Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The logic of Buddhist philosophy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#41

Post by elbenshira »

throwaway13qf85 wrote: post #5

In case anyone is turned off by the expectation of wishy-washy flim-flam, it's worth noting that Graham Priest may be a professor of philosophy, but is most well known for his work in logic, particularly in non-standard logics (i.e. not propositional or predicate logic) that allow non-boolean truth values, or weaken or remove some of the axioms of classical logic. I assume that what's relevant here will be his work o…

Don't immutable data structures give us most of the benefits? Clojure, for example, approaches this by preferring values over hidden, mutable state (e.g. classes). We see libraries like Om take advantage of the fact that comparing two complex structures (e.g. a hash map) is simply a reference equality test.

http://clojure.org/state

http://swannodette.github.io/2013/12/17/the-future-of-javasc...

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#42

Post by zorze »

eludwig wrote: post #17
dusklight wrote: post #11

This article is kinda missing the point. The "empty" is the undefined. That which has yet to exist, or never will. There is that which is uncountable, for example the number of corners in a circle. Just because it is a contradiction doesn't mean it is wrong -- maybe your models are wrong. The usefulness of eastern philosophy is to free yourself of preconceived ideas. I think it is obviously clear to everyone today th…

>>The "empty" is the undefined. That which has yet to exist, or never will. The "empty" is the un- defined . Direct experience, that which can't be talked about, labeled or categorized. That (this) which has always existed, and always will. The void is that which can't be named. It's all around you! You can never leave it because it is you, stretching from your center in all directions. There are no contradiction her…

So true. To experience the un-manifested one has to just be actively aware: - listen to sounds/silence; - look at where you're looking out from; - feel the tickle of the body's energy. Bluntly said, you have to fucking shut-up!

Here are some links to people that go directly to the essential: http://www.eckharttolle.com http://www.adyashanti.org http://www.headless.org

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#43

Post by brudgers »

Strilanc wrote: post #15

I would have enjoyed this article if it dropped the Buddhism and kept the math. Alternate logics are interesting, but you tend to be able to reduce them into each other in the same way that universal turing machines can simulate each other. They don't add new functionality, they add succinctness. So it's really strange to me to frame them as totally different philosophies . For example, it is the case that self-refer…

The references to Buddhism and Aristotle are traditional in the literature and go back at least to Bart Kosko's Fuzzy Thinking -- a 1993 best seller about fuzzy logic for a general audience. Specifically binary and multi-valued logic were compared as 'Aristotle v. the Buddha'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko

http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Thinking-The-Science-Logic/dp/15...

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#44

Post by nzp »

alex-g wrote: post #38
pera wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have enjoyed this article if it dropped the Buddhism and kept the math. May I ask you why? Personally I enjoy reading about the origin of some particular idea/philosophy, even when it's purely anecdotal.

It's interesting, but the problem I have with the presentation is that the modern manifestation of this idea has nothing to do with Buddhism. While we can maybe say that Buddhism came up with some similar-looking stuff, there's no causal link, and the philosophical systems are not working within the same paradigm. Like seeing a human face on the surface of Mars, this is an example of coincidence more than any deep co…

Aristotle had nothing to do with the atomic theory, other than being against it. As far as antique atomism goes, the ideas is essentially what it is in modern science---matter consists of indivisible elementary particles. It doesn't matter much that what we call "atoms" do not fit the description (at the time of their modern theoretical (re)discovery it was thought they are elementary). This simple idea, without any further elaboration as to how "atoms" work, just the idea that they exist as such, is far more powerful than it seems at first sight. Feynman thought it was the most important piece of scientific knowledge about the universe, so much so that if all scientific knowledge would to disappear but we could choose one fact to preserve, he would choose the idea of atomic theory.

Indeed any scientist relying on Aristotle would do badly, and one of the reasons was because he was against atomism.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#45

Post by javert »

ssdfsdf wrote: post #10
javert wrote: post #6

But the Law of Non-Contradiction does hold. And it's very easy to save the PEM if you distinguish the value of a proposition (true or false) and the cognitive status of the proposition (certain, probable, possible, or arbitrary). Moreover, to exist is to have a particular identity, to have a nature, to be something. Thus, all of this work is utter hogwash. The professor who wrote this IS practicing mysticism and irra…

Javert - protagonist in les miserable. Destroyed in the end by his own mental rigidity. I think you may be trolling :)

So it's trolling for a computer scientist to support Aristotelian logic as opposed to Buddhism? Wow.

