Unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be many serious philisophical/scientific debates going on at the moment and I could really do with one...
Any suggestions?
(I'll consider arguing about anything...)
Printable View
Unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be many serious philisophical/scientific debates going on at the moment and I could really do with one...
Any suggestions?
(I'll consider arguing about anything...)
[Anxious Fast Voice]I gotta get my fix man, gotta get it[/Anxious Fast Voice]
Where's Kedaman when you need him? :(
He had better be reading Dune !
I think prettty much everything has been covered on these forums ;)
We pretty much solved the meaning of life with that "conversation" with Jesus4U a while back.
Fáilte go Bhaile Átha Cliath ;)Quote:
Originally posted by MethadoneBoy
I think prettty much everything has been covered on these forums ;)
We pretty much solved the meaning of life with that "conversation" with Jesus4U a while back.
Go raibh tù cois séirì air do bhogailri :)
An Hònerry ag a dò deag a chloig?
I'm pretty sure you've your tenses completely ****ed up there, but yeah beans at two sounds good :)
I know for a fact that the first sentence is grammatically correct and the second? Well, maybe one or two mistakes here and there. If you'd had the Irish teacher that we did for Leaving Cert, you'd understand...
I meant twelve o clock by the way ;)
Well, I guess I must have missed that one.Quote:
We pretty much solved the meaning of life with that "conversation" with Jesus4U a while back.
Surely there are some other, as yet, unresolved issues?
Be glad to hear them if anyone has any suggestions.
Here's the only one I can think of: why do so many adolescent males become obsessed with Nazi Germany?
(I know someone personally who, unfortunately, has this affliction)
Its the accomplishment of it all that I likeQuote:
Originally posted by MethadoneBoy
Be glad to hear them if anyone has any suggestions.
Here's the only one I can think of: why do so many adolescent males become obsessed with Nazi Germany?
(I know someone personally who, unfortunately, has this affliction)
The fact that they were able to do so much without anyone really challenging them
Yeah, my brother was obsessed with NAZI germany and he is Jewish!Quote:
Here's the only one I can think of: why do so many adolescent males become obsessed with Nazi Germany?
Somehow, I think that, had he lived at the time, he might have a different take on the subject.
I'm reading Dune, for sure Jamie! I just finished another chapter yesteday :p
Simon
Do you think individuals should be judged by classifications?
Kedaman
Ah, at last, you have thrown me some food for thought. :)
Now, as to your question, it seems to me that other related questions need answering as well. By what other means can people be judged, if not by classification? Should people be judged attall?
So, I think that I am of the opinion that people need to be judged, but only tentatively... ;)
And as for the means of judgement, I would say that classifications are useful abstract models we create/define to help us simplify life's complexity. If you devide your experience into a finite number of fixed categories, that becomes easier to deal with than an treating everyone/everything differently.
It's a "short cut" that we use. If we decide how we feel/react to a particular category of person, new people we encounter we merely have to assign to the "best fit" category and then we don't have to arrive at a new set of conclusions.
Simon
Tentatively? I assume that you mean that your judgement is "real" until its proven false.
ok, I question the usability of your models, if you have a model based on a single property of an individual, when can you use it for logical implication?
(disagrees with simonm)
People being judged is a long standing problem. It's the direct cause of racism, religious intolerance. If people did NOT judge others, there would be a WHOOLE lot of changes around... for one, "God created all man equal" would ACTUALLY hold true.
And I doubt if classification simplifies life's complexities. It MAKES it complex. WITHOUT judgement and classification (sp?) it'd be much easier... cz there would be NOTHING TO REMEMBER!!!!
(yes, yes, I am the enlightened one! bow before me)
mendhak
I put it to you that it is inapropriate judgement that has led to problems of racism. And it is absolute (as opposed to tentative) judgement that causes such problems as religous intolerance.Quote:
People being judged is a long standing problem. It's the direct cause of racism, religious intolerance.
