What is the Virtue of Admitting Ignorance?

As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding that point.
And do us all a favor by not wittering about "intuition =guess". Read a chunk of Wittgenstein if you want to understand the folly of that equals sign.

Re: MattDavis (Post 5261576)
Okay. Our differences seem to lie in what we see to be the transcendent substrate,
For me that is the macro- or social level ( despite the implications of the prefix "sub") In Gestaltist terms, the whole determines the parts. Particles etc at the micro-level are intuited to fulfill functions specified at higher levels. I am technically arguing that what we call "reality" is ultimately a social concept and its details are evoked to fulfill human social needs. (including fragmented "selves" having internal conversations with each other) .

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261586)
You forgot to cut and paste this bit.
Quote:

As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding that point.
And do us all a favor by not wittering about "intuition =guess". Read a chunk of Wittgenstein if you want to understand the folly of that equals sign.

Frank was my (most recent) explanation more to your liking?
The most recent one regarding congruence of perspectives (deduction and induction)?

Matt wrote:

It seems at least intuitive that if both "guesses" lead to agreements. Maybe be they are a bit better than "just guesses".

Frank A wrote:

I agree. IF both "guesses" lead to agreement, MAYBE they are a bit better than "just guesses."

Truly I do< Matt.

But, on complex questions about REALITY, it seem more likely to me that it may be indicate that some of the deduction and induction has been fudged. It seem more likely to me that "an end" was sought...and the deduction and induction was contrived to achieve that end.

I wonder...could you give an example of both inductive and deductive avenues leading to "there is no self"..."there are no gods"..."there is a soul"..."existence is eternal and infinite."

Let's see if we can any clear route...or if there is a bit of fudge in the way.

This is important.

I don't mean to dodge your question with regard to self and reality, but to answer that is something I don't claim to be able to do, and I suspect doing so would require much more time than A2K would allow.

I will, If you'll permit me, provide an example of the intuitive principle I eluded to however:

When looking at something in terms of evaluating its truth there are (at least) 2 different ways of looking at it.

1. Dualism.
One might say if this thing is "true" then it must be "not false", and conversely if this thing is "false" then it must be "not true".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

2. Non-dualism or Trans-dualism
One might say there are true things and there are false things but something does not have to be only one or the other. "True" does not necessarily mean "not False". "False" does not necessarily mean "not True".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

Historically mathematics in general and number theory in particular took the dualist track. They accepted as their ASSUMPTION dualism. After many centuries of deduction they arrived at some paradoxes. The strongest (in my opinion) is demonstrated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. This proves that the dualism assumption leads to a proof of something like non-dualism or trans-dualism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Now historically science has taken the inductive track. Phenomena have been granted some validity (by assumption). They don't (at least anymore) make the assumption of the excluded middle in truth value. This has lead to models of reality (paradigms) that contain things like wave-particle duality (actually a non-duality).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Both paths have lead to a rejection of simple dualism.
But by making both (opposite) assumptions we have been lead to the same conclusion.
This (I think) is more profound than "a guess".

I simply meant it as a demonstration that by "merely guessing" we can in a sense disprove dualism of truth values.

If you assume dualism it leads you to non-dualism.

If you assume non-dualism....stop.

But the non-dualism pre-assumption glosses over a lot of structure. It is accurate but not precise.