Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #30 on: 2002-06-24 04:22:25 »
[Lucifer7] No, I don't understand how a theory could be useful without corresponding to reality.
[Walpurgis] I'm not talking about theory generally, but mathematics and theories based on maths (like physics).
Perhaps Heinrich Hertz put is more succinctly: "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical forumlae have an independant existence and intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser than theri discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originall put into them."
This feeling is expressed by einstein when he said "I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed." (see On the Method of Theoretical Physics in "Ideas and Opinions")
At the centre is the question: what is the relationship between mathematical forms in the human mind called "physical theory" and physical reality?
Quantum theory clearly indicates limits to math. theory. There is inherent uncertainty in physics, so there is no ontological bridge between math theory and physical reality.
Bohr was the first to realise that this means we must profoundly revise the epistemological foundations of modern science.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #31 on: 2002-06-24 09:53:29 »
Actually, as Hermit has frequently observed in the past (and which I am repeating only on the grounds of his current absence), modern science, following Popper's rejection of both Plato's forms and Aristotle's subjectivity, recognizes that the universe exists as a logical necessity. By and large, you are correct to say that science could be said to speak to a set that contains all things (real or imaginary) which would include the 'real' universe. The existence of this set does not speak to the reality of that universe.
Instead, the reality of that universe is argued from a more pragmatic basis - the paradox which exists when it is deleted and the violence which the concept of an imaginary Universe would do to falsifiable probability as it leads directly to the fallacy of "proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists." Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #32 on: 2002-06-24 13:07:50 »
[Lucifer7] No, I don't understand how a theory could be useful without corresponding to reality.
[Walpurgis8] I'm not talking about theory generally, but mathematics and theories based on maths (like physics).
[Lucifer9] The same goes for math and physics. I don't understand how they could be useful without corresponding to reality. I concede that no one knows why there is a relationship, indeed that may be one of the great mysteries. But I suggest there is no doubt that an isomorphism exists.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #33 on: 2002-06-24 21:41:43 »
[Lucifer 7] No, I don't understand how a theory could be useful without corresponding to reality.
[Walpurgis 8] I'm not talking about theory generally, but mathematics and theories based on maths (like physics).
[Lucifer 9] The same goes for math and physics. I don't understand how they could be useful without corresponding to reality. I concede that no one knows why there is a relationship, indeed that may be one of the great mysteries. But I suggest there is no doubt that an isomorphism exists.
[rhinoceros 10] Just remember the history of Euclid's fifth axiom, the axiom of the parallel line. Euclid himself seemed to believe that this axiom was not as clearly intuitive as the other ones, and developed the first part of his geometry without using it. Generations of mathematicians spent their whole lives trying to prove that this axiom could be derived from the first four axioms and failed. In this effort, Bolyai, Lobachevsky and Gauss tried to develop geometries with a contradictory fifth axiom, hoping that these geometries would show inconsistencies. To their dismay, the elliptic and hyperbolic geometries they developed proved to be fully logically consistent.
At the time, these alternative logically consistent geometries were useless in modelling reality. Eventually, they found their place in the space-time of general relativity, while Euclidian geometry is now considered a false but sufficient model for our everyday needs.
But this is not the point. The point is that Euclidian geometry as a mathematical theory is still fully logically consistent, as good as any other geometry. The problem emerges only when we try to use it as a model for the real world. I would say that mathematics do not have to correspond to reality, but a mathematical model used in physics *does* have to correspond to reality, or else it would be meaningless -- just bad modelling.
(Allow me a pedantic note, although besides the point: The term isomorphism, at least in mathematics, is normally used in the context of two different mathematical constructs).
[Walpurgis 8] At the centre is the question: what is the relationship between mathematical forms in the human mind called "physical theory" and physical reality?
[rhinoceros 10] According to what I said above, I think "mathematical forms" are nothing more than logical constructs of our own, initially inspired by our experience but not restricted by it. What we call "physical theory" is about developing and applying such logical constructs in an effort to quantify reality. "Physical reality" just is.
[Walpurgis 8] Quantum theory clearly indicates limits to math. theory. There is inherent uncertainty in physics, so there is no ontological bridge between math theory and physical reality.
[rhinoceros 10] We should not forget that uncertainty principle is a mathematical quantity. Even in quantum physics, maths have gone much further than what Bohr used to consider real, and continue to do so.