Yes, you wouldn't have anything to remember but for every new situation you encountered, you would have to completely work out, from scratch, how to deal with it again. It's a lot easier to just say: "Oh yeah, you're in that category so this is my response..."Quote:
And I doubt if classification simplifies life's complexities. It MAKES it complex. WITHOUT judgement and classification (sp?) it'd be much easier... cz there would be NOTHING TO REMEMBER!!!!
kedaman
Well, yes, but not quite. A tentative judgement is never considered true or justified. It is merely used as the most "effective" category currently available.Quote:
Tentatively? I assume that you mean that your judgement is "real" until its proven false.
Well, no doubt there are draw backs and limitations to the method of categorisation. Over simplification (by ignoring other relevent attributes) and mis-application of categories (that inspire judgements based on irrelevent attributes) have to be guarded against but it still has it's uses.Quote:
ok, I question the usability of your models, if you have a model based on a single property of an individual, when can you use it for logical implication?
Simon
Why would you need categorisation? When does a categorisation become inapropriate?
that's right... pick the post apart!! :P heheheh..
first, simonm... I'd really like to know an example of an appropriate judgment.
apparently, (me thinx) inappropriate judgment seems to get the better of us humanz. nobody can get away from it... ..er... ahem.
***?Quote:
Yes, you wouldn't have anything to remember but for every new situation you encountered, you would have to completely work out, from scratch, how to deal with it again. It's a lot easier to just say: "Oh yeah, you're in that category so this is my response..."
Do you go up to people and say "Ok, you're in my fat-and-ugly-and smelly category, so here is my response: sod off you big tub o'lard!!"
Kedaman
Well, I thought I'd already answered this question but I shall try a specific example.Quote:
Why would you need categorisation?
Consider the category: "banana".
I have certain pre-set behvaiour patters and facts that I associate with bananas.
1) They are yellow, long curved things.
2) The insides are edible.
3) To get at the inside, I can peel the skin off.
4) They contain various nutrients that are absorbed when eaten.
Now, I carry these preconceptions around with me and when ever I categorise something as a banana, I know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that I can apply these rules.
I don't have to rediscover these rules everytime I discover a banana. By classifying it, I get an array of useful information that I can apply.
Well, classification becomes inappropriate if my baggage of preconceptions associated with a particular classification are invalid.Quote:
When does a categorisation become inapropriate?
For example, if I met an American person who happened to be stupid, it would be inappropriate for me to form the generalisation that all American's are stupid. The attribute that defines someone as American should not convey the preconception of stupidity.
Knowing when particular categorisations are useful and preconceptions are correct is the trick. Get that right and you have a very useful tool indeed.
mendhak
Let me ask you, if you walked into a room and discovered a PC sitting there, you'd know how to turn it on I presume? If it was installed with Windows, you would probably know how to operate it as well.Quote:
first, simonm... I'd really like to know an example of an appropriate judgment.
How would you know that? You've never seen that particular computer before but because you have a whole load of preconceptions about PC's, anything that you put in the "PC" category, becomes useable.
No, I believe that would be an inappropriate use of categorisation.Quote:
***?
Do you go up to people and say "Ok, you're in my fat-and-ugly-and smelly category, so here is my response: sod off you big tub o'lard!!"
However, I don't believe for one moment that you don't categorise anything in your life.
i like bananas :)
can u give an example relating to humans.Quote:
Let me ask you, if you walked into a room and discovered a PC sitting there, you'd know how to turn it on I presume? If it was installed with Windows, you would probably know how to operate it as well.
How would you know that? You've never seen that particular computer before but because you have a whole load of preconceptions about PC's, anything that you put in the "PC" category, becomes useable.
when it comes to computers, NEVER assume! they can turn on u and eat u alive :P
I do categorize. But I know for a fact, I do it much less than others. (Let's leave that out shall we?)Quote:
No, I believe that would be an inappropriate use of categorisation.
However, I don't believe for one moment that you don't categorise anything in your life.
I love picking posts apart.
Well, categorisation of people is harder to justify than the categorisation of objects.
However, I am not actually advocating categorisation here. I'm just saying why people use it.
OK, if someone is fat, ugly, smelly and you have a category for this then that person fits into the category. However, surely you cannot deny that there are then innapropriate judgemenst that could be made? Can you judge that this person must be stupid? Can you judge that their name must be David? No.
In all likelyhood, the only judgements you can make about that person in question are the very attributes that define the category in the first place: They're fat, ugly and smelly. It's not a very useful categorisation to make unless you wish to make innapropriate judgements based on it.
