Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[Kriminal99]

You would be better off studying philosophy rather than science to get an understanding of the universe (If thats really what you want even). One of the first things you study in philosophy is that the only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...

 

Anyways IMO "squirrel thought" doesn't take into account so many factors as it is based on pure induction... Like the subconsious of the basketball player doesn't secretly know the laws of physics and calculate how to move to get the ball where he wants as much as it processes past experience and how the ball reacts to certain actions to determine how to manipulate it easily.

 

I agree all rational thought is based on "squirrel thought". I think it is in the sense that, in order to say even talk you are using past experience of how to manipulate your vocal cords in order to form words in the same automatic fashion that the athlete knows what to do. I think every thought you have is using automatic processing of ideas you have already formed and seen the truth/relevance of, and you are simply concentrating your consiousness on the experiences which you still do not understand (come up with knowledge of factors which when consider completely explain the outcome) and have not accepted to be controlled by too many high variance factors to "understand" (random).

 

Anotherwords I think pure induction underlies all thought, including logical thought. The premises in any deduction have inductive values (or have values based on the inductive values of the premises involved in their deduction), and even deduction itself has an inductive value (although it might be 100%, ie the number of times we have experienced that A is A)

 

Of course then you simply have to look at the generality and other problems of induction to realize why people are so inept when it comes to reason. If you control every factor when deciding how to group experiences to use them as a history to predict the future, then you can't have more than one experience per category and induction is rendered useless. If you ignore certain factors you never know when you are going to ignore something that is signifigantly correlated with the outcome. You can only use induction to determine if an ignored factor is signifigant towards the outcome, but then you have a circular argument. And yet this is how we think.

 

And far too often it seems like people while using "squirrel thought" apply past experience to situations which obviously are extremely different than the situation at hand. Of course this is an entirely necessary part of the thinking process... Like when the person who plowed corn fields got the idea of how to make a television by looking at the way he plowed his field, we can draw from all of our past experiences in order to suggest ways of dealing with new situations. But at the same time we often find ourselves reasoning in this way when we have no way of knowing that there is any connection between the two situations we are comparing and many belief sets are founded on such poorly reasoned comparisons. And sometimes those belief sets are not things that can be confirmed or denied and so nothing challenges our poor reasoning.

 

Your story about your book greatly sickens me. However there are people who will publish books which challenge the foundations of current theories in fields like mathematics etc. I remember taking a class specifically on the foundations of mathematics, and although everyone that we read lived around the 20's there were people alive now who were still doing this type of thing and being published. For the most part I think the people being published on this type of thing are already known and were well known at prestigous schools before that, most likely because thats what it takes to overcome the droves of sheep minded fools contained within the intellectual community and get your ideas recognized for what they are. For instance the professor who taught that class (a phd in mathematics) would be met with blatant hostility at his lectures by other mathematicians. If I were you first I would make sure your communication skills are up to the standards of books written by people like these (communicating complex ideas is really difficult) and then perhaps try to get into contact with them, share ideas for fun, and get information from them about where you might find publishers etc.

[Doctordick]

You would be better off studying philosophy rather than science to get an understanding of the universe (If thats really what you want even).

I am sorry but I have yet to be very impressed by the accomplishments of philosophy. :hammer:

Anyways IMO "squirrel thought" doesn't take into account so many factors as it is based on pure induction...

I defined the adjective "squirrel" to mean it was not deductive logic. :) That makes it everything else. The only issue of significance is that it's conclusions should be open to doubt. :) I sincerely doubt you even have an inkling of what I was talking about when I introduced the concept of squirrel conclusions. I think you have made up your own idea quite askew of what I am asking people to consider. :)

One of the first things you study in philosophy is that the only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...

Say, I would love to see the proof of that. It seems to me it must be along the same lines as the proof that "man will never fly". Or perhaps it is more alone the lines of "nature arbores a vacuum". There are more ways to skin a cat than conceived of in your philosophy ... but not in mine; because I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe! :) Which, of course, any intellectual knows is impossible. :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

Have you read Lewis Carroll's very amusing spoof of modus ponens? It is quite well known.

