Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #15 on: 2002-06-19 13:00:47 »
[Lucifer3] My point was that emotion-driven behavior in not necessarily irrational. It is, however, prone to error because emotions are an evolutionary shortcut to reasoning.
[Walpurgis4] Increasingly, I'm less and less sure that there is such a clear split between emotion and reason. It is more likely that one informs the other is a feedback loop. How seperable are these seemingly differentiate phenomenon?
[Lucifer5] The evidence suggests that reasoning does indeed depend on emotions. Antonio Damasio presents a compelling case in his book Descarte's Error. Apparently brain-damaged patients that exhibit emotional dysfuntion also display dysfunction in their reasoning capabilities.
[Lucifer3] Isn't it unreasonable and irrational to be irresponsible?
[Walpurgis4] Good point. But that is a point about /irrresponsibility, not emotion.
[Lucifer5] The point was about the use of Tarot cards, not emotion.
[Lucifer3] About the same chance that arithematic and calculus will be left behind for something better. (Close to zero.) I think fuzzy logic is a very useful recent addition, but it certainly doesn't replace predicate logic.
[Walpurgis4] I'm not sure how you assess these chances and what time frame you are working in... I speculate that we will change/grow beyond these systems in our evolutionary future... In 50 years, 200, 500, 10 000 and 100 000 years from now I expect we will be using different understandings.
[Lucifer5] My assumption is that math is the same (1+1=2) independent of space and time. An alien civilization that died out a million years ago in another galaxy would have the same math and logic as we do (obviously different notation).
[Walpurgis4] If truth is just a good model that does not correspond to anything absolute outside of the system, then why should our methods remain the same?
[Lucifer5] I don't agree with your premise.
[Lucifer3] Humans have very poor intuition when it comes to applying Bayes theorem
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #16 on: 2002-06-20 05:05:46 »
[Walpurgis4] Good point. But that is a point about /irrresponsibility, not emotion.
[Lucifer5] The point was about the use of Tarot cards, not emotion.
[Walpurgis5] Then I retract my "good point" remark. There is nothing wrong with the use of Tarot cards or nay other interpretive/artistic medium which stimulates thinkimng. Used irresponsibly, I have a problem with Tarot cards as I do with irresponsible science or politics. Use with correct care (what ever that is) I don't see how Tarot cards could be objectionable. I believe the real problem is what we would consider "correct-care".
[Lucifer5] My assumption is that math is the same (1+1=2) independent of space and time.
[Walpurgis5] My argument in the CoV forum is that nothing (including maths) can be independent of space/time. To posit such independence is to speculate in the realm of metaphyics - an odd position for a rational religion.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #17 on: 2002-06-20 21:19:12 »
About Tarrot cards:
I can recognize the feeling of a "revelation" or "unblocking" when I am stuck while thinking hard on a problem and the next day I find the solution I was looking for in something totally unrelated. For example, I may find the right move for a chess game while watching a movie.
However, for some reason, I would feel uneasy with someone who uses Tarrot cards regularly to make decisions.
A little ranting about mathematics:
The nature of mathematics is a very tricky subject, because mathematics, unlike physics, is not an empirical science. Mathematics is a formal language. Although it starts as an attempt for a formal representation and treatment of physical entities and states, then it also includes abstract and imaginary entities, only holding on to formal logical consistency. Mathematics does not have to represent any real physical entities or states -- it just has to be consistent with logic. It is not empirically falsifiable -- unlike physics, you can prove or disprove a mathematical theory within the framework of logic.
A quote from Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974)
"On the other hand, pure mathematics and logic, which permit of proofs, give us no information about the world, but only develop the means of describing it. Thus we could say (as I have pointed out elsewhere 7 ): 'In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.' But although proof does not play any part in the empirical sciences, argument still does; indeed, its part is at least as important as that played by observation and experiment."
So, mathematics is not an empirical science, but it is not metaphysics either, because it does not make any claims about reality -- it just provides us with descriptive tools and critical arguments. However, the application of a particular mathematical model to a real world situation should result in a empirically falsifiable (scientific) theory. Of course, an improperly applied model could result in an unverifiable (metaphysical) theory, such as The Number of the Beast or Everett's Analytic Metaphysics.
