I’m mostly just a skeptic

Though I’ve tried very hard, I am unable to arrive at sufficient reasons for any philosophy.
I can see failure in any philosophical position I have tried to adopt.
This, however, is not a justification for any other (especially religious) position.
Religion (faith that is) is irrational.
I seek to be rational and learn from experience.
I think irrational belief, overall, does harm.
Practically, one must make great simplifications to get through life.
Some of the simplifications may be called “fictions”.
I think almost every word must be fictitious.
So there is not a simple “correspondence” theory of truth that is adequate.
But I still believe truth is based on correspondence.
It is discovered mostly practically – by what works.
Also it is dependent on psychological facts.
There is no truth without intelligence.
And the existence of intelligence is not necessary.
I have separate parts of a philosophy – all of which are simplifications – & which involve fictions. But they work in their separate areas – & are based on reason & experience.
I am unable to fit them all together.
It may be that they don’t fit together because they are simplifications.
Each only valid is some domains.
The whole truth is just too complex for human (or at least my) comprehension.

Knowledge necessarily uses fictions!

I’m about on third of the way through Hans Vaihinger’s Philosophy of As If. I believe he is overall correct. I may differ on some details. E.g. even in Principia Mathematica classes are logical fictions. I suspect beyond even that Predicates (including relations) are also fictions. As is anything that can be named or described! Mind & Matter are both fictions. Only instances of immediate experience are real – but they cannot be named or described!


OBJECTS — Solid — Liquid — Gas — Abstract

SENSES — Visual — Auditory — Touch — Smell — Taste

OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS — Mental (differ between people – often called ‘images’ or ‘ideas’)

INTERNAL SYMBOLS – Non-Verbal — Verbal (Usually (for me) internal speech)

EXTERNAL SYMBOLS (Input) Visual Words — Hearing (Output) Writing — Speech

My philosophy and the computer language wild life

I’ve ironed out some installation issues with Wild Life – a language similar to prolog – which apparently I am responsible for preserving. See My port. I have found it sometimes crashes with if there are syntax errors in the wild life source code being interpreted.

I have gotten back to working on my philosophy as represented in it. My philosophy is a simplification – but more sophisticated than any philosophy I have studied. I found syntax errors where I had left off on it a few years ago and fixed them – there is a lot more to do – but I have had much time to think about how to go about it. I think this sort of representation the best way to explain my ideas though it may limit the audience. Also, I plan to use Libre Office to find spelling & syntax errors. (Mostly in the comments – which will be very important.)

Possible Goals – 2016

In no particular order.

Study math – in particular review differential equations, especially partial differential equations. (This is for me personally – I don’t expect to do much with it – my ordinary differential equation program is mostly finished and I think partial differential equations too difficult for me.

Write on psychology of propositional attitudes (belief, doubt, desire, etc.). – (illustrate with Wildlife). I need to make problems & my solution to them clear – more than handling more cases technically – once my solution is understood that is unnecessary.

Study philosophy of logic. I am more interested in philosophical points than details of logic.

Write Ruby on rails program for SQL database of information on papers given at BRS meetings (and populate data). This is possible – or I may just use HTML.

Get “Russell” computer language working in Unicon. (Mostly for pleasure of programming).

THE problem of philosophy

THE problem of philosophy is that it is expected the single words have too simple of meanings. I have always been frustrated by the “objects” or whatever is taken as primary. They really never are primary. Perhaps physics will (or already has to some extent) reached what is primary. But the ordinary “objects” (including “mental objects”) are such complicated structures of these primitive “objects” that we will never be able to satisfactorily analyze them. We can, perhaps, get some general ideas about how parts of such an analysis would go. I think highly of Jerry Fodor and Danial Dennett. But such understanding will always be simplifications to which there will arise exceptions apparently leading to paradoxes. I am tired of struggling with this. I will continue reading, but realizing THE problem of philosophy makes me want to write philosophy no more. I want to spend my time studying computer languages (which are artificially simple). I enjoy programming like nothing else.

Resolutions for the New Year

1. Try to average 8 or more hours of sleep per night.
2. Read 10 or more pages of philosophy per day.
3. Using stationary bike at least 2.1 miles per day (about 15 minutes) – hope to work up to 4.1 miles (30 minutes) .
4. Lose weight.
5. Continue walking in good weather.
6. Watch Democracy Now more regularly – continue with Rachel Maddow.