Yet another discussion with DoctorDick and Anssi

[Vox]

Moderation Note: These posts were in the thread Life as an accident? but are not even partly on that topic.

 

 

People have said that I seem calm and kind even when the other party seems like they are screaming their lungs out, and I can say I do pay a lot of attention to how I say things in those situations. Just as an example, I consciously avoid writing in second person, and use passive form if I can. It's never "your problem", it's "a problem". Otherwise I'm just risking the whole post being seen as a a personal attack, which would pretty much shut down all real communication. After all, the more upset the other party seems, the more I should try to make them feel comfortable, right? At least in so far that I am at all interested in rational dialogue. The more upset someone is, the less rational thoughts they will have, it's that simple.

 

-Anssi

 

May I ask how did you learn to actively observe your own behaviour in communication with others?

 

From my opinion standard human approach is "I think" as something which is solid and logical, "I know" etc...again personal view: Our self image creator; Ego create´s these positions and enforces "I" and "them" kind of opposition due ego do not exist fully if there is no conflict.. as you mentioned if you speak in "third person" ego do not like that, it wants to be involved and be directly linked. therefore discussion threads are so easily sidetracked to ego arguing with another ego.. Also it is good to remember that it is ourselves who create these emotions within us; feeling of being right, wrong, happy, sad, angry. We create anger ourselves, not that another person somehow "makes us angry" it is interesting to see how words fools us in this respect. It is all about your own reaction to stimulus.

 

 

It is a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won't go.

 

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

 

Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.

 

Bertrand Russell

 

I need to admit, I tend to provoke deliberately people in discussions to see they basic reactions to provocative "stimuli":evil:

 

In general, observe what you are thinking and feeling and undertsand that is only you who can change responses.

[lawcat]

I don't remember using the word “impertinent”. It certainly wasn't the emotion I felt. Your posts simply seemed continually off subject to me and it was pretty clear that you weren't interested in “exact” analysis.

 

No and the reason is simple. Only you and Anssi are able to explain ontology as epistemology. You set out to derive a formula for all human-made explanations which rests on consideration of circumstances, yet denies ontology. If you were truly "exact" in your analysis, your "circumstances" should be labeled "thoughts," or something to that effect. So, your quote

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

should really be: "An explanation is a procedure which can be characterized by rational probability of truth or falsity of human thoughts."

 

Otherwise, if you are speaking of circumstances, or real events, your formula is either an anachronism to existing theories of sets and probabilities, or merely a characterization rather than synthesis of existing explanations: i.e. all human-made explanations have a probability of being true or false, which we all know.

 

That is my fundamental disagreement which leads me to lack of interest in your presentation. You believe you've discovered something ontological about epistemology (which maybe can be applied to onotlogy of the universe). And I believe you've stumbled upon an anachronism or mere characterization at best.

[AnssiH]

May I ask how did you learn to actively observe your own behaviour in communication with others?

 

I guess I'm more of a "thinking" than "feeling" of Jung's personality types. I.e. not always sensing emotionally how someone else feels, and having been compensating for that via trying to understand people's behaviours logically. And of course I also recognize emotional responses in myself that can't really be rationalized. I mean I'm not a psychopath, I don't think so anyway :confused: Maybe all the "thinking" personality types just are more prone to actively recognize these things in their own behaviour, not just in the behaviour of others :(

 

DD, I think Lawcat's post #42 is resulting from the ambiguity with the word "ontology", which I commented on earlier. I certainly use it in ambiguous manner myself, for instance, by "ontological argument", or "ontological interpretation (of relativity or QM)" I would be referring to some belief regarding the actual reality.

 

On the other hand, by "defined ontology", or "ontological element of a world view", I would be referring to man-made definition, not necessarily seen as literally a component of reality. When I've used the word in this meaning, I've been trying to attach the word "defined" in there.

