Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 8

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:07 pm

I don't defend induction. I try to nullify the notion, "Hume's Custom or Habit". Perhaps I can replace it with "necessity". So you claim that the laws of nature that the science community has worked out are conforming to "Hume's Custom or Habit"? I've been thinking that "Hume's Custom or Habit" is concerning our ordinary sense of events that follow in order.
If one is to be consistent on your view, there are no laws of nature! I find it hard to believe that the external world, nature, as a whole has no rules, laws, necessary connections, beside that we make up in our minds, namely "Hume's Custom or Habit". Is it the case that there is order in nature only because we are disposed to see this order? I find that incredibly implausible.
I mean one thing is the human nature, but I find that you are attacking every pattern of nature, whatever it is, and reduce it to "Hume's Custom or Habit" and human dispositions.
Bottom line: I think you aren't serious about natural laws. The question of causal relations may be up for grabs in metaphysics, but it's not questioned in philosophy of science. There are laws of nature. Finito. These are necessary in order for nature to work and they are beyond the lives of people on planet Earth.
By comparison, in epistemology it's generally accepted that knowledge can obtain. You should easily see the analogy to philosophy of science.
I interpret "Hume's Custom or Habit" to apply to people's possibility to grasp nature and accordingly imposing his skeptical argument regarding future events. I don't think Hume is attacking a possible notion of necessary connections in nature. Further then, this allows me to nevertheless posit "laws of nature", but you will have to interpret them as "necessary connections in nature". In grasping nature, we have come a long way and Hume is of course wrong if he has been thinking we'd be unable to get there. However, I have a few doubts as to the exactness of our findings and whether we'll achieve utter objectivity. In the meantime we'll be working hard.
Edit: Some small change:
"2. The sum of natural laws (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)"
of post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:26 am, I alter to
"2. The sum of "natural laws" alternatively known as the "necessary connections of nature" or "necessary structures of nature" (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)"

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:21 pm

Rortabend writes: "You can't just get rid of induction!"
I can criticise it. If it proves unreasonable after sustained attacks, I suggest the alternative view can be called "view of necessity" or whatever people find reasonable to put in its place.
Rortabend writes: "You don't know what my views are on laws. I was presenting the Humean argument against induction. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say that causal relations are not questionned in philosophy of science. There are countless articles and books that debate the nature of causal relations. You can't just end this debate using ex cathedra pronouncements like 'Finito'!"
I don't know your views on laws. I'm merely onto what you state. There is no intention to offend you. Also, it should read "the question of causal relations may be up for grabs in metaphysics, but laws of nature are not questioned in philosophy of science."
Rortabend writes: "That is precisely what he is doing. Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
I read Hume to assert a criticism of the abilities of consciousness to gain cognition of nature and nature's workings. As such, it's an internal view, bringing forward the fact that we are not intimate with nature to the degree that we can know what nature "is doing". So his view concentrates on the limitation of consciousness and doesn't say very much definitive about "laws of nature".
In Philosophyforums, I've made this quote:
Quote: "This principle is Custom or Habit. For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom. By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. We only point out a principle of human nature, which is universally acknowledged, and which is well known by its effects. Perhaps we can push our enquiries no farther, or pretend to give the cause of this cause; but must rest contented with it as the ultimate principle, which we can assign, of all our conclusions from experience. It is sufficient satisfaction, that we can go so far, without repining at the narrowness of our faculties because they will carry us no farther. And it is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after the constant conjunction of two objects--heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity-- we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other. This hypothesis seems even the only one which explains the difficulty, why we draw, from a thousand instances, an inference which we are not able to draw from one instance, that is, in no respect, different from them. Reason is incapable of any such variation. The conclusions which it draws from considering one circle are the same which it would form upon surveying all the circles in the universe. But no man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after a like impulse. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning."

