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=potatoesFalse 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 fruitsYou 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.
>>16470879Noone cares >>>/trash/
Bump
>>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 anotherThen why can some people build special spectacles that allow colorblind people to see colors they have never seen before?
>>16473148That'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.
>>16473148You bring up a very interesting point though. We can discuss this further in this thread. I will think about it.
>>16473357This 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.
>>16470879107 IQ post
>>16473808No, 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.
>>16473958"Red": impression of "Red"Apple: impression of apple
My conception of false equivalence is when intuitionistic logic failsLet P: A is like BSince 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 fallacyis the fallacy made when saying P, but not P is true, is a contradiction.
>>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.
>>16474418You 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
Anyway this thread has gone off-topic. The topic is the logical fallacy false equivalence.
>>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.
>>16475789No
>>16475789The colors the spectacles produce are the same colors you see. This is just a restatement of the initial problem.
>>16470879link the video
>>16479919Watched a bunch. They were all stupid.
>>16470889This. What a trash post.
>>16470879sorry you got laughed at for your flat earth bullshit, you should try pol it's full of trumpanzees
>>16479965Learn to read retard, the videos said that, not me. Besides, all you fuckwits who don't like this thread can either say how you understand false equivalence or fuck off.
>>16470889fpbp/thread
>>16474735Not science or math
>>16479929>>16479965>>16480137>>16480140Fuck off salty samefag
>>16476115Yes>>16477767No, they are the colors you see that the other person did not, but they do now because you translated your knowledge of colors and increased their perception of colors with your knowledge.
>>16480262No. Perception of color is a personal experience. You can't get into another person's consciousness. You don't know if other people's red is like your red or like your green. This is basic stuff.
>>16480634>You don't know if other people's red is like your red or like your green.Except that you know they only see red or green because you successfully translated the colors that they couldn't previously see. If its so different, how were you able to make the wavelength trigger their preceptors with your advanced knowledge?
>>16480643So? You only know the wavelength or that they see the color on the same items you do, you don't know how they experience it in their mind.
>>16480663>You only know the wavelength or that they see the color on the same items you do,Exactly, so you successfully translated your knowledge of colors to them unlike the original claim about that kind of knowledge being impossible to transfer >>16473148, it doesn't really matter how they experienced it in their mind as long as you were able to successfully transfer your knowledge of the experience to them to allow them to have a novel experience that is derived from your own.
>>16481958>it doesn't really matter how they experienced it in their minda) it matters because that's the topic, b) you're contradicting yourself
>>16481958You don't actually know if they have a novel experience. You haven't gotten anywhere here.
>>16480182yeah, I'm thinking MEDS
>>16482322Yes you do because they confirm that they can now see wavelengths they couldn't before and it is possible to test for colorblindness to see that they are telling the truth.
>>16485970You still don't know if their red is like your green
>>16486305You know that they were able to perceive a new color that they never would have known with you transferring your knowledge of colors to them.