The category of "policeman" however, could be a useful category. A policeman is someone to be avoided if you are a criminal and someone to go to for help if you have had a crime perpetrated against you. That is why they wear uniforms. The uniform re-inforces the notion of the "policeman" category and they expect to be treated as such.
If you want to start expressing this in mathematical terms, think about sets. Do not all elements of a set inherit the atibutes of the set?Quote:
your example of ($ person(x)| stupid(x),american(x))=>(" person(x)| stupid(x),american(x)) is not a categorisation, its a logical implication, and has no solution.
For example, the number "48" is a member of the set of all even integers. Consequantly, because it is an even integer, we know, a priori, that the number 48 can be devided by 2 with no remainder.
Of course not, I was asking why it was a inapproperiate category not usefull category. You sound much like an instrumentalist that way ;)Quote:
OK, if someone is fat, ugly, smelly and you have a category for this then that person fits into the category. However, surely you cannot deny that there are then innapropriate judgemenst that could be made? Can you judge that this person must be stupid? Can you judge that their name must be David? No.
I can make usefull judgements as well, if I don't want to be near any smelly persons, and the person that is near me belongs to the category, I'd better go away.Quote:
It's not a very useful categorisation to make unless you wish to make innapropriate judgements based on it.
Yes, but there are strict definitions for those, propositional.Quote:
Do not all elements of a set inherit the atibutes of the set?
Kedaman
yeah, but there's no benefit in assigning him to that category. Where's the simplification? You've got to work out whether he's fat, ugly and smelly before you can assign him to the category and unless your category contains preconceptual baggage, what's the point of assigning him to the category?Quote:
I can make usefull judgements as well, if I don't want to be near any smelly persons, and the person that is near me belongs to the category, I'd better go away.
Simon
Does a categorisation need a point?
Does anything need a point to exist?
Or maybe, is there just usefulness that counts?
Categorisations are just user defineable models and they have no reason to exist unless they are useful.
Any tool must justify it's own existance by it's usefulness.
And if you think that indicates my instrumentalist leanings, think again. I am not claiming that there is no underlying reality, only that categorisation is a perceptual tool for simplifying reality.
Does the act of simplification change the reality? Does it cloud or reveal reality?
Kedaman
I wouldn't say it changes reality although it obviously changes one's perception of it.Quote:
Does the act of simplification change the reality?
Perhaps a bit of both. By distorting one's perception of reality...or shaping it into pre-defined categories, it enables you to interact with it more easilly.Quote:
Does it cloud or reveal reality?
Simon
How can you argue that a simpfication is useful if it doesn't match the previous perceptions anymore?
To me it seems rather that you change, rather than simplify.
Kedaman
Well there wasn't any perception before simplification, or at least it is fuzzy and undefined.Quote:
How can you argue that a simpfication is useful if it doesn't match the previous perceptions anymore?
To me it seems rather that you change, rather than simplify.
If you call one's perception of sensual information, "reality", then indeed, it is being changed. However, if you define reality as something that exists independantly of our perception, then it is not.
If a person is fat and smelly, you can make assumptions such as-
They smell because they are unable to wash themselves properly
and
they are unhealthy and cannot run as fast as me.
However, these are just assumptions and make prove not to be true at some point in the future.
whats the use of such a definition?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Well there wasn't any perception before simplification, or at least it is fuzzy and undefined.
If you call one's perception of sensual information, "reality", then indeed, it is being changed. However, if you define reality as something that exists independantly of our perception, then it is not.Quote:
Well obviously you need quite a good perception before you can do a simplification at all, you need to find a pattern and observe that there are no exceptions etc..
AbsolutleyQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Categorisations are just user defineable models and they have no reason to exist unless they are useful.
Any tool must justify it's own existance by it's usefulness.
And if you think that indicates my instrumentalist leanings, think again. I am not claiming that there is no underlying reality, only that categorisation is a perceptual tool for simplifying reality.
Categorisations are a tool required in the field of Sociology Which is one of the key areas required for Criminal profiling.
Quote:
Psychology: the study of individual behavior.
Sociology: the study of group behavior, groups being comprised of individuals.