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:52 pm

There is absolutely no need to be confused. It is I who say we should get rid of induction, both because it's weak and because it's skeptical, a very problem.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:29 pm

I write: "I don't think Hume is attacking a possible notion of necessary connections in nature."
Then Rortabend answers: "That is precisely what he is doing. Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
I believe I'm quite thorough on Hume in what this thread is about. I'm asking you if you can give a quote of Hume where he states that there are no necessary connections in nature since you say that Hume does just that.
If Hume's Custom or Habit isn't skeptical, then what is? It's like we tumble about in this world and throw out assertions wildly. No, I believe we are more rational than that and as I've pointed out with the factors 1. through 4., there's room for improvement.
Rortabend writes: "Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
My leap into this problem has been initiated by George Couvalis, The Philosophy of Science - Science and Objectivity in the spring of 2000. From there, I've been reading various excerpts. I've been thinking you like to know. If you want to prove that I'm off the track regarding my knowledge of Hume, you should come up with some references, preferably to the original texts, but I like very much that you come up with quotes.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:19 pm

Quote: "When I see, for instance, a Billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse; may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable. Why then should we give the preference to one, which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference."
The reason for my interest in his knowledge of physics lies in this quote. I'm a little interested in snooker and there is no doubt that these people in the sport know what they're doing in playing those balls. There should be a very real possibility for constructing a machine that with a cue strikes a ball A with a given power into ball B and that the final position of ball B is known down to very minuteness even before the machine delivers the strike, ie. that the machine will be capable of doing this according to laws of nature. You let the machine strike the ball A once and then you reposition the balls. The following strikes are known, ie. final position of ball B! Thereby I find "...that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause?" strange indeed. It doesn't take much physics to understand that the assertion of Hume here is false.
What I note in your quote (of Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:47 am) is that Hume speaks of the idea "of power or necessary connection." It's also remarkable that the title of the two works relevant to Philosophy of Science relates to human nature by "A Treatise of Human Nature" and "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding". It leads me to believe that, as I've written earlier, "I read Hume [such that Hume is] to assert a criticism of the abilities of consciousness to gain cognition of nature and nature's workings. As such, it's an internal view, bringing forward the fact that we are not intimate with nature to the degree that we can know what nature "is doing". So his view concentrates on the limitation of consciousness and doesn't say very much definitive about "laws of nature"." This means in short that we come up empty in regards to objective idea or knowledge of the necessary conncetions of nature. I speculate that if Hume has wanted to make a global skeptical argument in Epistemology he would have written a book about it and it's likewise in Philosophy of Science. He has had the option to be elaborate on nature in the external, "laws of nature" sense, but he fails to publish anything extensive. To interpret Hume in the sense that he's addressing relations outside the human nature scope of his works is to take it too far. He's simply to swift to bring about a plausible argument beyond this scope that is already mentioned.
However, if we look at it then what about chemical reactions such as making a bonfire from wood and the numerous other instances. When we are hungry, we need food to drive our biochemical engine or else we die. Let's take the example of the bicycle. You have this chain from the gearwheel with the pedals going back to the gearwheel with the bicycle-wheel. Certainly, we don't find a "chained" connection in nature like that. The necessary connections we are discussing are of the kind that it takes clouds in the sky for rain to happen. It takes combustible objects to make fire. It takes sturdy or hard materials to make constructions. I think I can continue endlessly.
I sense this isn't nailed to the wall yet. I'm not satisfied until "Hume's Custom or Habit" lies 6ft under.
We experience "all", the sum of laws of nature, in the "instant". This situation confounds us because it's so complex. Ideally, we like to "isolate" each feature, law, of nature by themselves and thus, we can be certain of this law having effect under given conditions. There's nothing unreasonable about this, although it may be incredibly difficult to make this ideal happen.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:01 pm

Wootah writes: "Can you see how logically anything is possible when two balls interact in billiards?" Are you implying there can be a nuclear explosion in this instance? In my machine example, are you in doubt that the machine delivers ball B by a strike on it to the exact location every time? If you have been reading me, logics and mathematics are a part of the solution of our unbreakable belief of the machine's deliverance of ball B. Let me repeat: Quote: "Factors 1. Consistency and coherency (deduced from Descartes' Meditations) 2. The sum of natural laws (the usual consideration of our beings in nature) 3. Logics and mathematics are necessary aspects of nature and our minds (I hold the view that logics and mathematics are for real in a variety of senses) 4. The factors of 1. through 3. bridge our experience from one instant to the next and so on. Forever? 5. Point beside: 1. through 4. refute, in my opinion, "Hume's Custom or Habit", the problem of induction. ... This schema can be used in every instance of the universe."
Where's the deficiency of my understanding of Hume, "Hume's Custom or Habit"?

