<qwertydawom> Ok, so, tonight, we're gonna discuss "reasoning".
<qwertydawom> Actually, for you, nnp, who wanted a sum up, that'll do it. :)
<qwertydawom> So, what's behind this "reasoning"?
<qwertydawom> firstly, mathematical logic
<qwertydawom> then, enigmas, deduction, formal logic, paradoxes, self-references, absurd, and.. AI
<qwertydawom> Now, a quick explanation of the difference between an enigma and a paradox :
<qwertydawom> An enigma has a solution or an hypothesis that avoids any contradiction.
<qwertydawom> In a paradox, none of the hypotheses is valuable.
<qwertydawom> Well, there are different kind of paradoxes.
<qwertydawom> Mainly three types actually :
<qwertydawom> 1) False reasoning :
<qwertydawom> That is, when an error is "well hidden" in the reasoning.
<qwertydawom> For example, I assume all of you know the "proof" that 1=2, right?
<SysSpider> yes
<SysSpider> actually that n = 2n for any n in Z
<SysSpider> but go on
<varu|zZz> 1=2?
<qwertydawom> yes
<qwertydawom> So, I'll do it for those who don't know it yet ;) :
<varu|zZz> hm.. never come across this before... explain
<Nick> I think C dissagrees with you here. 
<Nick> So, explain please. :)
<qwertydawom> Let's take : a=b.
<qwertydawom> Now, let's multiply by a : a² = ab.
<qwertydawom> Then, let's add a : a²+a = ab+a.
<SysSpider> you better use ^ to signal exponentiation
<SysSpider> it's appearing as weird symbols here
<qwertydawom> ok, I'll do it again then :
<StEvE> You fail SysSpider
<qwertydawom> a=b
<qwertydawom> a^2 = ab
<qwertydawom> (let's add a^2 in fact)
<qwertydawom> 2a^2 = ab + a^2.
<qwertydawom> 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab.
<qwertydawom> 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab)
<qwertydawom> So : 2 = 1.
<qwertydawom> ...
<qwertydawom> Now, who can spot the mistake? :)
<SysSpider> the flaw is that a^2 - ab = 0
<SysSpider> and you can't divide by 0
<qwertydawom> yep
<StEvE> :O
<varu|zZz> ahh, mmhmm
<qwertydawom> did you get it?
<Nick> Yup.
<qwertydawom> okee
<qwertydawom> 2) The mental experience.
<qwertydawom> This is a situation that we can easily imagine, but, that can hardly become true.
<qwertydawom> This situation would show that conventional postulates can lead to a contradiction.
<qwertydawom> This type of paradox shows that sometimes, our "intuition" is wrong.
<qwertydawom> To illustrate this, you may want to see Galileo's paradox : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_paradox .
<qwertydawom> 3) The authentic paradox :
<qwertydawom> No false reasoning, no "intuition is wrong," these paradoxes remained unanswered...
<qwertydawom> Now, another topic of "reasoning" is : Ontology.
<qwertydawom> I'll briefly explain what it is.
<qwertydawom> If you want a deeper explanation, see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology (for the philosophical aspect)
<qwertydawom> Or here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29 , for the.. well, you can guess it from the link ;)
<qwertydawom> So, ontology is : the study of the most certain reality.
<qwertydawom> Can we, just like Euclid did in geometry, deduce the theorems of knowledge from a limited number of axioms? 
<qwertydawom> Descartes got his hands on it.
<qwertydawom> Unfortunately, almost all propositions, up to a certain point, are "doubtful".
<qwertydawom> Example : Is Paris the capital city of France? 
<qwertydawom> What if we were manipulated and "someone" wanted to make us think that Paris is the capital of France?
<qwertydawom> What's, up to you, closer to reality : the tyrannosaurus or the Loch Ness monster?
<qwertydawom> Who assures you that there are not crazy people, who, manipulating your brain, make you believe that : 2+2 = 4, while it is in fact : 2+2 = 314?
<SysSpider> no one can do such thing
<SysSpider> i mean, assert it
<Nick> I think and therefore I am.
<SysSpider> unless you take a religious perspective and ask God
<SysSpider> the doubt-of-everything thinking is Descartes'
<SysSpider> in his Cogito Ergo Sum
<qwertydawom> Indeed. :)
<Nick> nobody can assure you these things, you can only know something like "you" exists because of that you have the ability to "talk" in you rmind.