According to Popper, Mathematics belongs to the "third word" (objective contents of thought), which means that it is a human construct with an objective status.
How is mathematics objective? An example: The sequence of the natural numbers, which we have constructed, creates the prime numbers. Then, we have to *discover* the prime numbers because they exist. According to Popper, the most important mathematical items we discover, "the most productive citizens of the third world", are problems and new kinds of critical arguments.
By the way, false theories also belong to Popper's "third world". The "first world" includes physical objects and states, and the "second world" includes experiences, mental states, emotions etc.
I think I obscured the issue enough for today. Oh, I almost forgot. I just found a web page where someone debunks Popper's falsification principle using the statement "All men are mortal".
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #18 on: 2002-06-21 01:19:03 »
[Walpurgis5] Then I retract my "good point" remark. There is nothing wrong with the use of Tarot cards or nay other interpretive/artistic medium which stimulates thinkimng. Used irresponsibly, I have a problem with Tarot cards as I do with irresponsible science or politics. Use with correct care (what ever that is) I don't see how Tarot cards could be objectionable. I believe the real problem is what we would consider "correct-care".
[Lucifer6] Uh... that *was* my point.
[Walpurgis5] My argument in the CoV forum is that nothing (including maths) can be independent of space/time. To posit such independence is to speculate in the realm of metaphyics - an odd position for a rational religion.
[Lucifer6] Perhaps it seems odd in your strange universe where the truth of mathematical theorems changes over time and space, but it is quite reasonable in my universe. Tell us more about the universe you come from. Is logic consistent across a continent or a decade? Can you notice it changing as you travel?
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #19 on: 2002-06-21 05:26:04 »
[rhino] However, for some reason, I would feel uneasy with someone who uses Tarrot cards regularly to make decisions.
Why? Are they making you do it too? Your measure/valuation of decision-making obviously isn't theirs.
If you don't like it, don't do it.
Interesting remarks on Popper, many thanks. (He gets mentioed so often here, why isn't he a saint?)
[Lucifer6] Perhaps it seems odd in your strange universe where the truth of mathematical theorems changes over time and space, but it is quite reasonable in my universe. Tell us more about the universe you come from. Is logic consistent across a continent or a decade? Can you notice it changing as you travel?
[Walpurgis6] I've tried my best to illustrate the current view I am tring to develop on the correspondance theory of truth. I don't think I can comment on maths - rhinos points about it seem pertinent. As to physics, I've already written the argument above to the best of my ability. Physics isn't about relativism (as you imply), but epistemological distance (how far you can "close in" is a matter for debate).
Again: physics can say nothing about ontology, only epistemology. Ontology is the realm oif philosophy/metaphyisics.
I am not saying language/theory is totally removed from reality (I have already criticised such views), but I am also not saying language/theory *corresponds* to reality either (the other side of the debate I have criticised). These tools prove useful in our science/society, and these tools are not (or perhaps a weaker claim: cannot be known to be) absolute.
As a summary, does this sound coherent?
I realise what I have espoused isn't entirely clear - but that's whta happens when you think off the cuff or modify your position when interesting criticism comes along.
I appreciate all criticisms directed towards these ideas thus far. I am happy that CoV members are active and intelligent in their thinking.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #20 on: 2002-06-21 14:53:46 »
[rhinoceros] However, for some reason, I would feel uneasy with someone who uses Tarrot cards regularly to make decisions.
[Walpurgis] Why? Are they making you do it too? Your measure/valuation of decision-making obviously isn't theirs.
If you don't like it, don't do it.
[rhinoceros] Just thinking about other's decision which could have an impact on me.
I am not unfamiliar with rituals which seem to facilitate thinking and eventually become necessary for someone.
[Walpurgis] Interesting remarks on Popper, many thanks. (He gets mentioed so often here, why isn't he a saint?)
[rhinoceros] Oh, no! One saint is enough, except if you are very good at avoiding sacrilege.
[Walpurgis] Again: physics can say nothing about ontology, only epistemology. Ontology is the realm of philosophy/metaphyisics.
[rhinoceros] Historically, physics and other sciences have always said much about ontology and vice versa. Galileo's trial was not really about whether Earth moves or not.
Hey, you mean that your non-dualist worldview based on quantum physics was not really ontological?