Criminalistics: a general term for the scientific study of recognition, collection and preservation of physical evidence as it is related to the law. Some criminalists are specialists, some are generalists.
Forensic Pathology: A branch of medicine that applies the principles and knowledge of the medical sciences to problems in the field of law-from DiMaio.
Kedaman
I believe that categorisations shape our perception. If all incomming information is (usually) interpreted into an existing category, we see the external world in terms of those categories.Quote:
whats the use of such a definition?
Now, some people have very broard categorisations and some have more finely granulated categorisations but either way, they are what enable us to percieve and understand the world.
I was refering to thatQuote:
If you call one's perception of sensual information, "reality", then indeed, it is being changed. However, if you define reality as something that exists independantly of our perception, then it is not.
Well, I hope you're not taking that to mean something that exists outside of our perception. We can perceive it but it's existance is not dependant on our perception.Quote:
...something that exists independantly of our perception.
This doesn't make sense to me, when something is independent of your perception, it doesn't imply an existance, it implies a belief in it. If you have perception of it, it also makes it usefull to define it.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
We can perceive it but it's existance is not dependant on our perception.
hmmm ...
I know for one that there is a printer in the next room (how ? Because every time I walk into that room it is there at the same place), I cannot see it right now (perceive it if you will) because the door is shut but it does exist.
Don't beat me over the head with "reality is a dream and dependent on perception" theories, please :(
/backing out of thread hurridly ...
Kedaman
OK, I know what you're saying here. I attribute the sensory data I recieve to imply the existance of things independant of my perception and yes, that is only a belief, but it is a useful belief. Indeed, it is more useful than the belief that all our sensory data comes from some deep within our unconsious selves.Quote:
This doesn't make sense to me, when something is independent of your perception, it doesn't imply an existance, it implies a belief in it.
Why is it more useful to believe in an external reality? Because we have no choice but to behave in such a way that assumes there is an external reality.
In addition, there is more reason to suppose that sensory data comming from an external world is self-consistant and reliable (than there is with data comming from our subconsious selves). If it wasn't, it would be difficult to understand how we could exist in an inconsistant and unstable physical reality.
With this assumption in mind, we can conjecture patterns and models that should represent the external world, resting assured that a consistant external world will supply consistant sensory data which will enable us to build more and more accurate models.
Simon
How so? It doesn't change anything, it just makes you accept a broader range of tools, such as QM.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
OK, I know what you're saying here. I attribute the sensory data I recieve to imply the existance of things independant of my perception and yes, that is only a belief, but it is a useful belief. Indeed, it is more useful than the belief that all our sensory data comes from some deep within our unconsious selves.
which is a limitation, how can a limitation be useful?Quote:
Why is it more useful to believe in an external reality? Because we have no choice but to behave in such a way that assumes there is an external reality.
I don't understand your reasoning here, can you give me a concrete example or elaborate more?Quote:
In addition, there is more reason to suppose that sensory data comming from an external world is self-consistant and reliable (than there is with data comming from our subconsious selves). If it wasn't, it would be difficult to understand how we could exist in an inconsistant and unstable physical reality.
And how does that not in the interest of an instrumentalist?Quote:
With this assumption in mind, we can conjecture patterns and models that should represent the external world, resting assured that a consistant external world will supply consistant sensory data which will enable us to build more and more accurate models.
a quick example :
2 persons on 2 rotating platforms, one clockwise, the other counterclockwise.
Suppose you're one of them.
Does the other person fade out of existence as soon as you cannot perceive him ?
Does the other one's presence matter or is it irrelevant in your frame of mind ?
Does he contribute to your idea and perception of reality constantly or is he only a part of it when you see him ?
Is he proof of an external reality which does not necessarily have to be perceived to be existing or is it all part of your frame of reference of the world ?
Kedaman
The limitation, in itself, is not useful but recognising and being aware of the limitation is useful. We can work around it and make the best of it. Denying it's existance is certainly not useful.Quote:
which is a limitation, how can a limitation be useful?
Well, if you assume there is an external world independant of our perception, then it implies that we are somehow products of the external world (and are somehow being sustained within it). Since this is the case, it is more reasonable to assume that there is some degree of consistancy and stability in the external world as, if this were not the case, it would be harder to explain why our existance came about in the first place (and seems to persist).Quote:
I don't understand your reasoning here, can you give me a concrete example or elaborate more?