 

As for "nature abhors a vacuum", Aristotle was quite right, as long as you understand what he meant. One must realize that ancient philosophers weren't speaking the same language as we do and I don't mean because he wrote in Greek. Even philosophers such as Galileo and Newton expressed concepts in a way different from 20th century lingo and this has even caused misconceptions about what exactly they meant to say.

 

You depict a sadly true picture of research, yeah, they care mostly about their careers. Blame them! :) It's understandable. However, I don't think it's impossible to get your book published, it's more a matter of how much interest it would strike up. There are a few people that are interested in the whole thing, as long as they find it worthy.

 

So, how is your way of explaining the universe? Differential equations are something I understand, Lagrange and Hamilton don't terrify me. Although I chose not to go on for a PhD, my GR course was a course shared with the PhD ones. All I'm short on is time, especially online, and I'm a bit rusty at calculations, actually integration never was my greates knack, so don't ask me to do formal calculations that you've already done yourself! I'm sure however that you've got those down well enough that it's mainly a matter of following your arguments.

[Doctordick]

No, I hadn't read the spoof; so I googled it to see what you were talking about. I believe the issue is "acceptance" itself: i.e., if you have accepted it then it follows that you will accept it; which is an inductive argument. That is to say, logic itself is an inductive creation and I won't disagree with that. :lol: But we are getting into things which are quite subtle and considerable time can be wasted in that "unexplored abstract conceptual morass" I mentioned earlier. In order to save time, I would like to concentrate on the most direct path through it in order to reach that clearing I referred to before I exhaust your span of attention. It is only after you begin to see the view from there that you will take what I say seriously. :)

I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

If you could see where I want you to go, I wouldn't have to lead you. :)

 

As I said, the starting point is a careful definition of exactly what your destination is to be. We all accept that we want to understand but I don't think anyone seriously considers exactly what that requires. As I said, I believe that the desire to understand is fulfilled by the ability to explain it (whatever "it" happens to be). That is why my first interest is in establishing what I believe to be a totally general abstract definition of an explanation. (By establishing, I mean that you and I can agree as to what is to be meant by the term throughout my arguments). :)

 

In order to clarify my thoughts, I will begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information (or labeled as such). It thus follows that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The next obvious issue is then, exactly what does an explanation do to (or for) information? :)

 

I suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies that one has predictable expectations concerning information not known. It follows that "an explanation" constitutes a method which provides one with those expectations for that unknown information. :)

 

Thus it is that I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. It follows that any model of an explanation must posses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and a mechanism which will generate expectations for possible additional information. Just as an aside, it should also be clear that the very first requirement of a "valid" explanation is that those expectations be completely consistent with what is known. :)

 

If you refuse to accept that as a definition of "an explanation" consistent with the common understanding of "an explanation" then you need to give me either an example of an explanation which provides no "expectations" or a mechanism which provides "expectations" which cannot be considered to be an explanation.

I don't think it's impossible to get your book published

Honestly, at this point, I have very little interest in getting it published. Considering my experiences, I doubt very much that anyone could understand it without my help anyway; not because of any brilliance on my part but rather that my thought processes are somewhat strange and things that seem obvious to me don't seem to even occur to them. I have noticed that those who do read it seem to pay very little attention to what I say, making what seems to me, rather astounding misinterpretations (reading between the lines what they think I am trying say). So my goal would be to drag someone competent through the arguments, correcting their course when they misunderstand so that, after I die, at least someone exists who has some idea of what I have discovered. What happens after that is certainly not important to me personally. :)

 

I think you are fully capable of following my arguments if you care to. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

I'm more and more curious to know whether you have tried reading any of Popper's work and what your opinion is, or would be. Specifically, "Conjectures and Refutations", especially in the latter parts where he really gets into falsificationism and discusses expectations and probabilities. I think you would find many of the things he says there interesting. :) :)

[Doctordick]