<Nick> *your
<SysSpider> but i think it's flawed, since at a point he takes the existance of certainty from the existance of uncertainty
<SysSpider> and in the real world there are multiple levels of uncertainty
<SysSpider> but sorry, i'm making a philosophical discussion here
<qwertydawom> no, don't worry
<Nick> please continue qwerty. :)
<qwertydawom> k
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +m 
<qwertydawom> Now, let's study a kind of reasoning, namely : syllogisms.
<qwertydawom> This is the following type of reasoning :
<qwertydawom> Every time that : "all A are B", and that "C is A", then : "C is B".
<qwertydawom> For example : Every programmer is addicted to his computer. Ch4r is a programmer. Therefore, Ch4r is addicted to his computer.
<qwertydawom> There are four kinds of syllogisms :
<qwertydawom> A : positive universal
<qwertydawom> E : negative universal
<qwertydawom> I : positive particular
<qwertydawom> O : negative particular
<qwertydawom> Classical syllogisms (like the one above) are on the model : AAA.
<qwertydawom> An example of EIO : No lemon contains sugar. Some fruits contain sugar. Some fruits are not lemons.
<qwertydawom> The object of the syllogism can be in the position of the subject, or in the position of the predicate.
<qwertydawom> So, there are 4^4 possibilities of syllogisms. (=64)
<qwertydawom> Only fifteen of those make a valid reasoning.
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture -m 
<SysSpider> i just wanted to make a remark, given that we're mostly programmers
<SysSpider> some declarative and functional languages work by syllogisms too
<SysSpider> like Prolog
<SysSpider> i find it amazing to see these concepts applied in so many varied areas
<qwertydawom> indeed :)
<qwertydawom> moreover, like I told my philosophy teacher, syllogisms, are, in a way, "flawed."
<qwertydawom> indeed, when we say :
<qwertydawom> All men are mortals. Socrates is man. Hence, Socrates is mortal.
<qwertydawom> The conclusion that "Socrates is mortal" doesn't bring anything.
<Nick> What do you mean by that?
<qwertydawom> Indeed, at the beginning, we have "all men are mortals," so, we already know that Socrates is mortal, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say this proposition. ;)
<SysSpider> yes, it doesn't expand our sphere of knowledge
<SysSpider> it simply derives a particular case
<Nick> Ah, it's useless.
<qwertydawom> Exactly.
<Fay> for sure
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +m 
<qwertydawom> Now, there's a special class of syllogisms, it is in fact a chain of syllogisms where the predicate of the 1st one becomes the subject of the following one. :)
<qwertydawom> Can you find one?
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture -m 
<Ch4r> 
ACTION thinks

<Ch4r> :/
<SysSpider> recursive xD
<varu|zZz> hmm
<varu|zZz> poo is brown
<varu|zZz> brown is a colour
<varu|zZz> hence poo is a colour
<varu|zZz> ?
<Ch4r> lol wtf
<varu|zZz> i might've completely missed the point :P
<qwertydawom> yes, you got the point :)
<varu|zZz> whee
<qwertydawom> can you find a longer chain Ch4r?
<Ch4r> hmm
<Ch4r> I think *i* missed the point :p
<Ch4r> so, I don't think so..
<nnp> me neither
<qwertydawom> oh
<Nick> back to you qwerty. ;)
<varu|zZz> qwertydawom, why don't you give us an example?
<varu|zZz> yup
<qwertydawom> Varu, can you explain? :)
<varu|zZz> erm
<varu|zZz> i'll try :P
<SysSpider> C is a language
<SysSpider> languages use grammars
<SysSpider> grammars are structures
<SysSpider> C uses structures
<SysSpider> like that?
<varu|zZz> now, we all know that poo is brown, correct?
<qwertydawom> exactly :)
<varu|zZz> we also know that brown is a colour.
<Nick> is it brown, or does it have the property, colour: brown. 
<varu|zZz> colour
<Nick> We say it is, we mean that it's colour is brownish.
<varu|zZz> correct
<varu|zZz> so, based on the syllogisms done so far, we could go "well, poo = brown and brown = colour... so poo = colour?"
<Nick> The thing where it goes wrong is the amount of detail in the predicate.
<varu|zZz> of course, afaik, poo has not been deemed a colour
<varu|zZz> correct
<SysSpider> if a . b and b . c then a . c?