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #21 on: 2002-06-21 23:53:17 »
Of course, the arguments on the nature of logic and mathematics that I posted are not undisputed -- the nature of logic is still being actively discussed.
My arguments were a Popperian version of "linguistic empiricism", which was advocated by the neopositivists. But there are other theories, one of which is called "rationalism", so I guess I should post something about them too.
Being lazy, I just found a Web page where there is a fairly concise and acurate description of all the relevant theories. In fact, the author makes an attempt to refute linguistic empiricism, but this could be considered a benefit for the discussion.
2. Four Views on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Logical Truths
Obviously this way of describing the case might be challenged. Historically, there are three main theoretical options (with one important subdivision) for dealing with knowledge of logical truths: empiricism, rationalism, and neo-Kantianism.[1] It will be helpful to provide a thumbnail sketch of each of these in order to locate our subject matter.
Empiricism, for present purposes, may be understood as the thesis that all truths about the world are empirical. Empiricism itself may be divided into two camps. Radical empiricism holds that all truths (including those of logic) are empirical. Historically, John Stuart Mill was perhaps the first to scout this position in any detail.[2] In his System of Logic, for example, Mill claims that even the law of noncontradiction is not knowable a priori but “like other axioms, one of the first and most familiar generalizations from experience.”[3] This view has found support with Pierce and Quine.[4] How do we know that there are not planets both circling and not circling X? The radical empiricists’ answer is that this is simply a high level empirical generalization based on inductive evidence: to date we have not observed the universe to be contradictory, hence there is no reason to suspect that future observations ought to manifest such contradictions. Thus, the claim to know that some contradictory state of affairs is not obtaining around X is just a particular instance of this inductive generalization. Critics have noted that this view, in calling the law of noncontradiction an empirical generalization, seems to simply displace the mystery, since, they argue, we cannot even conceive of an observation which might infirm this “first and most familiar generalization from experience.”[5]
Some empiricists have conceded the apriority of logical laws, choosing, instead, to explain this notion in terms of analyticity. This view is sometimes referred to as the ‘linguistic theory of the a priori’ (or, for convenience sake, simply the ‘linguistic theory’) or ‘linguistic empiricism’). The ancestry of this idea can be traced back at least to Hume, with the notion of ‘relations of ideas.’ It did not receive its full linguistic formulation until the twentieth century, particularly with Wittgenstein and the “Logical Positivist” movement.[6] The idea is that logical truths are analytic, and as such, they constitute merely a linguistic affair—they are not about the world at all. Thus, on the linguistic theory the alleged mystery cited above disappears once we realize that the statement that, “it is not the case that there are planets orbiting X today and not orbiting (at the same time in the same respect),” is true simply in virtue of the meanings of its constituent logical terms. Reflection on the meaning of ‘and’ and ‘not’ reveals that this statement is true no matter what the environing conditions are around X. The “truth makers” in this case are the logical particles; hence, despite the fact that the surface structure of the statement purports to tell us something about the world, in fact this is merely a linguistic truth. Critics of linguistic empiricism find problematic the idea that language might be divided into a logical and”logic free” portions.
Rationalism accepts with the linguistic theory the apriority of logical truths. Yet it sides with radical empiricism in maintaining that logical truths are about the world. Rationalists explain such knowledge by appeal to a non-empirical intuition or to innate ideas. The heyday of this doctrine was the early modern period of philosophy, with Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. In this century the view still finds defenders, e.g. Kurt Gödel, in “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?” maintains exactly this sort of position.[7] The rationalists, then, appeal to some nonempirical access to reality. This mode of access allows us to learn about the logical structure[8] of the universe. Presumably there is no difficulty in saying that this nonempirical access operates at speeds exceeding that of light. Critics (obviously) find questionable this idea of a nonempirical access to the structure of the universe.
The neo-Kantian sides with the rationalist in maintaining that logical truths are a priori knowable and about the world. Where they diverge is that the neo-Kantian insists that the only acceptable notion of ‘the world’ is one that is not mind independent. The idea is that the human mind has an active role in “putting into things”, or “shaping” or even “making” the world. That is, idealists typically appeal to some “active” metaphor to explicate the relation between mind and world in contrast to realists who maintain that we “passively” wait for the logical structure of the universe to make contact with our minds. On a neo-Kantian view, our minds “constructs” the universe as logically ordered. The mystery of how we might know that planets are revolving and not revolving around X is answered by claiming that logical structure is something that the mind imposes on the universe as a “rule of engagement”. Critics typically focus on the claim that the world is not mind independent.