I'm more and more curious to know whether you have tried reading any of Popper's work and what your opinion is, or would be. Specifically, "Conjectures and Refutations", especially in the latter parts where he really gets into falsificationism and discusses expectations and probabilities. I think you would find many of the things he says there interesting. :) :lol:

No, I have not read anything of Popper's though I might be persuaded to do so just to be familiar with it. From the references I have seen, I get the impression it is very concerned with issues embedded in that great "unexplored abstract conceptual morass" I mentioned earlier. :eek2: I sort of side step the entire morass with a little subtle slight of hand. That is, in fact, the purpose of my division between "squirrel" constructs and "logical" constructs. I can admit I need and use those squirrel constructs without admitting they are valid by keeping my references to them abstract and open. (I think you will understand that better as we get further along.)

 

I presume you are willing to accept my definition of "an explanation" as you made no complaints. If I am in error, I would appreciate your letting me know. Metaphorically speaking, it is a boat constructed to carry us across that swamp of definition where no secure footing can be found. That boat needs to be tight enough to avoid sinking into the morass. :)

 

The definition was: "an explanation" is a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing any body of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the following primitive definitions: define A to be a set; define B to be a set consisting of an unordered finite collection of elements of A and finally, define C to be a set consisting of a finite collection of sets B.

 

We can then refer to the "given known information" as C. A little thought should make it clear why the definition of those three sets was required. We needed two very specific things: first the "given known information" cannot consist of "what is to be explained" as, if we knew the entirety of A we would need no method of obtaining expectations (we would know exactly what elements A consisted of); and second, we need some way of referring to a change in C as, if C cannot change we once again know all that can be known and no method is required. Please note that the representation has made utterly no constraints on what A, B and C are other than the finiteness of B and C.

 

The finiteness of B and C is an important issue. A lot of people think of infinity as a number which it is not. Infinity means that "no matter how many you have, you haven't finished", a rather different concept. If either B or C were infinite, it would not be possible to "know" the "known information" and the definition of "an explanation" fails as the concept has internal problems :) .

 

The second fundamental component is the definition of the explanation itself: we need an abstract way of expressing the method referred to. It seems fairly clear that we need two significant things in order to express an actual method of obtaining expectations from that known information. First, we need a set of reference labels for the elements of A (so that we may know and discuss what we are dealing with). Given that, we need an abstract way to express our "expectations" such that there exists no circumstance which can not be dealt with. The simplest approach is to use the element reference labels to specify all the elements in a hypothetical B and then ask if such a B is a possibility. The answer for all B making up C is either yes or no (the hypothetical B is either part of the known information or it is not). Our explanation must yield an estimate of our "expectation" that the hypothetical B could be a member of C as more information is obtained. Defining "yes" to be one and "No" to be zero, that "expectation" may be represented by a number greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one.

 

If you examine the above carefully, you should see that the "expectations" (that they are represented by numbers is not really a significant issue) are a "function" of B in the common sense that the answer depends directly upon what B is chosen. I am pointing out two common misunderstandings with regard to the definition of "a functional relationship". In the first place, the concept, "a functional relationship" extends far beyond "mathematical" functions and secondly the definition of a function (even a mathematical function) does not require that the relationship be expressible in terms of known mathematical relationships. All that is required to define a function is that a procedure exists which will yield the result of the function once a specific argument is known. If that result is known for every possible argument, then a table can be made and the required procedure can be the simple process of looking up the answer. The point of this discourse is to defend the assertion that the existence of an explanation implies the existence of a function which will yield one's expectations.