Now, given these assumptions, it is now possible to make assertions about the nature of reality itself which we can then test by analysing our sensory data.
Without assuming the existance of an external reality, there is no other place that our sensory data could be comming from other than from deep within our subconsious selves. Is there any reason to believe that this might be consistant? I don't see why. What business do we have makeing assertions about the nature of our subconsious selves when we have no reason to presume it's self-consistancy?
Does the other person fade out of existence as soon as you cannot perceive him ?
Existance is a meaningless concept really, you become unaware of it as soon as you cannot percieve him, which means that he fades into your unconscious, if you in your mind think that he is there, then he is being partly in your conscious.
Does the other one's presence matter or is it irrelevant in your frame of mind ?
Depends what you mean with presence.
Does he contribute to your idea and perception of reality constantly or is he only a part of it when you see him ?
As said, he does contribute to my perception, but that perception is that simple.
Is he proof of an external reality which does not necessarily have to be perceived to be existing
Only with the approperiate presumptions.
is it all part of your frame of reference of the world ?
Same as above
This all goes back to the explanation I gave to err whositthen ... forgot ... about the existence of time and why movement can exist outside our notion of time.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Existance is a meaningless concept really, you become unaware of it as soon as you cannot percieve him, which means that he fades into your unconscious, if you in your mind think that he is there, then he is being partly in your conscious.
But does he still exist ? Is it because you don't see him he ceases to exist ? I know, in the mind, he exists as long as you care to think about him but does it terminate his existance ?
Depends what you mean with presence.
Presence as being there, standing there, living, breathing, existing.
As said, he does contribute to my perception, but that perception is that simple.
I meant : is he part of reality only because you choose to think so or does he exist too, without you thinking that.
Only with the approperiate presumptions.
So without any presumptions at all, he ceases to exist ?
*sigh* dig it out yourself.
Simon
Aha! An Instrumentalist doesn't deny existance of such, he merely argues the usefullness of existance as part of the presumptions of application, he is not bound to believe that it permanent.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The limitation, in itself, is not useful but recognising and being aware of the limitation is useful. We can work around it and make the best of it. Denying it's existance is certainly not useful.
I haven't seen any papers on how consciousness arises from matter. In fact it does makes much more sense to say that matter is the product of consciousness, as we can see it in form of information. We can directly define and percept information, but we can't define or percept matter.Quote:
Well, if you assume there is an external world independant of our perception, then it implies that we are somehow products of the external world (and are somehow being sustained within it). Since this is the case, it is more reasonable to assume that there is some degree of consistancy and stability in the external world as, if this were not the case, it would be harder to explain why our existance came about in the first place (and seems to persist).
Which can be done traditionally by instrumentalists as well, on the presumption of such a nature.Quote:
Now, given these assumptions, it is now possible to make assertions about the nature of reality itself which we can then test by analysing our sensory data.
If we would argue that existance of reality, then it would still be application of our subconscious.Quote:
Without assuming the existance of an external reality, there is no other place that our sensory data could be comming from other than from deep within our subconsious selves.
Information is permanent, it doesn't mutate while in your subconscious.Quote:
Is there any reason to believe that this might be consistant? I don't see why. What business do we have makeing assertions about the nature of our subconsious selves when we have no reason to presume it's self-consistancy?
Wally
But does he still exist ? Is it because you don't see him he ceases to exist ? I know, in the mind, he exists as long as you care to think about him but does it terminate his existance ?
you decide, you define reality, if you won't, it will automate and become part of your unconscious and then you're stuck with it.
Presence as being there, standing there, living, breathing, existing.
If I needed him for application.
I meant : is he part of reality only because you choose to think so or does he exist too, without you thinking that.
same as above
So without any presumptions at all, he ceases to exist ?
Basically yes, existance will only be instaneous notation for application.
You must have an interesting social life then ;)
"When I turn my back and stop thinking about you, you cease to exist"
I can see its usefulness, true enough :)
Kedaman
No, Instrumentalists do not make assertions about the nature of an unerlying reality. They see such endevours to be a waste of time and non-scientific.Quote:
Which can be done traditionally by instrumentalists as well, on the presumption of such a nature.