What was really falsified was only the deterministic model of the quantum world and the universal status of the classical description using the "position and momentum" pair or the "energy and time" pair. This fact never stopped the efforts for mathematical modelling of quantum reality. Even Bohm's mathematical formalism, which is supposed to suggest a "realistic" interpretation, is mathematically equivalent with the mainstream mathematical formalisms and gives the same results.
[phanerothyme1] 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!
[phanerothyme2] Please, no - those damn filters just impersonalise everything so.
I guess it all depends on the manner in which tobacco is approached. The majority of people encounter tobacco so early on that they either become hooked or deride the practise. I guess my personal research has allowed me to approach this weed in a different light. Psychosomatic, possibly.
Sure, as I said before, I find tobacco aids mental stimulation; although the conditions under which it is smoked may also add to the effect. Solitude, mindfulness (and getting rid of those bloody filters) etc. all enhance the reverie experienced with any such drug. There is also the pay-off involved in that although nicotine is an initial neuro stimulant, its strong binding qualities give the end result of it also being a narcotic.
What I am more interested in is the addictive and thanatopoeic qualities of tobacco. As has been 'recently' established, this is a drug that brings one closer to death. It is also a very good model for addiction.
My current project is to become thoroughly addicted to nicotine.
Then I have to quit.
These are the qualities/teachings that nicotine can provide: an insight into the nature of death, an insight into the nature of addiction. Essential lessons for anyone dabbling in poisons, I would say.
Now I just have to wait for my rustica to mature...
And thanks for the link - I was looking for a decent dealer in snuff.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #35 on: 2002-07-01 12:24:55 »
[rhinoceros] But this is not the point. The point is that Euclidian geometry as a mathematical theory is still fully logically consistent, as good as any other geometry. The problem emerges only when we try to use it as a model for the real world.
[Lucifer] Euclidian geometry is a very good model for 3-dimensional space.
[rhinoceros] I would say that mathematics do not have to correspond to reality, but a mathematical model used in physics *does* have to correspond to reality, or else it would be meaningless -- just bad modelling.
[Lucifer] I agree on both points. I suspect Walpurgis would agree to the first point, but not the second.
I notice you have reason as the first virtue... as I mentioned I personally think its place is not clearly so prominent...
Not only because memes not compatible with reason have been incredibly effective at spreading religious memes, and a truly effective benign religion would have to do everything it could to compensate for being competitively "handicapped" with benigness.
But also because reason is incredibly problematic historically, just as religion has always been. For example I have read several books on the Third Reich, and one thing that strikes me is the degree to which reason was used as a tool for torture and killing. That is, it seemed logical to many in the Third Reich that the strongest should win, and that they should be guided by analogy from nature, where there is no pity for the weak. Thus it was reasoned to be a virtue to ignore one's feelings of compassion for the victims, and kill them anyway for the greater good.
Now, of course that reasoning is arguably fallacious. But once you put "reason" on the throne, how do you know which reasoning is correct and which is faulty?
Isn't it like the practical problems inherent in Plato's idea that a "philosopher-king" should govern? YES, a philosopher-king should ideally govern, but only the RIGHT one. Hitler arguably qualified as a philosopher-king. In the real world, that ideal is impossible because of the practical aspect of choosing the right philosopher-king and the danger of choosing the wrong one.
With reasoning, how do we choose the CORRECT reasoning instead of the INCORRECT or destructive reasoning?
I think in the end, concordance with the Golden Rule (do unto others...), whether those others are like you or not, HAS to take priority over reason, because a) there is no practical way of reliably choosing the correct reasoning, and b) who is to say that compassion is even compatible, in the end, with pure correctness, if compassion isn't the first virtue?
After the Golden Rule reason can obviously be a virtue, except that it might weaken the new religion's ability to create compelling memes.
Now, of course that reasoning is arguably fallacious. But once you put "reason" on the throne, how do you know which reasoning is correct and which is faulty?
As you have already implied, I don't consider examples of fallacious reasoning any sort of argument against reasoning in general. Even if those canonical bad guys, the nazis, were correctly using valid inference rules, I think it is pretty clear that they were operating from false premises.
The only way to know which reasoning is correct and which is faulty is valid (non-fallacious) reasoning. That is not quite true, I suppose it is possible to know the difference on an intuitive level. But to communicate the difference, and more importantly, convince other reasonable people of the difference, valid reasoning is necessary.
« Last Edit: 2003-01-04 23:04:49 by David Lucifer »
Valid reasoning is, no doubt, a good thing. But when it comes to these kinds of issues, how do we know what reasoning is valid, and more relevantly, how do we know that "the masses" are going to be convinced by the "correct" reasoning instead of the "faulty" reasoning?