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:00 pm

Rortabend writes: "False of what we have observed so far. How do you know it won't turn into a chicken next time? How do you know that emeralds are green and not grue? You can't solve the problem of induction with physics. It is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one."
What is false? The notion of this machine and ball B? Why can't you address what I actually write? I agree that this problem isn't solved by physics, but I see it as philosophy to make it clear what foundations, assumptions, that we build on when we are in the world, both subjectively and objectively. It may be that I thereby can be able to put physics in a new light and also the consequences of its descriptions. I suggest that you reread the thread and make the appropriate quotes.
Goodman's Paradox is a wholly different argument and I really think it's possible to deal with Problem of Induction and Goodman's Paradox separately. Still, I'm trying to attack Goodman's Paradox also in the Epistemology section.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:44 pm

That, "you can't settle the problem of induction through experiments or an appeal to laws of nature", is not true! We understand "laws of nature" differently. I believe you take it to be the result of the sciences, but I use it as ""2. The sum of "natural laws" alternatively known as the "necessary connections of nature" or "necessary structures of nature" (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)" from post: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:07 pm as part of a response to yours.
Please note that I use "the sum" of natural laws. I simply don't need to point at a specific "law of nature", "feature of nature" other than "lawfulness" in nature that enables patterns of all sorts including the emergence of life and consciousness! I find it cool!

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:21 pm

Apart from the striking initial feature that I exist, I do think and when I analyse a chain of thoughts in this first, single span of time I find I can make consistent and coherent thoughts and my mind can be no different. I don't need to wonder if I still can think the next day! Primarily, then it's contradictive to your own life and mind and experience of this single span of time, instance, principally. To understand this, is to understand some of nature! No induction is needed!
Is it necessary for me to repeat this argument every day in order to believe in it? No! Once I've made my argument, I can rely on it for the rest of the future as being a part of my mental, intellectual history. It's the same with the external world. When I go to bed tonight, I can definitely rely on waking up tomorrow! Is this supposed to go away? No, not without a good reason for being so. This is the consequence of being serious about a single span of time, instance. Again, there's no induction here!

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:26 pm

When I go to bed tonight, I can definitely rely on wakening up tomorrow without induction! It's the "lawfulness" of nature that is this way! This is the last time! I point to necessity of nature, assumptions. Hume points to custom or habit. We are totally in disagreement! Besides, the word "definitely" excludes induction by default, but I guess this escapes you.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:16 pm

I think I've already pointed out that we interpret "lawfulness", "laws of nature", differently, very differently. I take it to be the necessary structures of nature, the necessary connections of nature. I guess you take it to be some kind of applied science, like physics. It seems we're stuck here, in discussing.

Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:39 pm

There are no ex cathedra proclamations (except the instance of "Finito") in any of what I write! I've never been thinking that when in "a single span of time, instance" I make certain considerations of nature that I would have to defend the "necessary connections in nature" (I therefore used "Finito" because I've been thinking I've been justified in literature and blatantly so. This may be mistaken in my approach, I'm sorry!). One note: If I consider this "single span of time, instance" to each "kind" of separate "happening" in nature, I claim that I still escape the induction. Alright, (when being in "a single span of time, instance") 1. I exist in the world, I see colours, substance and an incredible number of impressions, 2. I have this body I can feel and I can use it to feel the external world, 3. My body doesn't explode, but is perfectly whole through this time-frame, 4. What I see in this scenery (which may be all sorts) are patterns that I can relate to just as my body, there are no objects emerging in thin air, no sudden levitation, there's calmness and persistent objects, 5. Am I surprised in this environment? Basically not! The balls roll on the pool table when they are being moved, I sense, feel other people when I'm being touched and I feel objects against my body when I touch them, lean on them, lie on them and so on, I also sense gravity as I raise myself from the floor or bench, I sense gravity when I drop a Billiard-ball to the floor or on the pool table. Depending on your "first" "single span of time, instance" as a cognising mind and according to circumstances, there are therefore numerous instances you can draw from it. Your body is whole! It doesn't levitate. It doesn't rupture as such! The arm doesn't loosen from it and floats off in the air. You can breathe! You feel hungry! You discover you can eat! You can feel your stomach being filled! Unnecessary to say, perhaps, I think Merleau-Ponty's "Primacy of Perception" is the kind of angle I'm thinking about. The conclusion is that there are many inferences to make in "a single span of time, instance" when considering "necessary connections in nature". Although perceptions and cognitions may be very naive in the beginning, they uncover incredibly much from those instances not normally thought about because nature appears natural. Consistency and coherency are very important features of our minds, but how often do we consider it, even when we think of what we've thought? Surely unusual considerations, but they break down induction! (Finito!)
So excellent we could clear this up!