<SysSpider> the transitive property?
<qwertydawom> Yes, another example :
<qwertydawom> All ravens are rooks,
<qwertydawom> All rooks are birds,
<qwertydawom> All birds are animals,
<qwertydawom> All the animals need oxygen,
<qwertydawom> Conclusion : All the ravens need oxygen.
<qwertydawom> Got it now?
<SysSpider> ~yes
<varu|zZz> mhmm
<Nick> Eh, what's special about it?
<qwertydawom> well, that's just a chain of syllogisms
<Nick> Noted.
<SysSpider> you go through a chain of properties from the initial predicate
<SysSpider> and you arrive a conclusion
<SysSpider> it's like demonstrating a theorem
<Nick> So instead of..
<Nick> Eh.. nvm me example.
<Nick> I get it, continue please.
<qwertydawom> ok
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +m 
<qwertydawom> Now, let's introduce the two main types of reasoning :
<qwertydawom> Deduction and Induction.
<qwertydawom> Deduction : a logic way to draw conclusions (or logic truths) from hypotheses.
<qwertydawom> (e.g. : the syllogism)
<qwertydawom> Induction : a familiar process thanks to which we make generalizations.
<qwertydawom> e.g. : All the ravens I've seen were black. Hence, all the ravens are black.
<qwertydawom> So, on one hand, we have : Hypotheses -> Logical truths, while, on the other hand, we have : Facts -> Intuitive generalization.
<qwertydawom> Therefore, in deduction, the error can be in the hypothesis, but the logical structure is solid.
<qwertydawom> And, in induction, the error can be in the reasoning.
<qwertydawom> Usually, the induction principle always appear as "less legitimate" than the deduction one.
<qwertydawom> Note that :
<qwertydawom> we use inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning :
<qwertydawom> "Induction resisted to time, so, induction is a reliable way of reasoning."
<qwertydawom> Paradox?!
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture -m 
<SysSpider> i assume inductive reasoning has nothing to do with mathematical induction?
<qwertydawom> Indeed. :)
<SysSpider> ok
<qwertydawom> Oh, well, it is in a way similar, by the base case I mean.
<SysSpider> yes, generalising
<qwertydawom> yep
<Nick> Induction isn't to be taken as a truth, but a mere generialization. (<--- bad spelling)
<SysSpider> but mathematical induction has a logical structure so it's not ad hoc
<qwertydawom> exact.
<qwertydawom> and, in mathematical induction, the point is the base case in fact
<qwertydawom> we check it's true for the base case, just as the "inductive reasoning."
<SysSpider> yes
<qwertydawom> and then, we assume it's true for "n.", that's where the inductive reasoning stops
<qwertydawom> but, in math, you need to prove that "n+1" holds so the property can be true
<qwertydawom> Now, for those who want stuff to read :
<qwertydawom> quickly : http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?deduction+-+induction
<qwertydawom> briefly, but a bit more explanatory : http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm
<qwertydawom> and, rather long, but complete : http://falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/deduction.html
<qwertydawom> Now, let us interest to Hume's fork. :)
<qwertydawom> Hume showed that there were only two admitted truths :
<qwertydawom> Logic truth (e.g. : 2+2 = 4)
<qwertydawom> Facts (e.g. : The raven sitting on SysSpider's house is black - j/k, no offense meant)
<SysSpider> xD
<SysSpider> no offense taken
<qwertydawom> k ;)
<qwertydawom> All the things that are neither logic truths, nor facts, are : nonsense.
<qwertydawom> Nonsense : e.g. : Does the exterior world exist?
<qwertydawom> This dual conception of truth is called : Hume's fork.
<qwertydawom> (David Hume, scottish philosopher and historian - 1711/1776)
<SysSpider> i've rad about him
<Nick> Sorry for interupting, but what's the point of it?
<Nick> Both state the obvious.
<SysSpider> a categorisation of truth
<Nick> Facts are.. facts.. d'oh. 
<Nick> Oh
<Nick> aha
<qwertydawom> :)
<Nick> What's true and what's not.
<qwertydawom> Feeling like reading more about it? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork
<qwertydawom> Now, that part of reasoning from a "logic" point of view.. is done! :)
<qwertydawom> So, like you seem to like it
<qwertydawom> we'll get back to the philosophical point of view.
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +m 
<qwertydawom> Dreams and reality.
