrong outcome itself however was created in a very reasonable and logical way in the context of a brain with dyscalculia.

One can only claim something is unreasonable/illogical with reasoned-logical arguments. This suggests that the foundation of all human knowledge and understanding is reason. Reason can be at a loss when complexity and other unknown-unknowns are outrunning us.. but it so far is the only operating tool that can inform us about our experiences and what they mean. On a deeper/older level reason is just how we behave, actions we learned hunting an animal etc.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Post Reply