Post subject: An option in the shop of PN PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:35 pm

I, for one, have no wish for the free ride on this forum and if business isn't doing that well, you may perhaps add the possibility for paying (in a donating fashion, voluntarily) for PN forum, or alternatively, make it possible for people to buy an online subscription to PN itself to provide for the alibi/"alibi" of also being a regular on the forum. It should only take a button on the shop page.
And for all that, I certainly hope business is well, but I hope opportunity arises still the same.

Post subject: Re: Psychiatric Views and Findings PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:15 am

Addition of some information and points that may help some troubled people. This is posted here just because of the psychiatry issue.
By me, Terje [L. F. Olsnes-]Lea writes:
Motivations: Sense of power, sense of leadership, sense of being above law (ie: demi-god), taking on characteristics from the victim (hereafter called the "object"), letting the good intentions (usually from relief of force) influence the abusers or the abusers future plans.
Strategies: Control of environment, create a safe environment for control, create social bindings or 'contracts' to grow companionship and sense of partnership.
Tactics: Tight control of the victim's sensations in every form, tight security, control on sensations of relief, good sensations and punishment (torture, degradation, other...). Note: Every well calculated torture session needs an actuator (just use a dictionary, because this is technical) and the object gets to hear these things like 'Hold on', 'Wait a little' or 'Keep it up'. The requirement for the actuator is that the person remains the only person somewhat emotionally connected to the object therefore most often placed in somewhat distance to the scene, like in the back of the room, 'supporting' the object in order to fulfill the sessions' objectives whether it is about physical or psychic limits or something else. The art of torture is about keeping the object alive.. as well as inflicting pain or other, so some care will be given perhaps.
String of feelings: Ruthlessness, cynicism, pleasure, guarantee of reward (ie: sense of winning), sense of scaring themselves by inflicting their own horrors to the object, pleasure from witnessing weird experiences and sharing them.
- Degradation usually makes the access to the object easier on later occations simply because the object's behaviour becomes more erratic due to paradox of self-realization, self-constructiveness and the object hereafter usually neglects important security measures. Degrading actions to the object that's ...
- Emotional triggers are usually created by inflicting harsh pains that goes to the brink of forcing the object into subconsciousness. The attitude the abuser use at a later stage in relation to the object is the same as if the abuser would repeat the inflicting action. This leads to the real intent of infliction from the abuser's side to the object. The object usually goes stunned or show resignment by the sensation of the attitude of the abuser. (This shouldn't be mixed with sudden shift from a very enduring distressful situation to the very relief from distress which could emulate something similar).
- Alienation makes the object feel emotionally remote to oneself and detached in social relations. The conditioning makes the object recluse and alone which in turn singles it out and makes actions to it easier in future. The application of a density of harsh experiences into the object's subconsciousness makes this one nicely packed and strapped.
- In-seam-operation makes it a point to move in line with object's activities. It makes the object draw the easiest conclusions of its prior whereabouts. Although it has a somewhat tumbling mind, the object is likely to come up with a conclusion like if it has been asleep for a short while or suffered a mild concussion during play. Obviously a gap of opportunities opens up in between.
- Duplication or emulation is set into action with the overall target to make the object attach its memory to well known things or places while it is illusionary. If the object finally remembered some fragments, the technique could simulate nightmares or 'Freudian' ideas of the object's apparant discomfort and strong sensations of pains that it probably almost immediately will try to formulate to a person of whom the object trust or find trustworthy.
- Telepathy exists. It is just a matter of hypersensitivity and a focused affection and attention and the will to carry the ability. Telepathy is being used to lure objects to them, especially unaware children and other uncritical beings. So, if you hear a voice in your head telling you to go somewhere, you should NOT. Really! They may also use telepathy to make you feel tired or aroused or make you feel you make the right choice over some issue.