<qwertydawom> Who are we? Are we in a dream? Pretty philosophical, eh? :p
<qwertydawom> First of all, let's mention "Chuang Tzu's fable" :
<qwertydawom> Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he was a butterfly, and, when he woke up, he wondered if he wasn't a butterfly dreaming that he was a man...
<qwertydawom> (Chinese fable - 4th c. BC)
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture -m 
<SysSpider> i heard of it
<SysSpider> it's a spicy subject, the distinction of reality and dreams
<SysSpider> when you're dreaming that's your reality
<Nick> You can't know if you're dreaming or not.
<Nick> Or, does someone dissagree?
<SysSpider> i agree
<SysSpider> the subject can never know in which reality he's in
<SysSpider> assuming multiple ones
<SysSpider> that's what leads so many people to the idea of God
<SysSpider> an external observer that tells us what the "supreme" reality is like
<qwertydawom> Indeed.
<SysSpider> obviously this merely based in faith and philosophically there can't be a reality more real than another one
<qwertydawom> I'd also like to mention the "brain in a vat" paradox.
<Nick> Aaah yes! i like that one.
<qwertydawom> You think you're reading this text.
<SysSpider> i don't think i heard of that one... go ahead
<qwertydawom> In reality, nothing proves that you're not a brain "having a bath" in nutritive substances, somewhere in a laboratory.
<Nick> Some crazy researcher might be 'steering' our brain. 
<Ch4r> :O
<SysSpider> so you're confined to a certain perspective
<Ch4r> 
ACTION hides

<SysSpider> and you can't access the others from your own
<varu|zZz> however, nothing proves you are such a brain either
<SysSpider> Ch4r: fear not, for i am here
<Nick> Something is steering you.
<Ch4r> ;x
<Nick> For whatever you may be.
<Nick> There has to be something.
<qwertydawom> Electrodes are connected to this brain to which a crazy guy sends a stream of electric impulsions who simulate exactly the action of reading this text.
<Nick> Ahem.. sorry qwerty. >_>
<Nick> got kinda excited here.
<SysSpider> he jerked off! sorry :x
<qwertydawom> This name was given to the enigma by students in philosophy.
<SysSpider> yes it's always possible that our reality is fake
<qwertydawom> No problem, it's the "open corner" ;)
<SysSpider> hehe
<SysSpider> but can it be fake if it's for us real?
<varu|zZz> it's possible that it is, it's possible that it isn't. probably why it's declared an enigma?
<qwertydawom> hehe, that leads us to an interesting point :
<SysSpider> it'll certainly be "fake" for external observers, but their reality will be "fake" for us
<SysSpider> so it depends on your perspective
<qwertydawom> How to establish the distinction between dream and reality?
<SysSpider> you can't, as Nick stated before
<qwertydawom> Which unbreakable test can we build?
<SysSpider> or i don't think we can
<Nick> I've thought of that for a long and hard time, I didn't come up with something.
<qwertydawom> Let's make an array : Test - Cons
<Nick> Point is, you can't have any reach outside of your.. "you" 
<qwertydawom> To pinch - We can feel the pain even when we're dreaming.
<SysSpider> i think about it often, in a slightly modified version
<qwertydawom> Color? - We can dream in color, even if it's rare.
<SysSpider> how can we know what other people experience
<Nick> uuh sys? explain?
<SysSpider> like, how can i know what you're seeing right know
<SysSpider> or how do you feel your body
<Nick> You can't.
<SysSpider> exactly
<qwertydawom> Richness of the details? - Why not in a dream?
<SysSpider> qwerty: so a dream can have any aspect of what we call reality
<Nick> Well if this is all a dream it's damn realistic. ;)
<SysSpider> there's the problem
<qwertydawom> Draw a reasoning, do computations and check them on a computer? - can you find a con to this? :)
<SysSpider> they're supposed to be realistic because they're your reality
<Nick> It becomes a circleredenatie. >_> A circle.. ah.. 
<SysSpider> qwerty: why can't the computer be your mind
<Nick> Heck it could be.
<SysSpider> you still have it in your dream, or it's in your dream
<qwertydawom> that's ut ;)
<qwertydawom> it*
<SysSpider> aww sorry guys, i've got to leave :(
<SysSpider> i'll ask for the logs to someone
<qwertydawom> heh.. ok!
