The difficulty is typically associated with the symbolic representation of something we apply intuitively. I also do not find it easy and could be mistaken in the construction of these formulas.
Right, hence why I made it only halfway through Gödel, Escher, Bach, the symbols just got too confusing. I’m sure you are not mistaken, it looks very correct (and I would know, being an expert in things that look correct). ✅
It is not just the symbols. The symbols are a distillation of thousands of hours of contemplation, and practice, and reviewing.
Anyway, there is much to be gained from reading, and re-reading Michael's posts, and studying the concepts from other sources. He appears to be giving us a course in Logic in tiny bites, exactly as it should be. I have no doubt he is an excellent lecturer and professor, and am inspired by the effort required to process this stuff. It feels like I've stumbled across a missing component 20 (or maybe 40) years too late.
But I am also interested in the human side, and wonder if Michael could write about how (or if); understanding formal logic at a high level has affected his perception and personal relationships.
I work as a builder/carpenter (and did much ‘lower’ jobs too), although i have a masters degree in aerospace engineering. I have no degree in philosophy and I never lectured at any university. I write about things that i think about and think are the most important.
Generally, talking to people about (or referring to) the fundamental laws of logic makes them agitated and angry. Most people are only looking for ‘likeminded’ people, for common opinions; someone who deliberates from fundamental principles can never be that.
A substantial percentage of people know only two positions in relation to disagreement: if you agree with them you are automatically their ‘friend’, and if you disagree with them you are automatically their ‘enemy’, with no capacity to consciously modify their beliefs when faced with a comprehensive argument, and no motivation to challenge the beliefs of others with a comprehensive argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Principia_Mathematica
Thank you Michael!
I wish I was smart enough to understand this Michael, but all I can say is right on! Looks good to me! 😇
The difficulty is typically associated with the symbolic representation of something we apply intuitively. I also do not find it easy and could be mistaken in the construction of these formulas.
Right, hence why I made it only halfway through Gödel, Escher, Bach, the symbols just got too confusing. I’m sure you are not mistaken, it looks very correct (and I would know, being an expert in things that look correct). ✅
If it looks elegant then there is ‘something’ right about it;)
It is not just the symbols. The symbols are a distillation of thousands of hours of contemplation, and practice, and reviewing.
Anyway, there is much to be gained from reading, and re-reading Michael's posts, and studying the concepts from other sources. He appears to be giving us a course in Logic in tiny bites, exactly as it should be. I have no doubt he is an excellent lecturer and professor, and am inspired by the effort required to process this stuff. It feels like I've stumbled across a missing component 20 (or maybe 40) years too late.
But I am also interested in the human side, and wonder if Michael could write about how (or if); understanding formal logic at a high level has affected his perception and personal relationships.
I work as a builder/carpenter (and did much ‘lower’ jobs too), although i have a masters degree in aerospace engineering. I have no degree in philosophy and I never lectured at any university. I write about things that i think about and think are the most important.
Generally, talking to people about (or referring to) the fundamental laws of logic makes them agitated and angry. Most people are only looking for ‘likeminded’ people, for common opinions; someone who deliberates from fundamental principles can never be that.
A substantial percentage of people know only two positions in relation to disagreement: if you agree with them you are automatically their ‘friend’, and if you disagree with them you are automatically their ‘enemy’, with no capacity to consciously modify their beliefs when faced with a comprehensive argument, and no motivation to challenge the beliefs of others with a comprehensive argument.