Warning! These 'people' form networks and exchange information from the rape/torture scenes and data concerning the condition of the objects during and after the session and this may be handed over to other 'persons'. Alternatively, one or more abusers/torturers/technicians from the first session may follow up alongside others for the next abuses. So this may continue!
Additionally, there are 'handshake' principles and mental exchanges of pictures with, perhaps, mental pictures of their victims in text describing the session or role-playing the rape/abuse with their loved ones.
<>Malur and taint of malur: Some of these, perhaps most, come with taints on their souls. The taint is called 'malur' (don't mix it with some Indian place), a phenomena that causes them to faint and experience their own recoil from their awful, horrible actions. The physical representation of this is in the form of a brown or black wart. You usually get a strange/ugly feeling when you see these things. Touching them gives you some of the same representation. These warts extend into the central nervous system and has a deep impact on the person who is wearing this taint. Malur-taints also come with red/light red areas below the eyes. When you touch these things, the people wearing them will remember what caused it and what action that caused it. It is quite irritating for the people who are wearing these things and some go to great lengths in order to have it removed or camouflaged. You may also get these taints from attaching your affection to the recordings of these horrible actions. Two things: 1. It is better to be good than (taint-)warty. 2. Keep kids away from recorded material. The garbage ('snuff') should be stored where professionals work. You may also receive the malur-taint from telepathically transferred material, scenes or images or other. So you should be carefully on guard with the mind's eye and thus avoiding too much telepathic contact when being around perverts. Be careful on what you turn the mind's eye to!
Sensations: Usually these abusing actions come with burning sensations, strangulation sensations, suffocation sensations and blunt blows or crush sensations.
Notice and Countermeasures
Further notice:
- The Evil That Men Do (1984). The title should have included women, someone notified me. Doctors torture as well. The healer is the dealer. Finally, I think have hit the right movie! Some 12 years have gone since I saw this movie, but it is something about a torturer nicknamed 'The Technician'. It is very educative when it comes to the moods these people hold against you.
- D.A.R.Y.L. Reverse engineering and asshole management.
- The Changeling. If you begin to show abilities, they will cuff you to a wheelchair.
- Rainman. These people buy and sell human beings. It is pretty psychiatric and pretty 'autistic'.
- Silent [Moral] Fall. Richard Dreyfus and the classic comment: It is incredible what these people can achieve during extreme pressure.
Log/diary: Create a log or diary. Make sure you get your things through according to your planner.
Relations: Stay in touch with people you trust.
Isolation rule: Isolate if things get wrong. It may help to calm your head for a number of days in order to look at the basic things over again.
Counterthreat: If you can counterthreat, it may be helpful, but you should be ascertain that you have the odds... On the other hand, it may be wise to keep things in secret from your enemy in order to get to results.
Formalization: Make sure you seek a formalization, like seeing a therapist or a physician. If you have knowledge, you should make a complaint right away for the sake of record. You shouldn't worry too much about making a complaint. It can only help you!
(I add some words to help people overcome trouble from living under the power of lunatics. These are:)
Make sure to get the copy, hard or soft, of the most important parts or all of your journal. Don't leave out this point!
Telepathy: It is critical that people learn themselves telepathy. It makes your everyday a lot safer. You also detect danger much more easily and your social skills become much more adept and acute.
Remark: I you consider suicide, then do not! Allow the assholes to die first (like in 1. place).
Because you are usually good and they are bad. AND see here: Here is a sound procedure of likelihood of greater chance and less misery. It follows... Farber's Theory of Suicide S = f ( PIC.DEC.DIG.TS / Su.HFT ) where the key is ( / = dividend as on the calcualtor)
S = Probability of Suicide
PIC = Frequency of Production of Personalities Injured in Their Sense of Competence
DEC = Demands for the Exercising of Competence
DIG = Demands for Interpersonal Giving
TS = Tolerance of Suicide
Su = Availability of Succorance
HFT = Degree of Hope in the Future Time Perspective of the Society (where you are, you can change it)
NOW if you take these considerations into account of your own situation, you can quickly identify the focus of your work and efforts. (I will write more later so that it becomes more clear what to do.)
Source: Issue nr. 20 of Philosophy Now. There is a link to the site under Links on all 4 pages under the welcoming page.
[Edit, 04.03.2011:] Words added to countermeasures. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:09 am

