williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/30/84)
>> Ripping you to shreds is not pleasurable empathetically. >> I will attempt to explain this gracefully: > I forget the name of this particular dishonest rhetorical device, > but the essence is that it tries to establish something by > claiming not to be trying to establish it. If you think you can > rip my arguments to shreds, go ahead and rip, and we can all > examine the result. But skip the condescending crap. Seen in a DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPERATION stall: We aim to please. You aim too, please. Just another fine mess. I will grant your request. >>> How is an entity identified, and what is its environment? In what >>> way is an entity subject to its environment? If the entity and >>> the environment are separate, how does the environment go about >>> affecting the entity? What is the nature of an entity? How is it >>> identified other than by its causal interactions? What does this >>> really say? >> This might adequately be described as a partition. It is >>a way of describing a portion of observed space that has some >>measure of isolation, as opposed to being part of a homogeneous >>mass. It is understood that there is no complete isolation, only >>a degree of isolation where influence is applied. A simple test >>for primitive identity is whether or not you may pass your hand >>through it. The space contained within that entity is isolated >>from your direct access. You are free to influence it, but it >>will not do your bidding simply because you wish it to. The key >>word here is INFLUENCE. An entity is seperated by a partition and >>can be described in a way that distinguishes it from the rest of >>the universe. You might also call it a correlation. From my >>understanding, an entity is enclosed within partitions defined >>within a context that allow it to fulfill certain criteria of >>independence. > But the discussion is about cause and effect. It is to the > degree that entities are *not* independent that cause and effect > is perceived. And frankly, I consider a discussion about identity > which involves hands passing through, and being "free to > influence", and "not do your bidding simply because you wish it" > to be mumbo-jumbo that doesn't even begin to address *subtle* > points of identification of boundaries of entities and what it > *means* for something to affect/influence/cause something else. You obviously dislike this tangent. The flurry of questions seemed to point somewhere. I was responding to the new subject without feeling any need to beat cause and effect to death. There does exist criteria for independence, and cause and effect imply two entities, cause and effect. The assertion that you cannot have one without the other is not absolutely certain. This is the difference between the two. There is a statistical barrier seperating the two. It is a relational comparison of before/after and a comprehension of the fundamental significant contributing conditions. >>> Since we can only observe correlations, but not inherent natures, >>> this seems pretty rock-solid to me. Causation is as certain as >>> the universe chooses to make it. As long as the correlations >>> hold perfectly, it is certain. But what possible argument can >>> you make for a claim that the laws of the universe won't be >>> totally different tomorrow? Do you see that saying "because they >>> have always worked that way" assumes the conclusion? >> Long term observations have reinforced our perspective of >>the universe. The universe WILL be different tommorrow, but in a >>very gradual manner. The possibility of my waking up in a >>universe where none of the laws of physics applied is SOOOO >>small, I choose to show my confidence in this fact by choosing a >>strong word to describe it. Tommorow, the laws of physics as we >>understand them WILL still apply. > Claiming that there is a very small probability of waking up > tomorrow with different laws of physics *presumes* that the past > determines the future; it *presumes* that a long period of past > consistency implies future consistency. But your confidence HAS > NO BASIS. It doesn't matter how long I have lovingly fed my > turkey, it still has no way to know I won't chop its head off > tomorrow and eat it. The main reason to make these presumptions > is that, *if* the laws still apply tomorrow, we will have made > the right decisions, whereas if they do not, we don't know what > to do anyway. But since you can know nothing about the rules by > which the laws of the universe are governed, you cannot know with > *any* probabilistic certainty that they will continue to apply. > Perhaps the laws of physics oscillate between two different > states; what is the period of oscillation? How do you know? > Again, how can you present an argument against such a possibility > without presuming the conclusion? Your turkey does not have the intelligence to understand what you intend to do with him. You and I, however, are able to resolve reality with a little more detail than that. I would personally wonder about your diet. I was speaking in terms of resolution. If the universe were to change dramatically, we would be capable of detecting this change. We can percieve the future, but only to a limited degree of resolution. To say that the rules governing the universe are constant would be indeed foolish, but