<varu|zZz> they'll get posted on the site
<Ch4r> SysSpider, they'll be up at http://binaryuniverse.net/lectures.php by tomorrow
<SysSpider> so cya guys tomorrow :) and thanks for the interesting lecture
<SysSpider> thanks Ch4r and varu
<SysSpider> so bye
<Ch4r> np
<Ch4r> cya
<Ch4r> whoops
<Ch4r> qwertydawom, go on
<qwertydawom> If we're conscious to be woken up, it proves that we're woken up, doesn't it? - But then, we couldn't make dreams in which we realise we're dreaming?
<Nick> Saying: can we dream in our dreams?
<qwertydawom> :)
<qwertydawom> if you're interested into this kind of stuff, I suggest the following book : http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/labyrinths-of-reason/
<qwertydawom> Now, let's get back to your friend Descartes.
<qwertydawom> In his "Essays," Descartes wonders if the exterior world, along with his own body, is not illusion created by an "evil genius", who's ready to abuse him.
<qwertydawom> Descartes was also wondering if, only his mind and the evil genius existed.
<qwertydawom> (Rene Descartes - 1596/1650 - French)
<qwertydawom> COGITO ERGO SUM!
<Nick> w0rd
<qwertydawom> Let's assume you are doubting about the existence of your own mind.
<Nick> Feeling dumb already. >_>
<qwertydawom> Then, you are doubting that you're doubting - meaning that you're really doubting!
<qwertydawom> Something must provoke this doubt.
<qwertydawom> You might be abused in several ways, but, at least, this abused mind exists.
<qwertydawom> Hence, the oh-so-famous Descartes' conclusion :
<qwertydawom> I think, therefore I am.
<Nick> Define I.
<qwertydawom> good question, that is actually a question we had to deal with in our first philosophical essay :)
<qwertydawom> it was: "When I say 'I', who's this 'I'?" :)
<qwertydawom> Now, just to end this lecture, a last point : the confirmation theory.
<Nick> If we speak about I we mean ourselves. But what part? Who are we? Flash and blood, brain in box or... merely something that we cannot define?
<Nick> hehe go ahead. xD I'll shut >_>
<qwertydawom> The confirmation theory (or, in an even wider sense : "epistemology") consits in studying how we know what we know : an inquiry on the process of deduction of valuable conclusions from obvious things.
<qwertydawom> It is based on the study of enigmas and logic paradoxes who have the same roles as the Physics experiments.
<qwertydawom> This ends the lecture, I'll let you "meditate" on what's been said! ;)

<-- Discussion that took place after the lecture: -->

<Nick> can I jump in here?
<Nick> On the epistemology?
<Ch4r> qwertydawom, cool. Very interesting lecture :)
<Nick> yeah that has to be said, it was my first lecture really, I liked it a lot. :)
<Ozzy> nice
<Ch4r> sorry for interrupting you Nick, go ahead
<qwertydawom> glad you liked it :D
<qwertydawom> of course, go hard Nick ;)
<Ch4r> shit, I still haven't eaten lunch, I'm going to go ;x
<Nick> Me hungry too. 
<Nick> Anyway
<Nick> Our knowledge, we get it by experience, or theory.
<qwertydawom> lol ok, enjoy your lunch Ch4r.
<Nick> Any comments, just feel free to drop in btw.
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +v Nick
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture +m 
<Nick> nooo
<Nick> Please don't
<Nick> Just ummute. xD
:qwertydawom!qwertydawo@bu-61EE8C6D.fbx.proxad.net MODE #lecture -m 
<Nick> I rather talk.
<varu|zZz> lol
<Nick> we had this in class, and we talked about our senses.
<Nick> most people agree that we have 5.
<Nick> (not going on about logic, eeh.. just talking like I said)
<qwertydawom> no prob.
<qwertydawom> go on ;)
<Nick> We've got more. We acquire knowledge through each one of them probably.
<Nick> Take your skin for example.
<Nick> We can feel pressure, pain, tickling, itching, warmth, coldness(?).
<Nick> Touch a stove while it's on. Hot.
<Nick> more like pain hot.
<Nick> You memorize it.
<Nick> "Don't touch stoves again"
<Nick> You notice something
<Nick> With your eyes.
<Nick> Hey it's on!
<Nick> Okay.. change..
<Nick> "Don't touch stoves when on"
<Nick> This is a small thing.