 

One cavil which can be brought up here is that the above argument seems to require exact specification of expectations for the unknown B's. With regard to that issue (which I believe turns out to be moot anyway) all the definition of the function requires is that some answer be placed in that table and the answer actually need not be a number. If the possessor of that explanation cannot provide us with any comments for a specific entry, then I think one could say that their explanation falls short of what is desired: i.e., they haven't actually managed to explain A. :wave:

 

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(B) is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

 

I hope you find what I have said at least acceptable as a defined basis for an abstract discussion. If not, please give me a careful description of issues you feel uncomfortable with. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Kriminal99]

I am sorry but I have yet to be very impressed by the accomplishments of philosophy. :)

I defined the adjective "squirrel" to mean it was not deductive logic. :) That makes it everything else. The only issue of significance is that it's conclusions should be open to doubt. :) I sincerely doubt you even have an inkling of what I was talking about when I introduced the concept of squirrel conclusions. I think you have made up your own idea quite askew of what I am asking people to consider. :)

Say, I would love to see the proof of that. It seems to me it must be along the same lines as the proof that "man will never fly". Or perhaps it is more alone the lines of "nature arbores a vacuum". There are more ways to skin a cat than conceived of in your philosophy ... but not in mine; because I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe! :) Which, of course, any intellectual knows is impossible. ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

Im sorry you had trouble understanding philosophy. It is rarely followed by the type who is driven by a need to appear intelligent through artificial means rather than being directly driven by a need to understand the world around them.

 

It was all non deductive reasoning that I was referring to when I was talking about induction. All intuition is driven by induction. Our use of deduction even involves the use of induction to evaluate premises it is based on, and also as a double check on things we deduce to make sure again they are not founded on false premises. When you get on a bus and remain standing and the bus swerves, and you automatically and succesfully react so that you do not fall down it is not because your mind subconsiously knows the laws of physics and used them to calculate exactly what you needed to do. It is because your mind has a wealth of memories it can process (deduction, removing factors etc) to come up with a clear coarse of action.

 

A proof of an infinite regress? You know when I said that about being what you learn in philosophy I was attempting to remind you I had no idea that you would have never been exposed to this type of thing... For that matter it is usually religous nuts that have trouble with this type of thing rather than scientists, because scientists can see what is meant by this just by breaking down the world into smaller and smaller particles. What you think there is nothing smaller just because we lack all ability to see past a certain point? Or to see in a certain way?

 

So you have an explanation for the universe... Whats to stop someone from asking what drives the system you have depicted in your mind? (or any so called "understanding" or "explanation" of the universe, traditionally referring to god) Back in the day the religous guys claim if there was a self explaining truth it could serve as a stopping point, and god was a self explaining truth (because hey, its god). Speaking in terms of how we actually think I guess this would be the equivalent of something (other than A = A the basis for deduction) that a person would see to be true 100% of the time at which point we would just accept it as true. But since it was based on induction it could still be doubted, as can all inductive claims be. The truth is the idea of a self explaining truth doesn't even make sense.

[Doctordick]

Im sorry you had trouble understanding philosophy.

That seems to imply that you cannot comprehend the idea that someone could understand philosophy and still fail to be impressed by its accomplishments. :) If that is true, you should at least be able to lay out a few of those impressive world shaking accomplishments instead of berating me for not being impressed. :)

A proof of an infinite regress?

No, a proof that the "only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...". :) That is a rather all consuming assertion, as I said, a conclusion in the vein of "man will never fly". Please give your proof that "more links in an infinite regress" is the only explanation of the universe science will ever discover. :)

For that matter it is usually religous nuts that have trouble with this type of thing rather than scientists, because scientists can see what is meant by this just by breaking down the world into smaller and smaller particles.

Oh, I see, if I were a decent scientist, it would be obvious to me that "infinite regression" is the only path to success. :) :) ;)

So you have an explanation for the universe... Whats to stop someone from asking what drives the system you have depicted in your mind?

Nothing! :D And my answer is actually quite funny although you couldn't begin to understand without following my thoughts. There is nothing to stop someone from asking and the answer to the question itself (if you understood my arguments) would be clearly nothing! :)

The truth is the idea of a self explaining truth doesn't even make sense.