to say that the rules are not going to change that quickly is a matter of observation. We are discussing a very large system. >>> It is a matter of the definition of "know". All you need are >>> beliefs which have reasonable predictive ability in order to >>> function. I can know that 2+2=4, which is totally independent of >>> the particular nature of reality, although I never would have >>> gotten around to finding that analytical truth without having >>> synthesized it from aspects of reality. I can believe very >>> strongly that the sun will rise tomorrow, although I can't >>> possibly know it. Kant accepted his dichotomy without it >>> hampering his ability to function in the "real" world, so I find >>> statements like yours very strange. >> Again you choose a word that is too weak to adequately >>describe your certainty. I take the position that these words >>need not be restricted in use to only systematic languages. In >>reality, nothing is absolutely certain, but why cut off a portion >>of the language that is very useful in order to satisfy this? >>Wouldn't it make alot more sense ( and be alot more descriptive ) >>to modify the childish meanings of these words in your own mind >>in order to communicate with those who might not be as >>enlightened as you appear to be. > You are asking me to not talk about what I am currently talking > about. Of course we normally use "know" relativistically. The > point was the distinction between analytic knowledge, such as > mathematical theorems, which can be absolute given that we accept > rules of inference, and synthetic knowledge about the empirical > world, which cannot be. We all know what we mean by animal and > vegetable, *until* we start talking about euglenas and such. > Similarly, we all know what "to know" and "cause and effect" > mean, until we reach a point of controversy. It appears that I am not the only guilty party. Again I stress the importance of free association. Yes, saying I know something is somewhat of an error, if ``know'' is defined as absolute certainty. This is something I know. I also know that if I were afraid to make mistakes, I'd be a quivering death trance. The entire idea of defining words to represent unacceptable extremes is wishful thinking, and a means of dominance. I make mistakes willingly, knowing perfection takes forever. > To characterize these distinctions about the word "know" that are > made by Russell, Quine, Ayer, Hume, and many other brilliant and > not so brilliant philosophers as "childish" is arrogant beyond > measure. Please look up the word "epistemology", and spend some > time reading articles and books in that field, so that you will > realize that there is a realm in which it makes sense to talk > about these words in the way I am trying to, as well as the more > casual realm of discourse to which you refer. I of course use > the words in both realms, but to discourage epistemological > discussion in net.philosophy seems rather childish to me. Who are you to say that they aren't childish? Einstein thought we were ALL children, and he didn't nessesarily mean it to be arrogant or derogatory. I know the implications of epistemology, and they're all lies. ( repeat this to yourself in your own tone of voice ) I am representing the view that our perception of reality is based on resolution. That no statement is completely accurate. That no set of stable definitions is complete. How do you interpret this? >>> This is the same line you take with cosmology, and it rings of >>> Von Daniken. I am also against people swallowing things whole, >>> but I see little evidence that most philosophers who share a >>> position with other philosophers, whether conventional or not, >>> got there with any less deep thought and analysis or more >>> sheeplike behavior than what led you or people you happen to >>> agree with to your positions. >> If you insist on relying strickly on your own >>definitions, then you will be cutting yourself off into your own >>entity, possibly more than your might actually care to. If the >>symbol isolation means anything to you, try this one: >>I do not feel as though it is in the best interest to reduce the >>variety of words we have to choose from in communicating, on the >>contrary, I feel as though we should let the vocabulary expand. >>Intelligent language must have metaphors, it is how you are able >>to develop language at all! If you insist on trying to enforce >>your distinctions on the populace, especially the young and >>inexperienced, you will not find them receptive. You will be >>cutting off your foundations. You will be driven mad by those who >>refuse to follow your rules of definition. If I could suggest >>anything to you, I would suggest a good book on Psychology. >>Philosophy has a definite value, but you should be cautious that >>you are not distorting the symbols you present. There is no need >>to undermine another's self confidence in order to meet your >>criteria for accuracy. You are basically faced with the problem >>of quantisizing reality in communicating, and by trying to apply >>universal context to words, you impose limitations in >>articulation. I am willing to let my words imply a level of >>strength of symbol interconnection, and let the words I choose be >>a measure of confidence. This is NOT sheeplike behaviour. I just >>refuse to accept your simplified version of the language. > I