9
   

Trick of the Language?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 06:04 am
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Are you denying objective reality or not?


I am calling it into question. There is no question that the idea of objectivity has it's practical uses, but the common ground is biological and cultural conditioning. I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being, so to speak. In some strange cases, we know that observations depend on the expectations of the observer.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 06:16 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
I like to say that facts are little theories because, like definitions, they rest on or emerge from conceptual contexts.


I agree with this. In a way, we can think of facts as the pieces of a puzzle. We can use the pieces to create any story we want, because we are the ones who decide when the picture is complete.
But the picture is never really complete. We have to augment what we know with what we believe, and continuously make adjustments. And once in a while some new piece of information is revealed that calls for us to revise rather central assumptions in our understanding. Copernicus made this happen. He turned everything up-side-down with the result that those who wanted to understand his work had to shed their assumptions and learn new ones.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 10:03 am
@Cyracuz,

Your wonderful phrase "I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being" is fundamentally equivalent to "Man is the measure of all things."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 10:30 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:


Your wonderful phrase "I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being" is fundamentally equivalent to "Man is the measure of all things."


That judgement would be all correct prevented you had a away of knowing for sure that there is a fundamental distinction in nature between human beings and all things themselves, a difference in the structuring itself, limiting human knowledge to specific human activity, on which case you would have to justify how any sort of "filter" is even in place...moreover the wording "filtering" presupposes something valid in itself which is being filtered...it admittedly points to a transcendental reality...speaking on interaction would be meaningless otherwise. The very same reasoning can be applied to the wording "negotiation" that Fresco is so keen to use...that which is intrinsically ours does not need to be mediated in any way. You might just as well jump all together to total solipsism and stay mute. You save time and energy !
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 11:52 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
No. The filtering analogy is valid from the point of view of comparative physiology. We do not have to specify the nature of "that which is filtered" in order to recognize differential interactions with what we call "the universe". Now it may be the case that what we call "physiology" is itself limited in its application to particular epistemological domains exceeded by that realm we call "cognition", but this does not detract from the import of the empirical data so far obtained from physiology which casts doubt on reductionist views of "reality".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 12:03 pm
@fresco,
Why go comparative what is there to compare in a solipsist approach ? Any admitting distinction from A to B immediately objectify s a World even if only with agents (worst case scenario)...as the control is not exerted by any particular mind but sort of emerges out of a group of proponents, a "negotiating" mind is subjected and not imposing any sort of reality. Tell you more the very concept of "negotiation" without objects is stupid...who is in full control ?
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 12:35 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
In some strange cases, we know that observations depend on the expectations of the observer.
Perhaps you could elaborate on that. I assume you are referring to certain quantum mechanical models. We certainly do not know that quantum observations are dependent on an observer. We might just as easily say that all observation involves physical interaction with the observed. Just as any other interaction requires physical interaction.
Which experiments are you referring to?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 12:39 pm
@medium-density,
Quote:
Though I wait to be disabused of this interpretation by a sufficiently strong argument, of course.

Or in other words, disillusion you of your disillusionment, if I feel that your new understanding is illusory. Wink
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 01:09 pm
@medium-density,
Quote:
Causation for me is a very loose concept which simply means things are implicated in the creation of other things. So a complicated route which consists of "loops/tangles of influence" is, to me, still a causal one. This somewhat all-encompassing definition is why free will has no traction for me as a philosophical idea. I just don't accept any definition of freedom which could apply to our sense/faculty of will.

So from your understanding, does prediction of events have any bearing on the 'causality' of the events? If the future state can only accurately predicted by understanding (modelling) of every interacting "entity"(particle/atom/neuron etc.) which is involved in a system, does this meet your definition of causality? This is a very very computationally complex problem to model. It would require a system "greater" informationally than itself.
Even if you assume that the universe/reality is deterministic, the expectation of predictability is untenable, and for more than just pragmatic reasons, for logical/number theoretic reasons as demonstrated by David Wolpert 2008.
PDF download
Summary
The most one could ever hope for in terms of application of intention is influence, never "control". Regardless of whether or not the universe is wholly deterministic or wholly random.
Randomness is a concept that has as yet only been defined informationally, by the way.
igm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 01:17 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

So from your understanding, does prediction of events have any bearing on the 'causality' of the events?

You can't say that a cause can be shown to give rise to an effect and you can't say that without that cause the effect would appear... it's a paradox.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 02:12 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
We certainly do not know that quantum observations are dependent on an observer.


Perhaps it is better to say that observation affects the event, thereby destroying any hopes of real objectivity. That does seem to be the case in some experiments.

But beyond that, even in everyday life expectations modify what we observe.
What is a good day? Perhaps it is when the sun is hot and the wind is still, and there is no work to be done. But if you are going fishing, a grey sky is better, as it makes it harder for the fish to spot you on the riverbank. If you farm crops, a good day might be when it rains the hardest.
So each of these three, the man on vacation, the fisherman and the farmer looked out the window, each with different expectations. Was it a good day?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 02:22 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Perhaps it is better to say that observation affects the event, thereby destroying any hopes of real objectivity. That does seem to be the case in some experiments.

Certainly Very Happy

That is the distinction (for me) between ontology and epistemology.
I have yet to be convinced that the impossibility of accurate prediction implies the non-existence of ontic reality.
Even from a functionalist definition of 'facts' the assumption of realism seems (to me) to have more predictive power.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 02:27 pm
@JLNobody,
I might add that elephants are the measure of all things...and the same for every other species of being. This is a perspective not a testable hypothesis.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 02:32 pm
@JLNobody,
Why stop there? Wink
Why not ants, or blades of grass, or clouds?
What does it take to have a perspective?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 04:22 pm
@JLNobody,
And maybe objectivity is merely shared perspective. I feel that our cultural background gives us a pretty human-glorifying perspective.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 04:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
And maybe objectivity is merely shared perspective.

That view has it's adherents.
Quote:
I feel that our cultural background gives us a pretty human-glorifying perspective.
I wholeheartedly agree. That is one flaw of perspectives, bias.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 08:23 pm
@MattDavis,
I do feel that all experience--except for that of the most enlightened--is biased. I'm thinking of Nietzsche's perspectivism.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 11:07 pm
@JLNobody,
I still am not sure what the non-arbitrary distinction is to decide who/what has a perspective, per Neithche's understanding.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 12:12 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I have yet to be convinced that the impossibility of accurate prediction implies the non-existence of ontic reality.


I am not arguing for the non-existence of ontic reality. I am merely disputing the belief that ontic reality is the origin of mind. The way I see it, the two must exist and evolve together. The complexity of the world we perceive relates to the complexity of that which we perceive it with.

MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 12:43 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
The complexity of the world we perceive relates to the complexity of that which we perceive it with.
Why would that be true? Even a stricly deterministic reality is theoretically unpredictable within reality weather or not consciousness exists.
Demonstrated by David Wolpert 2008.
PDF download
Summary
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2021 at 10:54:09