I suppose that is the great world shaking conclusion of philosophy which is supposed to impress me so much. ;)

There are more ways to skin a cat than conceived of in your philosophy ... but not in mine; because I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe! :) Which, of course, any intellectual knows is impossible. :)

I guess you must be one of the intellectuals I was referring to. ;) As an aside, let me point out that I said "I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe", I didn't say that I ignored the issue. The point is that there is another route which is not "infinite regression" but is instead a holistic attack. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Doctordick]

I'm more and more curious to know whether you have tried reading any of Popper's work and what your opinion is, or would be. Specifically, "Conjectures and Refutations", especially in the latter parts where he really gets into falsificationism and discusses expectations and probabilities. I think you would find many of the things he says there interesting. ;) :)

I ran across a book by Karl Popper; his "Objective Knowledge" published in 1979. "Conjectures and Refutations" (which was apparently published in 63) is referred to so I would expect the later presentation to be representative of his thoughts. :confused: Honestly, I have been so far quite disappointed. :( I find his thoughts rather simple minded and unremarkable (he hammers away at exactly the same definitive conundrums clouding the vision of all the philosophers I read). Many times he mentions issues of significant importance but invariably fails to even consider the possibility of handling them. :confused:

 

I don't think the man has much imagination to speak of and I find it very difficult to hold his intellect in high regard. :edizzy: On the other hand, he did bring up a concept which might be quite valuable as a communication tool. "Truth" as a scientific concept is hard to justify as it is fundamentally impossible to delineate. Popper instead uses the term "reliable" which is actually quite easy to define and defend. According to Popper's position, a theory is "reliable" if its predictions are consistent with what is known. :) Now that seems to be a reasonable quality to delineate and, if you can comprehend its implications, it also sheds considerable light on exactly what I have discovered. Perhaps you can understand it from that perspective. ;)

 

By following a path totally ignored by the scientific community (that is, creating an abstract definition of an explanation and examining the consequences and range of that definition) I have come across a unique abstract explanation which is both simple and easy to evaluate. I can prove that this particular explanation is 100% reliable (that is, it must, by construction, always yield exactly what is known and that it is unique in this regard) but, more important than that, I can show that there is a 1:1 mapping between the defined concepts and operations of any internally consistent explanation of anything and the defined concepts and operations of that specific abstract explanation. That is, I can show a specific step by step procedure which will convert any explicit given explanation into my abstract solution.

 

As I said, my purpose was to communicate this solution to someone; I had hoped you would have the education and wherewithal to follow me. So far, I can see nothing in your reaction except simple adamant refusal to think about anything I say. I presented to you an abstract definition of an explanation. You neither agreed to work with that definition nor gave any reason as to why you felt that definition was unacceptable. You simply walked away from the conversation without even a parting comment. I found that to be extremely rude. :confused: I was hoping you were more scientifically objective than that. :doh:

 

By the way, the critical issue in being able to understand the universe revolves around a very significant fact totally ignored by every philosopher and scientist I have ever talked to. That issue is the fact that, when it comes to the universe (i.e., "everything", as that is the very definition of "the universe"), definition of one's senses is part of the "explanation" and not part of "what is to be explained". Everyone presumes, without even the slightest thought about it, that their explanation of the universe is based upon information gained through their senses. :frown: The problem with this position is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the fundamental source of that information) until after we have modeled the universe. This is a dilemma that not one of you "great thinkers" has even begun to consider. It is, in fact, the very key to understanding itself. :xx:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Kriminal99]

That seems to imply that you cannot comprehend the idea that someone could understand philosophy and still fail to be impressed by its accomplishments. :confused: If that is true, you should at least be able to lay out a few of those impressive world shaking accomplishments instead of berating me for not being impressed. :confused:

No, a proof that the "only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...". :xx: That is a rather all consuming assertion, as I said, a conclusion in the vein of "man will never fly". Please give your proof that "more links in an infinite regress" is the only explanation of the universe science will ever discover. :confused:

Oh, I see, if I were a decent scientist, it would be obvious to me that "infinite regression" is the only path to success. :) :) ;)

Nothing! ;) And my answer is actually quite funny although you couldn't begin to understand without following my thoughts. There is nothing to stop someone from asking and the answer to the question itself (if you understood my arguments) would be clearly nothing! :edizzy:

I suppose that is the great world shaking conclusion of philosophy which is supposed to impress me so much. :(