But yeah, I do recognize the irony. I admire moral rigidity, which is why I picked the username. Though I don't necessarily agree with javert's particular sense of morality, which obviously didn't work out too well for him.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#46

Post by shawndumas »

An "abhorrence of contradiction" is necessary for him to even begin to express his having eschewed his former "parochialism". To have said, "abhorrence of contradiction" he has demonstrated an abhorrence of contradiction -- in the very act of making his declaration.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) means that every word in the sentence "The line is straight" has a specific meaning. 'The' does not mean 'any', 'all', or 'no'. 'Line' does not mean 'dandelion' or 'doughnut'. 'Is' does not mean 'is not'. 'Straight' does not mean 'white', or anything else. Each word has a definite meaning. In order to have a definite meaning, a word must not only mean something, it must also not mean something. 'Line' means 'line', but it also does not mean 'not-line' — or 'dog', 'sunrise', or 'monkey'.

If 'line' were to mean everything, it would mean nothing; and no one, including him, would have the foggiest idea what he means when he says the word 'line'. PNC means that each word, to have a meaning, must also not mean something. And so; anyone who argues against an "abhorrence of contradiction" must use PNC for that statement to even mean anything, thus undercutting his own argument.

----

"There exist, indeed, certain general principles founded in the very nature of language, by which the use of symbols, which are but the elements of scientific language, is determined. To a certain extent these elements are arbitrary. Their interpretation is purely conventional: we are permitted to employ them in whatever sense we please. But this permission is limited by two indispensable conditions, first, that from the sense once conventionally established we never, in the same process of reasoning, depart; secondly, that the laws by which the process is conducted be founded exclusively upon the above fixed sense or meaning of the symbols employed."

—George Boole, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#47

Post by dllthomas »

elbenshira wrote: post #41
throwaway13qf85 wrote: post #5

In case anyone is turned off by the expectation of wishy-washy flim-flam, it's worth noting that Graham Priest may be a professor of philosophy, but is most well known for his work in logic, particularly in non-standard logics (i.e. not propositional or predicate logic) that allow non-boolean truth values, or weaken or remove some of the axioms of classical logic. I assume that what's relevant here will be his work o…

Don't immutable data structures give us most of the benefits? Clojure, for example, approaches this by preferring values over hidden, mutable state (e.g. classes). We see libraries like Om take advantage of the fact that comparing two complex structures (e.g. a hash map) is simply a reference equality test. http://clojure.org/state http://swannodette.github.io/2013/12/17/the-future-of-javasc...

Immutable data structures give us many benefits, but linear types promise most of those plus safe mutability. Think of it as a compile-time proof that you'll be getting vector fusion style speed-ups.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#48

Post by javert »

mjburgess wrote: post #8
javert wrote: post #6

But the Law of Non-Contradiction does hold. And it's very easy to save the PEM if you distinguish the value of a proposition (true or false) and the cognitive status of the proposition (certain, probable, possible, or arbitrary). Moreover, to exist is to have a particular identity, to have a nature, to be something. Thus, all of this work is utter hogwash. The professor who wrote this IS practicing mysticism and irra…

1) Graham Priest is one of the most famous logicians of this century. 2) The LNC is an axiom it doesnt "hold", its either built into what you mean by identity or it isnt. Either way there is no non-circular "hold"ing. 3) Im sure the notions of truth, falsity and consistency are far too technical here for the lay person to get a serious grasp of but i'd be careful of rationalizing your own ignorance by projecting stup…

For 2, yes, the LNC is an axiom.

What that properly means is that to deny it is a contradiction, because it must be assumed to deny it.

In other words, you can't say "The truth is, there is no truth." Which is what Graham Priest is doing.

1 is an interesting observation, but has no bearing on the facts of the case: he is a fraud.

3: You should be ashamed to make a statement like this in an intellectual conversation. If you feel the need to bolster your argument with an unsubstantiated character attack like this, you must not feel that your argument is sound.

No offense, but I'd flag your comment for #3, except it's not worth wasting moderators' time on.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#49

Post by javert »

His argument is self-defeating. Ultimately, it amounts to: "There is no such thing as truth." But that is a statement about the truth.

The law of noncontradiction is one of several axioms that are presupposed by any proposition. Such axioms can't be "proven," because any proof would presume their correctness, but it is proper to accept them.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#50

Post by dllthomas »

shawndumas wrote: post #46

An "abhorrence of contradiction" is necessary for him to even begin to express his having eschewed his former "parochialism". To have said, "abhorrence of contradiction" he has demonstrated an abhorrence of contradiction -- in the very act of making his declaration. The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) means that every word in the sentence "The line is straight" has a specific meaning. 'The' does not mean 'any',…

I don't see that every violation of the principle of noncontradiction trivially leaves definitions meaningless. Suggesting that a principle shouldn't be taken to hold in general doesn't mean that you have to violate the principle at every opportunity, just that there is some place it is (in whatever sense) correct to violate the principle. Of course, under traditional logics, accepting a contradiction leaves everything provable - but we're dealing with nontraditional logics that may have other ways of dealing with that.
Post reply on HN