I can't see how QM can refute anything without itself holding objectivity in its body of system even if it's wholly relative. I think you also need to back up this refutation and tell me exactly what it is that has been refuted. I mean, some parts of physics still stand, right? QM, itself, must stand.
The accomplishments of the natural sciences are so massive, I refuse to acknowledge this swiftness of assertion! Technology as basic level of science and our concepts and descriptions are to great degree very effective.
Conclusion: the objectivity of science remains until we are futile in using it and I can't even imagine that on the horizon of future. I'm quite new to QM and I haven't studied physics at university level, still I'd like the concrete progress empirically expressed and I've yet to see such in an extensive manner. Pointing to the Schrodinger's cat, I sense that there are difficulties within QM that you are not so eager to tell about. I'll be gathering more information and I'll see what the future brings.

Post subject: Re: On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:44 am

You have your subjectivity 'proven' by QM and we'll see what it amounts to in the future. Though, when I read about QM, it's not like anything. It is defined as a body of theory concerning quants or quarks. I can't say that the Double Slit experiment isn't objective.
I'll keep the theory-laden observations to more mundane stuff, at least not the controversial.

Post subject: Re: On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:06 pm

It's my belief that children have limited possibilities for own theories and thus they make the observations. If they see a green ball, there's a "thought"/imprint/signal in the brain that corresponds to/is this green ball. If they see it again the same thing happen over again in their brain. Perhaps they also have associated thought like "I like that green ball", but this is something that comes in addition to the signal in the brain from the mere observation.
I recognise the little deviation of "I like blue better than red", but I think we agree that your driver's license requires you to hold a kind of "objective" view. It's the same thing in science. You need to be up to the level in order to count in. Otherwise, I expect quick ejection!
Besides, the Wigner's friend isn't more than speculation. Roger Penrose thinks so, at least. If you think otherwise, you can give me the empirical consequences, not more thoughts.

Post subject: Re: On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:32 pm

Since you, nameless, seem to reiterate my point in this, that observations are not theory-laden to any decisive degree in the natural sciences. This means that the scientific community is effective in deciding what the experiment data is and what the theory is. The object is in a sense Kuhn and his paradigms because he seems to mix the cumulative nature of data with a given theory, at that time. This is something I find to be wrong. I'm sorry I'm short, but the conclusion you've written, is the one I agree with as well.
PS: I believe Lee Smolin asks for empirical evidence in relation to string-theory.
PS2: In traffic, it's best to keep an eye on others as well as the environment, eg. trees, obstacles, posts, fences, the whole lot.
PS3: In science, if you fail to have cognition of what the 9 others get from the experiment, I think you're in trouble. If somebody does add fantasies to the observations, perhaps somebody should find something else to do.
PS4: "Sacred cows"! Huh! I have no sacred cows, but I try to be constructive in relation to reality and meaningful human activity.

Post subject: Re: End of the Bait & Switch: PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:53 pm

Systems of checks and balances have proven incredibly useful in the past. We use that in every instance we wish to quantify. I can just mention HES - Health, Environment, Security and my case is done. There is a lot to mention in relation to Unions. If you live in Europe, especially Germany, Scandinavia or France, you'll find that Unions are embedded into society. Unions have also forced laws into motion regarding employment and the whole lot. If you fall out with your boss, they can't simply kick you out! This is clearly reasonable. If someone doesn't like your face, they can't treat you badly. Your face, in lack of a host of informalities, isn't determining your pay. Quite extensively, Unions guarantee or at least work for "equal pay for equal work". Considering that production of services and products accounts for such a great deal of order in a country, it's certainly reasonable that worker's rights are in place and that the worker sits equal to the employer at the "table". While you may be able to mention some less favourable qualities with the Unions, you should remember that the welfare of the worker enables the worker to give proper upbringing to the kids of the family whether the kids become mechanics or academics. You should also bear in mind that the next Einstein may just as well be a child of an ordinary worker as it may be the child of an academic. The work and the role of Unions are intuitive ethically speaking. I conclude that the foundation of the Unions is rock solid, perhaps they turn out to be the very bedrock.