I guess you must be one of the intellectuals I was referring to. :frown: As an aside, let me point out that I said "I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe", I didn't say that I ignored the issue. The point is that there is another route which is not "infinite regression" but is instead a holistic attack. :doh:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

There are a limited supply of approaches to understanding the world around us, and they have all been explored in basic form within philosophy. If you aren't going to claim you have a self explaining truth regarding the world, its probably some form of coherentism (belief sets which contain enough linked information that they seem to relieve any feeling of doubt) which suffers from the problem of not being uniquely capable of explaining events. Or one of those "solutions" like Lehr's solution to global skepticism that really doesn't claim anything but simply motivates acceptance of uncertainty until the uncertainty is removed, which basically doesn't really add anything new to the situation.

 

There really isn't an end to philosophy, if you wanted you could spend your whole life exploring and expanding on ideas that branch off at any point from your experiences in life or using the ideas of other philosophers as springboards. Along the way you learn a lot of things about reasoning and they way we think in general. Yeah its pretty obvious when someone doesn't have a clear understanding of many ideas in philosophy. You don't have to call it philosophy even, we can look at specific things you are doing that I think someone would have learned better than to do while studying philosophy. Thats the point of the rest of my post. Of course your going to dispute this. Ive been on the other side of this argument before, however I believe that I always have the better position because philosophy always contains the basic form of reasoning that other disciplines use. This type of argument really doesn't add anything so I'm going to try and stop here.

 

The line between science and philosophy may be thin, but most people on this forum have tried to limit it to collecting data from experiments regarding the physical world so it would be less vulnerable to objections than if you included the theorizing aspect of it rather than considering that part of philosophy. But like I said even if you want to include philosophy in your science and still call it science alone, your approach is still going to fall into one of the general categories that have already been explored by philosophy. What makes me so confident of this? Because the ideas explored in philosophy looked at the basic means of forming ideas in the human mind, through which any discipline of reasoning is realized. Mathematics is simply deductive reasoning, limited to certain kinds of concepts which are similar enough to limit the problems involved with induction. IE All numbers are so alike that you don't have to worry if 2 numbers are different such that you can't use the same reasoning when adding it to another number to come to an answer.

 

Anotherwords people use deductive and inductive reasoning to form any idea, and we know what all the advantages and disadvantages of this are. When looked at in this simple form it's easy to devise all the strategies for dealing with uncertainties, and any claim from any discipline geared towards the same goal HAS to be a more specific form of one of these strategies because its realized by deduction/induction as a human concieved it.

 

If you claim that your approach "leaves the question open" as in does not deal with uncertainty then you are not really disputing that science leads to an infinite regress. Pointing out that many scientists do not dispute the infinite regress was designed to get you to elaborate on what you are talking about exactly. (and it worked) It seems that you are talking about philosophy, but calling it science. Which is not surprising considering you are a scientist.

 

Again, the answer to the question being nothing sounds really familiar, and I again would like to assert that it may just be a specific version of a previously presented argument. The ideas are just as much your's as anyone elses, but they are nothing new. Also the same question remains regarding your argument... what does the argument actually accomplish? I mentioned coherentism earlier because I think your argument may simply be this Lehr style argument combined with some belief set that is signifigantly coherent that it seems to further reinforce acceptance of uncertainty. Such an argument would probably be vulnerable to the criticsims against both basic types of arguments.

[Qfwfq]

As I said, my purpose was to communicate this solution to someone; I had hoped you would have the education and wherewithal to follow me. So far, I can see nothing in your reaction except simple adamant refusal to think about anything I say. I presented to you an abstract definition of an explanation. You neither agreed to work with that definition nor gave any reason as to why you felt that definition was unacceptable. You simply walked away from the conversation without even a parting comment. I found that to be extremely rude. :confused: I was hoping you were more scientifically objective than that. :confused:

I wasn't meaning to be rude Dick. :confused:

 

We ran into a serious problem with the main customer here and it caused a lot of tension when things had already been getting tight. Sorry but I couldn't reply to your previous post and I couldn't even print it. I find the things you say interesting but I'll need a spot of time to read that post. I won't be posting much these days but I'll have a look at that post.

