Comments on: The nature of reference: a third way between realism and anti-realism http://www.syntheticzero.com/?p=1045 art, life, philosophy, architecture, literature, film, performance, and other stuff Sat, 09 May 2026 03:07:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: mitsu http://www.syntheticzero.com/?p=1045#comment-920 mitsu Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:58:07 +0000 http://www.syntheticzero.com/?p=1045#comment-920 This isn't really the case, for the simple reason that it isn't necessary to have 100%, absolute certainty. That is to say, if we were to adopt your definition of "blind faith" it would have to apply to everything, since we cannot even trust our own reasoning or our memory as it might have been replaced in the last instant by aliens or something of that kind. But, to reference Wittgenstein again, that would not be playing the language game correctly. So of course we need "blind faith" in order to be absolutely certain of anything at all, but we certainly don't need blind faith in order to adopt provisional hypotheses based on the available evidence which seem parsimonious and consistent with what appears to be our memory, etc. This isn’t really the case, for the simple reason that it isn’t necessary to have 100%, absolute certainty. That is to say, if we were to adopt your definition of “blind faith” it would have to apply to everything, since we cannot even trust our own reasoning or our memory as it might have been replaced in the last instant by aliens or something of that kind. But, to reference Wittgenstein again, that would not be playing the language game correctly. So of course we need “blind faith” in order to be absolutely certain of anything at all, but we certainly don’t need blind faith in order to adopt provisional hypotheses based on the available evidence which seem parsimonious and consistent with what appears to be our memory, etc.

]]> By: judson http://www.syntheticzero.com/?p=1045#comment-919 judson Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:39:19 +0000 http://www.syntheticzero.com/?p=1045#comment-919 hi, it's judson you might know from Ellen or a LISA meeting. anyway, am checking out the space, saw this "Let me start with where I agree with Rand. I agree that blind faith, or believing things without reason, is both unnecessary and in many ways problematic." You might want to know the technical reason it is necessary. and why it is impossible to avoid. every single thing we experience sensorily is just blind faith, and whatever conclusions we draw from the raw impulses (not yet images, etc) are based on those dubious premises. furthermore, metaphorical concepts, like a number "line", is a made-up abstraction, but one nearly all of us have faith in. Belief is like oil to a brain; it works much much better with it, and sometimes not much at all without it. Ayn may be sloppy with her logic, but most folks come off that way, when they don't have all the info or know what info is relevant. social software is pretty much just a magnet for sloppy thinking. but sloppy thinking is so common, that it's not worth bothering over. just stay cool and do your thing. you won't find much relevant info on twitter. it's sloppy folk logic, as is rand's, albeit another variation, and nothing to take seriously. a good book on this subject (whether we agree or not with his thesis) is "computation and cognition" by pylyshyn. have fun hi, it’s judson you might know from Ellen or a LISA meeting. anyway, am checking out the space, saw this “Let me start with where I agree with Rand. I agree that blind faith, or believing things without reason, is both unnecessary and in many ways problematic.”

You might want to know the technical reason it is necessary. and why it is impossible to avoid. every single thing we experience sensorily is just blind faith, and whatever conclusions we draw from the raw impulses (not yet images, etc) are based on those dubious premises. furthermore, metaphorical concepts, like a number “line”, is a made-up abstraction, but one nearly all of us have faith in.

Belief is like oil to a brain; it works much much better with it, and sometimes not much at all without it. Ayn may be sloppy with her logic, but most folks come off that way, when they don’t have all the info or know what info is relevant.

social software is pretty much just a magnet for sloppy thinking. but sloppy thinking is so common, that it’s not worth bothering over. just stay cool and do your thing.

you won’t find much relevant info on twitter. it’s sloppy folk logic, as is rand’s, albeit another variation, and nothing to take seriously. a good book on this subject (whether we agree or not with his thesis) is “computation and cognition” by pylyshyn.

have fun

]]>