Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Satyricon331 wrote...
How do you develop a sense of how to associate concepts with words?
The same way you do. I just don't think that process produces knowledge.
If knowledge doesn't require certainty, then there's no way to to draw a clear line between things that are knowledge and things that are not knowledge.
When I deny the existence of intuition, I'm denying that there is this ability to produced knowledge without going through the reasoning to get there. Intuition doesn't contain information. So, the intuition that people describe as being useful, that intuition doesn't exist.
Well, at least you're willing to admit you associate meaning with words non-deductively, although it's not clear to me why you wanted to raise a topic on which you viewed yourself to be irrational.
Knowledge, as absolute certainty, exists in only a handful of propositions (and even those have their critics). Typically they're "existence exists" and the like - the kinds that can withstand epistemic doubt, as they can survive even Matrix-type scenarios where you're utterly deceived. Even if you wanted to include the axioms of classical first-order logic in that set (which is controversial at best), you'd have the problem that to apply deductive reasoning, you need propositional inputs, and those inputs would not be in that set. So if you apply deductive reasoning to, say, DA2's battle system, you'd reach conclusions that are still uncertain - which means by your own definitions, your deductive reasoning is not producing knowledge. So it's not clear to me why you were criticizing me for being irrational on a subject short of absolute knowledge, when your own standards would characterize you the same way.
As for the definition of "knowledge", it's not useful to limit the term to epistemic contexts, so it's better in ordinary contexts to attribute it its dictionary definitions. No, there's sharp line then, but since you're comfortable using reasoning processes you view as irrational, I don't see why it bothers you.
I don't understand what that observation has to do with my point that you don't work through all the math each and every time.
Why wouldn't you work through the math each time? Since you've already solved most of it, the equations are easily reduced to previously-solved problems. Whenever I'm making a decision that involves stats, of course I work through the math. To do otherwise would be reckless.
You're seriously telling me for each decision you make in combat - each positioning decision, each targeting decision, each ability-use decision, etc. - you work through the math? I can scarcely imagine working through an optimization problem for each positioning decision; there are so many variables, the action set is so enormous, and the strategic environment would be so extensive, I would have expected the problem to become quickly intractable. Then there's the problem that the game would necessitate discrete mathematics for the action set rather than the standard continuum simplifications (since applying that simplification to the game would not be strictly deductive), and then there'd be the horror of having to model the game structure as continuous time rather than the standard discrete time (another non-deductive simplification for tractability that's not strictly deductive). Come to think of it, that might be wrong - maybe you model each frame as a time unit? There are hosts of other such problems. How have you even finished BG2? I would have thought it would have taken decades. Did you write a computer program to solve these problems for you?
Retour en haut