An instrumentalist analysis sensory data and they beleive that they can derive generalisations from these observations by which they can use to predict future observations (useful models). They do not see any value in the additional assertion that these models are representations of an underlying reality.
However, it is presisely my point that they delude themselves that sensory data can be used to formulate theories. Theories have to be creatively and imaginatively postulated, and only then are they subject to testing and comparisons to sensory data we have received.
Thus, if we are not postulating theorems on the sensory data we have received, where do they come from? They come from our belief in an external reality. We imagine what that external reality might be like and then we test those conjectures with our sensory data to see if they can be corroborated.
Simon
I disagree, Instrumentalist makes such assertions all the time.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
No, Instrumentalists do not make assertions about the nature of an unerlying reality. They see such endevours to be a waste of time and non-scientific.
They do when it is approperiateQuote:
An instrumentalist analysis sensory data and they beleive that they can derive generalisations from these observations by which they can use to predict future observations (useful models). They do not see any value in the additional assertion that these models are representations of an underlying reality.
there is nothing that doesn't classify as information. Your point is falsified ;)Quote:
However, it is presisely my point that they delude themselves that sensory data can be used to formulate theories. Theories have to be creatively and imaginatively postulated, and only then are they subject to testing and comparisons to sensory data we have received.
nope, you just missed the point again ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
You must have an interesting social life then ;)
"When I turn my back and stop thinking about you, you cease to exist"
I can see its usefulness, true enough :)
missed the point .... hmmm ....
lessee ... someone who treats all perceptions and theorems as possible sources of information whenever it suits him or his views ...
You could say that right now I'm in your consciousness but as soon as you dedicate your mind to something else, I become useless and non-existent.
I for one know for certain that I existed all that time, independent on your opinion of the matter and you've existed too, independent to my opinion of the matter.
Simply put, what simon and I try to say (I think) is more or less this :
If there was a way that we could have a report that was objective to any kind of personal interpretation, it would say "this object occupied that region of space and reality at that time".
And it would be totally detached from our opinions of the matter.
A ball is a ball whether you choose to think of it as existing or not.
The fact that you decide that you deem it existing when the thought enters your consciousness and fades from existence when that notion sinks in the subconsciousness has no bearing on the intrinsic existence of that object.
You're just looking at the problem posed from another angle, the personal one.
Which is a falsified newtonian reality :pQuote:
"this object occupied that region of space and reality at that time".
Only because people failed to detach it from the personal notion.
Read everything keddie :p
Nope, its a scientific "fact" :rolleyes: The approximation of quantum mechanics is much preferable for application
Kedaman
It seems that we might further our discussion by clarifying exactly what we mean by instrumentalists and realists. I took this from the following site: Instrumentalism vs. Realism
Also, the famous scientist 'Paul Feyerabend' had this to say about realism:Quote:
Generally speaking, the realist position is the belief that everything that exists has a 'self', an intrinsic nature, which scientific method, over the decades and centuries, is capable of cataloging in a way that is both correct and exact. The Universe exists in a way that is just exactly so, and by carefully sifting evidence which we get from asking the right questions humans can discover that absolute nature. Instrumentalism (i.e. the theoretical extreme) holds that scientific theories and models of the universe are valid only in the sense that they are useful in predicting events and explaining data consistently, while at the same time making no claim that anything they describe actually exists.
Quote:
Realism is desirable because it demands the proliferation of new and incompatible theories. This leads to scientific progress because it results in each theory having more empirical content that it otherwise would, since a theory’s testability is proportional to the number of potential falsifiers it has, and the production of alternative theories is the only reliable way to ensure the existence of potential falsifiers. So scientific progress comes through ‘theoretical pluralism’, allowing a plurality of incompatible theories, each of which will contribute by competition to maintaining and enhancing the testability, and thus the empirical content, of the others.
Simon
Does this mean, they deny reality?Quote:
holds that scientific theories and models of the universe are valid only in the sense that they are useful in predicting events and explaining data consistently, while at the same time making no claim that anything they describe actually exists.
If so then I have misjudged the definition of instrumentalist, otherways I disagree and say that reality is information as well.