I think history shows us that whatever political or religious entity is dominant in the culture can put forth whatever "reasoning" it wants and cause the majority to believe that it is the literal truth. This might involve virgin births, it might involve believing that all people with certain lineages should be severely ostracized.
This is a separate question from "how do even the wisest know which reasoning is true?" Many highly intelligent people think that Ayn Rand's "proofs" of her particular philosophical beliefs are correct; many others think they are total bunk; and still others think they are somewhere in between -- with a lot of merit but with some holes that perhaps can be patched up.
Valid reasoning can't be used as a standard if a) the most intelligent among us, and b) "the masses", can't reliably tell what reasoning is valid in the philosophical/political sphere. I have yet to see any substantive evidence that says that (a) and (b) are not the case.
Again, it is like Plato's philosopher-king idea. A great idea in theory but totally unworkable in practice due to the practical difficulties of knowing whether you have the right philosopher-king.
Note that this is very different from certain fields such as mathematics where correctness is more cut-and-dried because the fundamental facts that are being built upon can (supposedly) be established beyond doubt, so incrementally, a construct can (supposedly) be built where there is no doubt. But even in mathematics, there have been huge controversies, for instance, regarding Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers, initially rejected by many mathematicatians and now accepted by virtually all.
I just now scanned your essay and I like it a lot so far. It's now spooled in my print queue for later reading when I have a time to really focus on it.
Re:Unreason: a meme you need
« Reply #41 on: 2003-01-05 14:05:31 »
You are right, we are in a global memetic war and at stake is nothing less than the future of humanity and the world. What tools (weapons) should we use to win the hearts and minds of the populace? I believe the decision is a moral choice. Perhaps two choices. First you have to decide what kinds of arguments will change your own mind. Then decide what kinds of arguments you will use on other minds.
Is it OK to believe what we want to believe or does the truth matter? I have argued that the truth does matter, though others on this forum have argued that individual happiness is more important. If the truth does matter, how do we know what is true and what is not? As you have pointed out, it is not simple. Intelligent, educated people have never reached a concensus on anything important. Does that mean there is no truth? Does that mean even if there is we will never know if we find it? (More on this later)
Even if we personally decide that we will not be swayed by appeals to authority, threat, pity, force, popularity, strawmen, non-sequiturs, or the hundreds of other kinds of fallacious reasoning, is it OK to use these methods on others. I agree with you that they are more effective of most people. Does the end justify the means?
Personally I feel a responsibility to educate people rather than taking advantage of their ignorance. I called this religion Virus because it is designed to infect their minds with new ideas. Moreover, it will infect them with ideas that are beneficial to the individual, that will protect them against fraud and manipulation. It will infect them with ideas that allows them to sort out the good from the bad, the true from the false, the beneficial from the harmful. It will infect them ideas that allow them to understand the world, find their place in it, make a positive difference, and give meaning to their life.
Perhaps, as you suggest, using reason as our sole tool of persuasion will handicap Virus memetically in competing with other new and old religions. Actually I don't doubt that it true, it will make our job harder. But to do otherwise would be the height of hypocrisy. To retain our moral integrity we must practice what we preach or the whole project is pointless.
My own views on these issues are becoming clearer to me as this discussion goes on. When I have a chance I will update my online essay accordingly. In its current state, it basically says that reason should be a virtue in the sense that the new religion should not contradict reason; i.e., beliefs that the universe revolves around the earth, etc. should not be supported, and that's what I still think althought I want to refine my statement of what that means to me.
You seem to have a position that is not far removed from saying that Reason, in itself, is a moral good. I am not sure whether that is true or not. I think whether a given individual holds to that belief is purely a matter taste.
Unless the the vast majority of) intelligent, sane, reasonable, and reasoning people agree that it can be demonstrated logically that Reason is, in itself, a virtue, it is unreason to say it is one. Otherwise, it is equivalent to a claim that the person who says reason is a virtue has some kind of access to the Truth that other intelligent, sane, reasonable, and reasoning people do not have: in other words, such a person is claiming to be a Prophet. And that is the height of unreason.
In contrast, I think we can pretty much all agree that happiness is a virtue (even Plato was confident about that, as a first principle, without feeling a need to support it by means of reason). And I think we can all agree that the Golden rule is about as good a way as the human race has found of promoting happiness for all.
So, while I don't assume reason is the top morality, and that the Golden Rule should have top billing, I think the new religion can't contradict reason. It's just too late for the world to converge on a religion that does so. The scientific method is too well entrenched. The intelligentsia will not accept anything that clearly contradicts the scientific method. And we want the intelligentsia aboard.