Post subject: Re: End of the Bait & Switch: PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:47 am

I find the Unions too big to have any low-life activity going on. This means the Unions are largely non-corrupt, representative, and transparent. My experience with Unions have been only positive. I've found no dishonest power-play. The Union-representatives, locally, have the position because of support among the members. It's fair play.

Post subject: Re: On Will PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:16 am

The generative pattern of the universe should suggest that it's both causal and determined, but is it coherent? In this sense, one has to think coherency as it appears or has the possibility to appear to us. I think that the answer lies in Chaos theory or in the spin of the atoms. Is the spin of the atoms forever beyond us? Possibly. It may very well be the whole chain of causality and determination is beyond us in the way nature appears to us and as far as we are beings of that nature.
The mind is opposite, I find. I think it's coherent, but is it causal and determined? Here as well, I have to suggest the spin of the atoms as the solution and that this may very well be beyond us as well.
So, the mind is coherent and the universe is causal and determined. How do they go together? There's also the question of limitation here. We are born into this world, but when have we learnt enough of it to absolutely understand it? As the solution to both of these issues lies in the spin of the atoms, I think we will never catch the beginning nor the end of it. I don't think we'll find "the first spin of the atom" or get hold, cognitively, of the chain of spins. These issues are therefore beyond us forever, I suggest.
It's funny to think of, in Epistemology I'm a Coherentist, in Philosophy of Mind it can go either way, Reductionist or Substance Dualist and lastly in Philosophy of Science, I'm a Scientific Realist. Reality is absurd!

Post subject: Re: The River Argument and The Resources Divide PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:00 am

ala1993 writes: "Imagine what doctors, in a society filled with deontologists, would be like! If an obese man had a life-threatening heart attack and came into the emergency room at the same time as a healthy man who had been in an accident but was in a stable condition, would such a doctor be justified in treating the 'fit' patient first on the grounds that the obese man allegedly made the choice not to lose weight and thus increased the risk of having the heart attack?"
I see no reason why the doctor shouldn't treat the cases based on an urgency priority as you probably would say. There are good possibilities for getting slim when one is obese and even if in the specific case there's not, then there's still obvious moral duty to rescue the obese person. As you write, in this situation one can treat both people and prevent death to happen to either. So does this necessarily say that this doctor is not a deontologist? I certainly don't think so!
Concerning the reasons, if this doctor receives two patients and both of them are dying and hypothetically speaking, the doctor knows the background of both, that is one of them is likely to enter a new emergency in short time while the other can recover nicely and never need treatment again. I'd say this is a situation where the utilitarian and the deontologist can agree possibly. Either way, in reality, hospitals are probably few of those situations and if they do, perhaps patients get ER on first come, first serve basis which is, maybe, a better ethical option.
"It is not possible to proclaim oneself to be a utilitarian or a deontologist (not least because to proclaim the former is to affirm the latter - we proclaim because we think that a certain thing should be done). The best we can do is to have principles that we are willing to disregard in certain circumstances."
Do you say that it's impossible to hold an intellectual position in Ethics? Either way, shouldn't you then become a nihilist or ethical skepticist, both being positions in ethics?
"In the case of the 'river argument', are we justified in letting 22 people die when we could have saved 20 of them? The chances are that some of them have families and dependants; probability tells us that if there are more people in one boat than in the other than there are likely (although admittedly not definitely) to be more people in that first boat whose death would affect more people."
The options are letting 20 people get killed and having 2 people safe versus letting 2 people get killed and having 20 people safe. Also, counting dependents of people can be done in numerous ways, let's say, if the case is that there's a prime minister or some other important person.
"If we are in a position to act then we do not evade action - and, consequently, responsibility - by choosing not to act (specifically because 'not acting' is a kind of action). As such, we make a choice based on what we think is right for that situation."
What I'm writing is that it may be wise to do nothing, admitting that this is a kind of action, and thus avoiding taking part in the death to either innocent party. This situation highlights the easiness of utilitarian theories.