thought we were trying to discuss subtle details of cause and > effect, identification of the boundaries of entities, what it > means for time to flow, what it means to know something, and the > like. Such discussions require careful definitions of terms and > careful use of language. It is great to let the vocabulary > expand; but by ignoring the fine meanings of words, the > vocabulary and the ability to produce unambiguous communication > contracts. I grok. Stembly speaking, I flem when eyeing sharping flys aimed low. It is the root that grows. It is the leaves that die. I bare eye your intent. No need to be gastronomous. Simply connect the dots and tee the crosses. Now for a more serious note ( SERIOUS NOTE! ), we seem to be explaining two different aspects of intelligent language. I agree that to an extent, language must be stabilized in order to communicate effectively. The very foundation of language depends strongly on this. The question is this: do we really want to define stabile meanings for words like truth? Reality? Know? Perfection? Infinity? In order to establish rigid meanings for these words, are we simply imposing a context that forsakes all other fields of knowledge, that allows us to be comfortable in our personal lack of verbosity? If I say for example, ``The truth is real'', why should I not take that as a formula for reduction and drop one of the words from the vocabulary as being a synonym that has no value beyond sheer redundancy? The observation you made about synthetic language is a valid one, but remember, natural language may also be considered to be synthetic. The main difference is is that what you describe as synthetic language attempts to describe phenomena enclosed within a system that is isolated from influence other than that which you directly desire. Natural language would then be a means of describing the open system, the universe, the stock market, social behaviour, or anything of which you do not have absolute control. Natural language is a system of which you do not have absolute control, and you must include a willingness to yield to popular definitions. If you understand this, it is a coincidence. > I can assure you that when I try to influence the young and > inexperienced, I use language somewhat differently. If my use of > language "undermines another's self confidence" then perhaps I > desire that effect. I must admit that I am somewhat driven mad > by perpetual stupidity, ignorance, and clinging to belief without > analysis, but I am saved by my awareness of the processes by > which people learn to think, by my observation that there are > people who know how to think, and by my totally irrational > optimistic belief that the percentage of thinking people can > increase through methods not totally beyond human means. Ignorance is a way of life. What is so much better about your perspective and vocabulary? I don't know. Will it make me a better person? Will it render me potent? Will it tap previous unknown resources? Or will it send me shambling into a hole in the ground to lick my wounds? Alot of it depends on attitude, and that is something which I feel that all people consider before considering what is actually being said. Graceful argument is one of the distiguishing features of advanced intelligence. I have my own criteria for ``WINNING'', as do others, and I will yield when it is in my best interest. It requires a measure of common sense to communicate effectively. I repeat, I represent resolution as philosophy, that any field of knowledge, including philosophy, resolution or otherwise, is an endeavor of development that will never be completed until dead. > Your approach strikes me as peculiarly ad hominem; let's just > debate the issues at hand. If you think I use definitions which > are not used by any other philosophers, please point them out, > suggesting how other philosophers define those terms; I will try > to provide support for my definitions from the literature, or > modify my definitions to avoid problems with them. But if you > are complaining about the attempts in general of philosophers to > provide precise definitions of terms before getting involved in > debates which use the terms, then please present an argument > against using such procedures *within the realm of philosophy*. > If you are concerned about the personal problems philosophers > have due to alienation, that's nice, but I think it belongs in > net.philosophers.personalities. I basically agree, but do not be afraid to be verbose. You will need to set a context, you will need to explain that context, you will have to show how that context is different from any previous one that may have been thought. This is why most good philosophical writers write books, and not blanket statements. Quantisizing reality into symbols is not an easy task. It is especially important that we remember that most people are capable of interpretting statements in multiple contexts, and do so as a means of comprehension until the pieces fit into something that they can either accept or reject. There has to be an aesthetic beauty or the result is really ugly. This is not philosophy as much as it is psychology, but I feel the point is a valid one. > Your response seems to indicate that I was accusing you of > sheeplike behavior. If you go back and look at the context, you > will see that I was referring to Doug Gwyn's