<Nick> I find it fun to imagine that we have got all these senses running at the same time, storing info rapidly into our brain.
<Nick> then you got theories.
<Nick> Theories you can acquire in different ways, but not many. 
<Nick> Also there's a specific thing with them.
<Nick> Most of them don't get made by senses.
<Nick> You see an apple fall.. Why is it faling?
<Nick> you jump.
<Nick> And you fall.
<Nick> I'm falling to.
<Nick> *too
<Nick> You make a theory about it with your brain and some thinking.
<varu|zZz> Well that's still made by senses
<Nick> Ah nice!
<varu|zZz> You *see* the apple fall
<Nick> that's the point!
<Nick> All our knowledge comes from our senses then?
<varu|zZz> It certainly seems that way
<varu|zZz> Let's imagine, for example, a man
<varu|zZz> Well, a brain
<Nick> okay just a brain.
<varu|zZz> It is attached to no limbs
<Nick> kewl
<varu|zZz> It has absolutely no sensory devices whatsoever
<varu|zZz> Would it have any way of acquiring knowledge?
<Nick> By thinking?
<varu|zZz> I'll use two things to discuss this:
<varu|zZz> 1) disabled people
<varu|zZz> 2) computers
<varu|zZz> How can you think when you have nothing to think about?
<Nick> You make up something.
<Nick> You're dreaming!
<varu|zZz> How can you make something up if you've experienced nothing?
<varu|zZz> How can you create something out of nothing?
<varu|zZz> For example, look at computers.
<varu|zZz> If they are not programmed, they will not do anything.
<varu|zZz> Then look at disabled people.
<varu|zZz> Say, someone who is deaf.
<Nick> Define computer. >_>
<varu|zZz> Computer = the thing you're using right now :P
<Nick> all the CPUs?
<varu|zZz> If you format it and rip out its BIOS, will it do anything?
<varu|zZz> No.
<Nick> Uuh yeah.. i get it.
<Nick> Continue.
<varu|zZz> Let's take someone who is deaf
<varu|zZz> Can you expect someone who is deaf from birth to be able to create music?
<Nick> Or, just imagine sound.
<Nick> Does he have the ability to imagine sound?
<varu|zZz> (Yes, I realize it is possible, but it's not something very realistic).
<varu|zZz> Would you be able to imagine something you have no way of experiencing?
<Nick> can we imagine, or merely combine things we've experienced or seen?
<varu|zZz> You would be limited by your existing experiences/senses
<Nick> hehe
<varu|zZz> It seems to me that imagination is just that: combining things we've experienced
<qwertydawom> yes..
<Nick> me too varu.
<qwertydawom> so, it raises up this question :
<qwertydawom> if we see a clock
<qwertydawom> and we hear the "tic tac," but we have no possibilities to open the clock and see what's making this sound
<qwertydawom> we can imagine the mechanism, right?
<varu|zZz> Depends
<qwertydawom> but, it's because we've already seen similar mechanisms, so yeah, falls under "experiences/senses."
<varu|zZz> If we have seen a mechanism based on gears before in our lives, we can use that experiences to infer what makes the clock.. tick
<varu|zZz> Correct
<qwertydawom> But, now, what about someone who's blind?
<qwertydawom> When he hears this sound, what happens to him?
<varu|zZz> They still have the ability to hear
<qwertydawom> Yes, so he associates the sound with the clock
<varu|zZz> One second :P
<qwertydawom> but, can't get what's making this sound?
<varu|zZz> One could introduce the blind man to the concept of gears
<qwertydawom> Ok, but, he still wouldn't have any mental image of it?
<varu|zZz> Coupled with the ability to feel, a blind man would get a decent idea of what gears are like
<qwertydawom> or can he still create mental images?
<varu|zZz> I don't believe he can
<qwertydawom> ok
<Nick> You can also tell him that elephants are making that sound.
<varu|zZz> Not knowing what a mental image is.
<varu|zZz> Nick: You'd really fuck the poor guy up :P
<varu|zZz> It's the same as teaching a toddler that the colour blue is named orange :P
<qwertydawom> lol yes
<Nick> Sure would, but if he had no idea of what elephants are..
<varu|zZz> Anyway, not knowing what a mental image is, he probably would not create a mental image of gears
<varu|zZz> Instead
<varu|zZz> Think of how we remember the texture of an object
<varu|zZz> and can reproduce it in our heads
<Nick> It would be funny if her hears a trumpeting noise next time and someone tells him that that's the sound of an elephant and he goes like: "Oh, those animals that are inside clocks?"