 

I'm glad you're comparing your thoughts with those of Popper, what I really meant to point out is that, if philosophers have rejected publishing your ideas by saying it isn't philosophy, perhaps you could show them they're wrong, regardless of how much you agree with Popper and other epistemologists. I was hoping to point out more exactly some parts of C&R for you, anyway it's mostly in the later parts of the first half. If nothing else, he uses math a lot and I doubt other philosophers ever told him it isn't philosophy.

[cwes99_03]

The only reason I tend not to read or learn to much philosophy or more especially psychology, is that the tune/tenor of the writings tend to change with the wind. More accurately, I don't believe that any man can come up with the answers to lifes problems. I may post certain viewpoints to further the development of threads, but largely I can always find flaws with either the ideas or their execution.

 

That being said, back to the original post:

I see your point on the differences of what I'll call step by step logic and gut logic. Step by step is what we each do when a totally new problem is presented to us. Gut logic is what we do when a situation similar but not identical to a problem we have already faced is presented to us, and we react as if it were identical to a previous problem.

If it were possible to sit down and do step logic type reasoning with every problem then we would do it. However the world keeps moving on, so we don't take that time with every decision. Instead we largely work on gut logic.

I do propose though a third type of logical reasoning. This would not be gut logic, but instead trained logic. This type of logic says, I've done this exact thing before, and I know what steps of logic are behind it, so I just do it.

Gut and trained types of logic both leave the decision maker open to mistakes. There is only one type of mistake for each, so most people tend to see them as the same. The mistake that is made is misreading the situation. You either misread in that, it isn't identical to a situation you've already faced, or you misread the situation in that, it is similar to a situation you've faces, but the key differences between this new situation and the past situation are enough that the gut reaction would not be a sufficient reaction.

 

As for squirrels misjudging, I see it all the time. My most fond memory was of a squirrel running from another squirrel. He went down a limb and lept for the eaves of a house, but missed. Instead he fell two stories into some lillies of the valley where he laid stunned for a good minute, before getting up and slowly walking back to the tree he had jumped from. I'm not sure, but I swear I saw the same squirrel a couple of weeks later, do nearly the same thing, this time catching just a bit of the eaves, but again falling into the lillies.

[Doctordick]

... but largely I can always find flaws with either the ideas or their execution.

"Always" is a pretty extensive base position. ;) If you think you can, I would very much appreciate your finding the flaws in my presentation. :)

I see your point on the differences of what I'll call step by step logic and gut logic. Step by step is what we each do when a totally new problem is presented to us. Gut logic is what we do when a situation similar but not identical to a problem we have already faced is presented to us, and we react as if it were identical to a previous problem.

Your use of the phrase "gut logic" implies to me that you did not understand the thrust of my introduction of that dichotomy: "squirrel" vs "logical" as adjectives. :(

If it were possible to sit down and do step logic type reasoning with every problem then we would do it. However the world keeps moving on, so we don't take that time with every decision.

You have missed the point. :friday: One cannot do step logic type reasoning with every problem for reasons much more basic than the ones you give. The fundamental problem is that "step by step" logic requires that one be aware of both ends of a step before the decision that the step is logical can be made. There are many problems where the required information far exceeds what we can be aware of. Secondly, any logical argument depends upon axioms which can not be logically proved to be valid (if you ever come up with a proof, that proof itself is dependent upon unproved axioms – and you are in Kriminal99's infinite regress). :eek:

I do propose though a third type of logical reasoning. This would not be gut logic, but instead trained logic. This type of logic says, I've done this exact thing before, and I know what steps of logic are behind it, so I just do it.

Logic is logic! You are missing the point that there is another way of reaching a conclusion which simply is not via logic. :eek:

... but again falling into the lillies.

Then you should understand why I came up with the adjective "squirrel" for the phenomena I wished to separate off. It has occurred to me that you have missed another subtle side point. It is often quite possible to transform some aspect of a "squirrel" conclusion into a "logical" conclusion by applying logic to some segment of that process; however, after that is done, that particular portion is no longer a "squirrel" conclusion.