So much for the “thumb-nail” sketches of the theoretical options. It is hoped that they are adequate for the purpose of making a preliminary point: only linguistic empiricism denies that logic is, in some sense, about the world. This is the view that will be criticized here. The other three positions are agreed at least on this point; they differ, as we have seen, on (a) the epistemic status of logical truths, and (b) the metaphysical interpretation of ‘the world’. Assuming that the above inventory exhausts the interesting theories[9] on this subject matter, then, a successful critique of the linguistic theory will demonstrate that logic is (in some sense) about the world.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #22 on: 2002-06-22 05:26:40 »
[rhinoceros] Hey, you mean that your non-dualist worldview based on quantum physics was not really ontological?
[Walpurgis] no - my non-dualist *epistemology* based on QT was not ontological. However, the philosophical speculations that followed it are statements of ontology.
[rhinocerous] I am not unfamiliar with rituals which seem to facilitate thinking and eventually become necessary for someone.
[phanerothyme] *Thinks* Like smoking...?
We smoke, we think, we precipitate our thoughts in action. But soon the act of smoking becomes the end, or the action, in itself, and we become entangled in the means, thinking it is the end.
There is a similar problem in the tarot, or indeed any system of symbols. The symbols may mask the objective and we become entranced by the details. It is possible to observe this in all religious symbology.
(Though note I am no authority on means or ends or symbols.)
I do find it interesting though that the Church of Virus albeit rational still adheres to the original pattern - that of the attainment of immortality (whatever that may be) through evolution.
Maybe in this sense the Church is not seeking an extension/improvement upon prior religions, but a return to core ideologies?
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #24 on: 2002-06-22 21:57:08 »
[rhinocerous] I am not unfamiliar with rituals which seem to facilitate thinking and eventually become necessary for someone.
[phanerothyme] *Thinks* Like smoking...?
[rhinoceros] Bingo! Smoking was one of the things I was thinking, but I didn't imagine anyone would pick this one out.
[phanerothyme] I do find it interesting though that the Church of Virus albeit rational still adheres to the original pattern - that of the attainment of immortality (whatever that may be) through evolution.
[rhinoceros] Not true. I am not sure whether attainment of immortality is an original pattern or whether an original pattern should be considered obsolete, but what I can tell you is that attainment of immortality is not a defining trait here, and rationality does not define the desires and goals of each person, except if these goals are delusional.
This is just a place infected with the memetic virus of rationality. You can bring your own infections or you can be infected with other memes as long as you can interact in a rational way.
Personally, I believe that immortality is not an option for me; even if it was technically possible, immortality would not be given to me because of the way society works. Immortality for everyone might become possible in a society with unlimited resources (e.g. colonization of planets), but this is not going to happen anytime soon. An alternative is the Singularity approach; this one does not seem to require a lot of resources, but you would have to accept not being "human" any more (a kind of man-made paradise?).
Others may give you different answers. But if you want to discuss with people who believe in attaining immortality, a better place would be the Extropy BBS.
[phanerothyme] Maybe in this sense the Church is not seeking an extension/improvement upon prior religions, but a return to core ideologies?
[rhinoceros] I don't think the Church has much to do with the ideology of religions -- at least not in any direct way. This is more about the memetics of religions. Religions have been the most viral idea for many millenia and this fact deserves attention.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #25 on: 2002-06-23 03:54:21 »
[rhinoceros] Bingo! Smoking was one of the things I was thinking, but I didn't imagine anyone would pick this one out.
[Walpurgis] Wouldn't the depend on what you're smoking?
[rhinoceros] rationality does not define the desires and goals of each person, except if these goals are delusional.
[Walpurgis] what does tha mean? rationally informed goals are delusional?
[rhinoceros] This is just a place infected with the memetic virus of rationality. You can bring your own infections or you can be infected with other memes as long as you can interact in a rational way.
[Walpurgis] I'm sure you can also pick things up if you act irrationally too. Hell, I do
[rhinoceros] Immortality for everyone might become possible in a society with unlimited resources (e.g. colonization of planets), but this is not going to happen anytime soon.