dig at > "conventional" philosophical thought, and I was arguing that > "conventional" philosophers are no more shallow or sheeplike than > anyone else. There is an implicit perjorative sense to the word > "conventional" that shouldn't be attached here without > demonstration of its appropriateness. O.K. But, conventional thought leaves little room for improvement, wouldn't you say? The road leads to obscurity. We have demonstated the extreme. We have in fact shown the extreme not to exist except in our imaginations. This seems to be leading somewhere. Should we strike the words from our vocabulary? Should we dismiss the whole thing as misleading? The problem strikes me as a personal one. I choose to expand the meanings of words so that I may be taken gracefully. If we are forced to pick a number between one and ten, are we to say ten represents perfection and therefore doesn't exist in reality, thereby forced to pick a number between one and nine? This is an analogy to the problem we face in choosing our words, and I feel that having a greater variety of words to choose from is intrinsically more descriptive. Philosophy and Psychology are almost opposite poles. I feel there should be a merging of the two trains of thought if one is to somehow retain some measure of accuracy in dealing with reality. A methodical proof based on axioms of reality is not nessesarily a bad thing, it is an excersize in argument, but in order to show something as valid, the terms must be agreed on. A protocol is established, and constantly reinforced. These tokens we pass around as words must somehow represent something, and as a matter of procedure, you may take into consideration that I was proposing a new protocol that I feel has relevance in more ways than simply systematic proof. I do believe I understand the basic premise of dichotomy, but I don't feel there is any need to conform to that particular use of the vocabulary. What was being presented was the existance of basic differences between reality and the way in which we percieve reality. These I agree with, but to take it another step further, how do we measure this difference, and what is the trend? This is what I speak of when I refer to resolution. I will now quote the dictionary ( a reasonably accurate reference, I use it occasionally, it is usually a good place to start ): res-o-lu-tion (rez'e-loo'shen)n. 1. The state or quality of being resolute. 2. A course of action determined or decided upon. 3. A formal statement of a decision put before or adopted by an assembly. 4. The action of seperating something into its constituent parts. I would like to add to this. Resolution is the reoccurence of a solution. That is, the problem of reality is never completely solved, and any conceptions we have must be modified in the presence of conflicting evidence. As we gain more accuracy in our perceptions, we are able to resolve reality to greater detail. So resolution is also a means of measuring accuracy, the greater the resolution, the more accurately that particular aspect has been measured. There exists always a degree of error in reality, and through conceptual evolution, that is, the collective intelligence inhabiting the universe, this error becomes increasingly small. Resolution is the disintegration of complexity, a recognition of infrastructure, A transcending of scale. A discovery of stabile primitive components and how they interact. How the unrelated are related. How we use erroneous devices to create less erroneous devices. A trend of life. An opposing process to entropy. >>A metaphor is like a beam of knowledge shining through a cloud of >>nonsense. What was once dark, is now visible. It is a puzzle >>where the pieces interlock, and is built upon foundation. An >>analogy of symbols. A means of growth. A gratification that makes >>learning at all worthwhile. A common ground. A certain grace. > Metaphor is a very powerful tool which can lead to knowledge > through perception of relationship. But it is not knowledge > itself. It can lead to false belief and denial of distinction. > The dazzling beauty of metaphor often blinds the mind's eye. > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) How will anyone ever see the truth if they refuse to look because it appears ugly? The metaphor is a foundational reinforcement that prevents the whole thing from becoming lop-sided. No, I don't propose that any sort of euphoria can exist, and for a good reason. Pain is nessesary. But I feel that there is no need to inflict pain except in extreme cases. There is a path of least resistance. We need to be capable of sensing this. I see graceful resolution as a resolution. Isolation barriers serve as potential catastrophy. We can only compare similarities, and we must first find the similarities before resolving the differences. The key is sensitivity, a willingness to trust your senses. A willingness to respond to observation. A willingness to make mistakes, for you are always in error to some degree. I need no rigorous proof to show that the sky is blue, I merely have to show you, and see whether or not you agree. If there is a serious dispute, I will show you again. If disagreement continues, one of us will have to yield, eventually. < as some of the chips get scraped off the table, a new round of betting begins > ----{ john williams }---- (DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA