williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/21/84)
Ripping you to shreds is not pleasurable empathetically. I will attempt to explain this gracefully: > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) 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. Hopefully this has proved valuable to you. ----{ 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
jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/23/84)
#R:decwrl:-341000:ism780b:27500040:000:11263 ism780b!jim Aug 21 22:36:00 1984 > 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. >> 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. >> 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? >> 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. 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. >> 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 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. 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. 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. >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)