[Walpurgis] Not so. Moore's Law shows that computational power will increase as the size of computers decrease. Coupled with Rosenfeld's Law (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller061402.asp) where energy use decreases per year, as well as advances in nanotech, the limited resources we have should be enough to upload a great many people. And when a certain number of people are operating on the upload level, they will consume different resources, leaving those left with more resources and the opportunity to upload themselves. (see http://hanson.gmu.edu/uploads.html for more on the consequences of uploading and effects on resources).
[rhinoceros] An alternative is the Singularity approach; this one does not seem to require a lot of resources, but you would have to accept not being "human" any more (a kind of man-made paradise?).
[Walpurgis] Humans evolve. What would be wrong with being post-human?
[rhinoceros] This is more about the memetics of religions. Religions have been the most viral idea for many millenia and this fact deserves attention.
[Walpurgis] Assuming religions are irrational, doesn't that bring us back to the post which started this thread?
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #26 on: 2002-06-23 08:12:49 »
[rhinoceros] rationality does not define the desires and goals of each person, except if these goals are delusional.
[Walpurgis] what does tha mean? rationally informed goals are delusional?
[rhinoceros] Is that what I said? Well... I guess I should stick to using shorter sentences. What I really meant was that there is a wide range of rational goals.
[Walpurgis] Humans evolve. What would be wrong with being post-human?
[rhinoceros] I would have to know what a post-human is before answering that. It is possible that if I ever saw the Singularity coming anywhere close (provided that I would recognize it) I would do the totally unbelievable action of getting off my chair and running to the nearest mountain. But this is just me and just now.
[rhinoceros] This is more about the memetics of religions. Religions have been the most viral idea for many millenia and this fact deserves attention.
[Walpurgis] Assuming religions are irrational, doesn't that bring us back to the post which started this thread?
[rhinoceros] It seems so. Analytically rational ideas do not always win. Sometimes they don't even have a chance. But there is also the rationality of reality -- that is, when trying to see history in a rational way.
[rhinoceros] Bingo! Smoking was one of the things I was thinking, but I didn't imagine anyone would pick this one out.
[Walpurgis] Wouldn't the depend on what you're smoking?
[phanerothyme] Yes. Interestingly (?) I was thinking tobacco, as opposed to other smokes more commonly associated with mind stimulation/expansion.
[phanerothyme1] I do find it interesting though that the Church of Virus albeit rational still adheres to the original pattern - that of the attainment of immortality (whatever that may be) through evolution.
[rhinoceros] Not true. I am not sure whether attainment of immortality is an original pattern or whether an original pattern should be considered obsolete, but what I can tell you is that attainment of immortality is not a defining trait here, and rationality does not define the desires and goals of each person, except if these goals are delusional.
[phanerothyme2] Sorry, I was going by the "Goals" on the About page here which appears to offer a go at "true immortality".
I have a personal feeling that the various forms of immortality proffered by historical sources are based upon a misunderstanding, or even a mistranslation. The desire of Extropians to better themselves through technology is little different in nature to the desire of the alchemist/shaman/qabalist/chela to better themselves through their own techniques, and, providing one is not sent astray by dabbling in distractions, all may reach some kind of (different/same?) result.
I am far less interested in the concept of immortality as eternal life than I am in the concept of improved being, regardless of the length of life.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #28 on: 2002-06-24 02:49:06 »
[phanerothyme] Yes. Interestingly (?) I was thinking tobacco, as opposed to other smokes more commonly associated with mind stimulation/expansion.
[Walpurgis] Ok, now I'm interested. All cigarettes do for me is make me pleasantly dizzy. For a bit. I don't smoke habitually, and I only smoke the joyous Gudang-Garam. So what have you discovered in this weed? I need to know!
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #29 on: 2002-06-24 03:58:08 »
[Walpurgis6] I am not saying language/theory is totally removed from reality (I have already criticised such views), but I am also not saying language/theory *corresponds* to reality either (the other side of the debate I have criticised). These tools prove useful in our science/society, and these tools are not (or perhaps a weaker claim: cannot be known to be) absolute.
As a summary, does this sound coherent?
[Lucifer7] No, I don't understand how a theory could be useful without corresponding to reality.
Author
Logged