Post subject: Re: The River Argument and The Resources Divide PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:54 am

Arising_uk writes: "I think if you don't know any of the people or anything about them then you save the 20 as it'll be easier to explain in court than the 2 or 22. If you know the two then you may get some understanding but none for the 22. I gets more complicated the more of them you know."
I guess I agree. If I know some of the twenty people to be good friends or otherwise, I may let the 2 people go. I'm not certain though. Rather, in this situation, the question is what you do given the 22 people are unknown to you. As I've pointed out, the River argument is meant to give the Utilitarian a bad reputation.
Quote: "I got that there was a fraction of the population beyond aid, that another fraction was within aid(are they part of the same fraction?), but got lost when the 'third' came in as living and the two-thirds dying? Who's dying and who's not?"
A third of the population is going to die no matter what. The next third is by some means possible to help, but with some risk-taking. I suggest the Deontologist is the one who accepts the risk and gives the help. The Utilitarian, I think, lets this one third perish as well making the result of having only one third of the (world) population survive. It's unclear whether the Deontologist's two-thirds will survive, but they share (to much extent) the same destiny.
Quote: "Is this saying that the Utilitarian might engage in moral triage in a crisis situation? What would the deontologist offer? But it seems strange asking you as the words appear to be anothers?"
I think both the Utilitarian and the Deontologist can engage in moral triage in a crisis situation.

Post subject: Re: She is Beautiful PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:17 am

Can't beauty be in both the mind and in reality?

Post subject: Re: What is Philosophy? PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:49 pm

What about "the investigation of concepts and desciptions including mathematics and the relations, logics, between them, exhaustively, in" "the search for the objective" "to the extent of plausibility, credibility. All this is for the search of the greatest wisdom"?

Post subject: Re: What is Philosophy? PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:05 pm

Philosophy of Mathematics...

Post subject: Re: What is Philosophy? PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:30 pm

Many people may overlook mathematics because it's basically symbolic (expressed in numbers and symbols) so I include it explicitly. (This should suggest logics as well, but logics is a traditional philosophical subject.)
I don't know its history, but you may want to check out Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell.

Post subject: Re: Religious Philosophers PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:08 pm

I've been reading this thread for a while and at first I've believed that you've been going for the dogmatic religious people. This may not longer be the case. I therefore speak out as a Deist, Hobby-Philosopher. I believe I hold scientific views in my core and when I read science, it's apparent that everything I read is contestable and thus that it's not taken from authority although it may get problematic to make that Hadron-collider to work in your own home. Science as a whole is not about authority. This is obvious. When we then get to my belief of Deism, I see that I place my belief in the answer to certain anomalies of science. This answer is naturally therefore outside the sphere of science and I hold my belief in it, but that is not to say that my belief may not be wrongly placed. I may be wrong in my Deist belief! With this view I can't see where this authority is supposed to come in.
Conclusion: Some religious may not be due to authority and in the future maybe all religious views may not come from authority. I guess I can relax and be a true hobby-philosopher after all.

Post subject: Re: Religious Philosophers PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:38 pm

Please, see my God this way - the deadly, cold solution to these anomalies: abiogenesis, consciousness, existence, Universe. It, God, may be whatever, I frankly don't care (I may get disappointed in not achieving infinity)! The considerations are just stone cold logic! "...a belief in a false cause/effect..." No! And I bet you'll feel it as your life approaches DEATH!

Post subject: Re: Religious Philosophers PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:30 am

i blame blame writes: "Are you using a god as placeholder for phenomena and processes you don't understand?"
The anomalies in science suggest there is some fantastic explanation behind it and sure I put God there, as a placeholder. It may be that God is made an ever smaller corner, but God remains a belief of mine until all is explained properly.

No comments:

Post a Comment