 

And Lawcat, following the above commentary, I myself would avoid saying "explaining ontology as epistemology" because it can be interpreted as an argument towards idealism. But if "ontology" is taken as referring to the "semantically defined" components of a world-view (i.e. in that definition, one would say multiple CORRECT ontologies exist, as multiple valid possibilites are always being open to us), then yes, you could say DD's work reveals ontology via epistemological considerations. Just, I think most people reading this would mis-interpret the meaning of that sentence

 

-Anssi

[Vox]

I guess I'm more of a "thinking" than "feeling" of Jung's personality types. I.e. not always sensing emotionally how someone else feels, and having been compensating for that via trying to understand people's behaviours logically. And of course I also recognize emotional responses in myself that can't really be rationalized. I mean I'm not a psychopath, I don't think so anyway :confused: Maybe all the "thinking" personality types just are more prone to actively recognize these things in their own behaviour, not just in the behaviour of others :(

 

-Anssi

 

INTJ (no need to reply)

 

OK, from my experience people do not observe very consciously how they behave and why they behaved like they did. Observation is focused to the object, not oneself. So it is admirable skill, to be able to observe itself in rather rational manner

[Doctordick]

Lawcat, I am making this post because I think you are an intelligent person and I have no interest in making you feel belittled. I think Anssi produced an excellent post but I am afraid you are missing some very important issues which he did not cover. If you read this note carefully, I think it is possible that you might come to understand the barrier between us; however, if you just emotionally react to it, you will be wasting time for both of us.

Only you and Anssi are able to explain ontology as epistemology.

We do no such thing. What I have set up is a collection of definitions which I show in detail are capable of representing absolutely any conceivable collection of “thoughts” and any possible relationships between those “thoughts” (how one “thought” influences or leads to another). (I use the word “thoughts” here because you seem to be complaining that thoughts cannot be referred to with the word “circumstances”.)

So, your quote

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

should really be: "An explanation is a procedure which can be characterized by rational probability of truth or falsity of human thoughts."

That is incorrect. The correct transliteration in this case should be: “An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for internally consistent thoughts.” Truth or falsity have absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

 

It is only the rather reasonable presumption that “inconsistent thoughts” imply they are false that brings the issue up. Truth is another matter entirely. I make no assertions about truth beyond the fact that those things which do not violate my equation can not be “proved” false via the given information. (That fact is true as the boundary conditions to be imposed on the solution are exactly the given information: i.e., if the information changes, the solution must be changed to fit the new information. Any reasonable person should comprehend that it is always possible that further information could prove anything to be false, but that “proving something to be true”, except in a tautological sense is impossible.

 

I have used the word “thought” in the above comment in order to accommodate your complaint; however, I think it is a very poor choice because of the inherent implications of the word. Certainly every “thought” could be interpreted as a “circumstance”; however, under the normal interpretation of the word “thought”, every “circumstance” could not be interpreted as a “thought” as “thoughts” are commonly constrained to be phenomena associated with human minds. That introduces a limit on the number “thoughts” which can be compared in the analysis of internal consistency. That limit (what can be accommodated by human logic) is so small as to make the problems analyzable through my analytical approach absolutely insignificant.

 

This is exactly the problem I have had with Erasmus and Qfwfq concerning their so called “examples”. You might take a look at this post.

all human-made explanations have a probability of being true or false, which we all know.

Apparently we agree on that issue. The only question I attack is, what constraints are placed upon those explanations by the requirement that they be internally self consistent. That is an issue which simply cannot be attacked without proper “exact” notation and a deep understanding of mathematics.

Otherwise, if you are speaking of circumstances, or real events ...

The reality of your “thoughts” is in your mind, not in my analysis. There is absolutely nothing in my analysis which requires anything I am speaking of to be real events.

 

In view of that fact, I personally find it astonishing that all of modern physics turns out to be no more than simple consistency with my equation which, as I have said many times, is no more than an internally consistent tautology. My whole interest in that regard is that (from the point of view inherent in Occam's razor) that is a very significant fact.

 

“Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.”

 

Or, more to the point here,

Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed.

 

Quoted from Principia Cybernetica Web.

 

Have fun -- Dick