But that approach does not necessarily exclude concepts that are orthoganal to reason. For instance, should practices akin to Zen meditiation be denigrated because the mind states it promotes aren't based on reason (and indeed Zen meditation of the Rinzai sect is based on such questions as "what is the sound of one hand clapping?") Is there really a need to exclude such things?
In other words, is EVERYTHING of value based on reason? I don't think anyone would think a child's smile has no value because it isn't based on reason. But then, can one say that such a concept such as Paul Tillich's "Ultimate ground of being" without value just because it isn't based on reason (while it also doesn't contradict reason)? And should a religion exclude such things, if many people feel they give the religion depth and power? Is a belief that they should be exlcuded based on anything but pure irrational prejudice?
To take my... er... reasoning on this issue a little farther, let me try to promote a hypothesis.
Questions regarding the well-being of mankind are ultimately questions about consciousness. Happiness is an experience; something that can only happen to a conscious being. But we don't have a clue what consciousness really is. Most people would agree that a rock isn't conscious. Most people would also agree that their Dell PC isn't conscious. But many people vaguely assume that a computer could be conscious because a brain is nothing but a computer.
But many of us are struck by the fact that there is NO awareess in a Dell PC; it isn't happy, it isn't sad, etc., it gets no pleasure out of watching a fireplace, etc. Now if you have a computer 10 times as complicated, there doesn't seem to be anything that will bridge the gap between zero consciousness and SOME consciousness. So many of us assume a computer 10 times as complex won't be conscious. By that reasoning, a computer with 10 times further complexity still won't be conscious... and by induction, a computer of no complexity will ever be conscious.
Personally, I think that something that we could term a machine will probably one day be conscious. But I think it will be due to us understanding something we have NO CLUE AT ALL ABOUT now. Just because the last 50 years have achieved sophistication in computer science doesn't mean that computer science is the ultimate explanation. In EVERY generation, there are many people who think that whatever has most recently been discovered is the key to understanding everything. But in reality I see no evidence that consciousness is understood at all -- consciousness being that which separates us from rocks and Dell PC's.
I do believe that a computer could pass the Turing test. That can be done by very sophisticated mimicry. But that is totally orthoganal to the question of whether a computer could EXPERIENCE the visual phenomenon of a fireplace. Not just DO things based on the input, but EXPERIENCE it, as we do in a quiet moment, when we are doing nothing about it but watching. To me, that is a way of representing the difference between a thing and a person.
Ultimately, my view is that the fact that we have no clue what consciousness is is why philosophers can't agree on anything important. There is simply no foundation for reasoning about the key questions. Ultimately, until we understand consciousness, everything must start with one irrational assumption or another, and reason will follow from there... leading to contradictory (if perfectly-reasoned) conclusions.
So, it may well be that reason should be the basis for everything... after we have a clue about the starting point for the reasoning. Which we simply don't have.
Until then, the Golden Rule will do pretty well. And it is very, very possible that such things as Zen meditiation, and the Christian theologian Paul Tillich's "ultimate ground of being" will get us closer to understanding the basis for our lives than reason alone ever could. And to deny that based on a prejudice against anything other than pure reason will not only cripple the new religion, but actually make it less valuable and very possibly less truthful. Reason alone can not tell us which is true; only human experience can.
One other thing I'd like to say before closing on this for the day.
This is very complicated stuff to talk about and it is very easy to create misunderstandings. So to be clear, I am personally a total believer in reason in the sense that I believe in logical chains of inference when they are sufficiently clear that everything is extremely concise and there is no room for reasonable argumentation.
I believe that in such cases, if the starting points are true the conclusions will be true. But history shows there are grey areas where it is hard to know when those conditions are being met; witness the debates about Cantor's transfinite numbers.
Plato was one of the greatest minds, if not the greatest mind, of his time, but I think history makes it clear that he was wrong, at least for practical purposes, in some of his strongest conclusions, such as the idea of the philosopher-king.
But at the same time, I totally agree with David that the new religion should not teach anything that is clearly contradictory to the scientific evidence.
But in matters of morality, the scientific evidence will not allow us to come to meaningful conclusions. So, there, we need to be guided by something like the Golden Rule. IOW, the Golden Rule must trump reason, because of reason leads to anything inconsistent from the Golden Rule, I think most reasonable people would think it likely that the initial assumptions the reasoning process began from were probably incorrect.
That is not to say there is no place for reason; I am convinced there is.
Author
Logged
