🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:01:19 UTC No. 16470879
I'm watching videos on youtube about the logical fallacy false equivalence. How come they're all fucking retarded and wrong?
False equivalence is not flat earth vs round earth, creationism vs evolution etc as these retards all say.
False equivalence is you have a statement where two things A and B are both said to be something X. To then conclude that THEREFORE A=B is to commit the fallacy false equivalence.
>coffee is black
>crows are black
>therefore coffee=crows
>apples are edible
>potatoes are edible
>therefore apples=potatoes
False equivalence only means that you can't conclude from the statement alone that A and B are the same. However you also can't conclude that they are NOT the same from the statement alone. To determine whether they are the same or not you need to inquire whether A and B have additional attributes. There are cases such as:
>California is sunny
>Los Angeles is sunny
>Los Angeles is California
>fruits are edible
>apples are edible
>apples are fruits
You are not concluding that Los Angeles is California simply from the information in the statement alone, simply because both are sunny. You are not concluding that apples are fruits simply from the information in the statement alone, simply because both are edible. You are concluding it based on further information. It's only false equivalence when you are making the conclusion from the statement alone.
They are suppressing real information on logic.
>gnosis is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another
>perception of color is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another
>is perception of color gnosis?
Asking this question is not to commit the fallacy false equivalence. Concluding that gnosis is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another, and perception of color is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another, THEREFORE perception of color is gnosis, is committing the fallacy false equivalence.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:06:01 UTC No. 16470889
>>16470879
Noone cares >>>/trash/
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:23:26 UTC No. 16471205
Bump
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:55:44 UTC No. 16473148
>>16470879
>>gnosis is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another
>>perception of color is knowledge which can't be transferred from one person to another
Then why can some people build special spectacles that allow colorblind people to see colors they have never seen before?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:55:28 UTC No. 16473357
>>16473148
That's something else. That's akin to giving someone an apple to make them experience the taste of an apple. You can't convey the taste of an apple to another person, if somehow you can make another person also have direct personal experience of color or taste, that's not the same.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:45:04 UTC No. 16473758
>>16473148
You bring up a very interesting point though. We can discuss this further in this thread. I will think about it.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:21:41 UTC No. 16473808
>>16473357
This is a good metaphor, but it extends beyond sensations. We pass words as tokens in exactly the same manner. Each nexus understands each word the context of the nexus itself. The reason language seems unlike qualia is because of carefully regimented tutoring. What a speaker puts in words may not be heard by the listener. Ears to hear, etc.
These tokens are like pointers that don't refer to locations. If I were to be saying something, the listener is copying the words into itself and regenerating familiar enough to at least be sensible to itself. In a way, it is like a pointer to a context or like loading memory which I don't have the slightest knowledge of.
If I was trying to back map this to a computer function, it is similar to the results of a search. In this example, the results of the search are just jumping into the others mind - modulated by their own understanding, of course. In a computer, the phrases would be a series of search images(SI) - images as in the sum of the results for parsed subelements. Trying to formulate an intended meaning, that is copying the line through this sequence which was intended is a staggering computational feat, basically impossible by itself, even if we ignore the split second search burden.
So somewhat stepping head on into this challenge, there are features which direct the lines. A kind of elision between these disparate SI. And it is quite a marvel, because how did they get there? Nobody is trained on any of these mechanisms, they are barely even discussed and the philosophy is so burdened it doesn't even have a say here. And equally so, the SI are of such different character that the differences between two are of such a variety that even another feature must be explained.
One might be tempted to try a syntax argument, but that is just a FURTHER complication on describing a function of one SI over another.
FYI: This understanding of tokens comes from applying Principle of Syndiffeonisis to experiences.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:16:30 UTC No. 16473859
>>16470879
107 IQ post
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:40:00 UTC No. 16473958
>>16473808
No, saying words is not like handing over an apple to look at. If you say red and someone sees red in their mind that's because they have seen red before and is associating the word with the memory of their direct personal perception of red.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:13:24 UTC No. 16474075
>>16473958
"Red": impression of "Red"
Apple: impression of apple
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:28:36 UTC No. 16474101
My conception of false equivalence is
when intuitionistic logic fails
Let P: A is like B
Since double negation elimination and law of excluded middle is not intuitive then
-P does not imply --P (or P in classic logic)
So intuitively the false equivalence fallacy
is the fallacy made when saying P, but not P is true, is a contradiction.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 06:26:38 UTC No. 16474418
>>16473357
>You can't convey the taste of an apple to another person,
But you can convey a color they couldn't naturally perceive to a color blind person by way of special spectacles, so its not really a good metaphor.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:18:10 UTC No. 16474722
>>16474418
You are making them see color. You still don't know if their red looks like your red. It might look like your green. Or like something you've never experienced. Like he says in this video, you can't articulate it.
https://youtu.be/RlY7wDDpjpQ
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:29:53 UTC No. 16474735
Anyway this thread has gone off-topic. The topic is the logical fallacy false equivalence.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:07:49 UTC No. 16475789
>>16474722
>You still don't know if their red looks like your red.
No, you know that they are now identifying the exact same colors you are and their range of colors has been increased to match your range of colors because of the spectacles that allowed you to transfer your knowledge about the perception of greater ranges of colors to another person who was colorblind and never would have perceived those colors without you translating, codifying, and transferring your knowledge about colors to them.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:18:52 UTC No. 16476115