<Nick> but continue.
<varu|zZz> With the ability to see taken out, the attention span/processing time devoted by the brain to that section is split up equally to the other senses
<varu|zZz> thus enhancing the blind man's ability to comprehend an object and its functionality, and to retain this comprehension, by using the senses he posesses.
<varu|zZz> However, take a blind, deaf man.
<varu|zZz> You can introduce him to pleasant smells
<varu|zZz> Hot and cold
<varu|zZz> Pain
<varu|zZz> But you cannot teach him how to, say, make music :P
<Nick> humz..
<varu|zZz> Now, if he has no way of knowing music
<Nick> doesn't have to be true
<varu|zZz> And he has no way of composing it
<varu|zZz> Does that mean that music does not exist? :P
<varu|zZz> And this is my point
<Nick> For him not.
<varu|zZz> We have 5 senses
<Nick> His reality is altered.
<varu|zZz> Precisely
<Nick> His truth isn't ours.
<varu|zZz> But his reality is altered by his senses
<varu|zZz> Now
<varu|zZz> As he has 3, or 4 senses, we have 5.
<Nick> Hence truth and reality aren't universal things. They differ from being to being.
<varu|zZz> Does that mean that other senses do not exist?
<Nick> For him, not.
<Nick> *For him, they do not.
<varu|zZz> Does that mean there is nothing beyond what we can currently perceive?
<Nick> Nope.
<varu|zZz> Correct
<Nick> That's why we have those eeh.. future tellers and stuff.
<varu|zZz> ...
<varu|zZz> those are a completely different story, I'll talk about those another time :P
<Nick> They can sense the future right..? 
<Nick> Or ghosts?
<varu|zZz> (they have nothing to do with what we are discussing here, because the most majority of them are a total hoax)
<varu|zZz> See, that's the thing
<Nick> lol @ varu
<varu|zZz> Until all of humanity develops the 6th sense... 7th sense... nth sense...
<Nick> (no offence, just funny note " because the most majority of them are a total hoax" )
<varu|zZz> We will never be able to accept or deny any claims of said senses
<Nick> jup
<varu|zZz> Cause, think of the blind man
<varu|zZz> He cannot hear.
<varu|zZz> Doesn't mean sound doesn't exist.
<Nick> *chuckle*
<varu|zZz> He just can't perceive it.
<Nick> Bind and deaf, yes okay. ;)
<varu|zZz> Same thing with ghosts. Or souls. or God.
<varu|zZz> Just because we cannot perceive them, doesn't mean they do not exist.
<varu|zZz> That's all fine and dandy, you say, we don't care about those. We can't perceive them, they do not interest us.
<Nick> Hence no one can prove him wrong in his "There is no such thing as you describe 'sound'"
<varu|zZz> However, our interest would be to develop the capabilities to perceive other things
<varu|zZz> No.
<varu|zZz> Well, in this society, one can
<varu|zZz> When one member cannolt hear, and 50 others claim they do, majority wins :P
<Nick> plus
<Nick> physics
<varu|zZz> The deaf man will recognize that perhaps he is lacking something.
<Nick> You can prove the existance of moving air.
<varu|zZz> Of course
<Nick> For the blind fellow this is gonna be harder.
<varu|zZz> But can you prove it produces... sound?
<Nick> You can let him hear light.
<varu|zZz> hear.. light? :P
<Nick> You can explain to him that our other sense, 'touch' translates these vibrations to "sound".
<varu|zZz> Of course
<Nick> but still
<Nick> it's not true for him
<varu|zZz> Which would indicate to him that this "sound" thing might exist
<varu|zZz> But without a way for him to sense it, he can never truly believe it.
<varu|zZz> Take poltergeists.
<varu|zZz> They translate their existence to our sense of sound and vision, sometimes even touch
<varu|zZz> By rattling things.
<varu|zZz> However, we cannot directly perceive them. We cannot comprehend them.
<varu|zZz> Thus we can never believe they truly exist.
<varu|zZz> See, there's something.
<varu|zZz> Existence is relative to sensory experience.
<varu|zZz> (continued before this statement)
<varu|zZz> But just because we cannot directly perceive them
<varu|zZz> does not mean they do not exist.