 

The central purpose of science is to transform everything into "logical" conclusions; however, the point I am trying to bring home is that there is always a basis of "squirrel" conclusions upon which that result is dependent. Survival is possible with "squirrel" thought alone but, though "logical" thought is a powerful tool, it cannot even exist in the absence of "squirrel" conclusions. :fly:

I wasn't meaning to be rude Dick. :(

 

We ran into a serious problem with the main customer here and it caused a lot of tension when things had already been getting tight. Sorry but I couldn't reply to your previous post and I couldn't even print it. I find the things you say interesting but I'll need a spot of time to read that post. I won't be posting much these days but I'll have a look at that post.

 

I'm glad you're comparing your thoughts with those of Popper, what I really meant to point out is that, if philosophers have rejected publishing your ideas by saying it isn't philosophy, perhaps you could show them they're wrong, regardless of how much you agree with Popper and other epistemologists. I was hoping to point out more exactly some parts of C&R for you, anyway it's mostly in the later parts of the first half. If nothing else, he uses math a lot and I doubt other philosophers ever told him it isn't philosophy.

I sincerely apologize to you. :o As I have said a number of times, I have great difficulty finding anyone sufficiently thoughtful to think seriously about what I say with enough education to follow what is to come and, when I lose someone like you, I get a little depressed. :doh: Philosophers tend to get side tracked along the same lines Kriminal99 does. Even popper refers to "metaphysics" as "pseudoscience" implying he doesn't think the subject can be approached scientifically. On the other hand, in deference to him, I intend to make use of the term "reliable" as being a rational and meaningful measure of the value of an explanation. I look forward to hearing critical comments from you. :)

There are a limited supply of approaches to understanding the world around us, and they have all been explored in basic form within philosophy.

That's sort of the position that there is not such thing as original thought isn't it? :D

If you aren't going to claim you have a self explaining truth regarding the world, its probably some form of coherentism (belief sets which contain enough linked information that they seem to relieve any feeling of doubt) which suffers from the problem of not being uniquely capable of explaining events. Or one of those "solutions" like Lehr's solution to global skepticism that really doesn't claim anything but simply motivates acceptance of uncertainty until the uncertainty is removed, which basically doesn't really add anything new to the situation.

:doh: , as a matter of fact it isn't!

The line between science and philosophy may be thin, but most people on this forum have tried to limit it to collecting data from experiments regarding the physical world so it would be less vulnerable to objections than if you included the theorizing aspect of it rather than considering that part of philosophy.

Doesn't that sort of presume "the physical world" is what they think it is? :eek: If you people would get serious, you would realize that "the past", as perceived by the individual, is the only knowledge upon which any "theory" can be built as the individual is aware of nothing beyond that. In the final analysis, if you won't admit the possibility you are wrong, how can you refer to your examination as objective? :hihi:

... your approach is still going to fall into one of the general categories that have already been explored ... What makes me so confident of this?

Because you utterly lack imagination! :doh:

If you claim that your approach "leaves the question open" as in does not deal with uncertainty ...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "Leaves the question open" means "leaves the question open" and nothing more: i.e. make no deduction which depends on a particular inductive result! This can be done by keeping all your deductions abstract. ;)

Nothing! :D And my answer is actually quite funny although you couldn't begin to understand without following my thoughts.

To repeat, you couldn't begin to understand; my mother used to say,"you'll learn a lot more by listening than you ever will by talking", and I think you, for one, need to take that advice seriously.

 

For the others who take the trouble to read this, I will make an attempt to point out how "squirrel" conclusions can to be taken into account without presuming their validity. First, take another look at my abstract specification of the components of an explanation:

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(B) is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

Notice that the single most important issue in understanding an explanation is understanding the nature of the elements of A: i.e., having a clear understanding of the meanings referred to by those labels used to talk about the elements of A. Now, right here, an objective analysis steps into a somewhat sticky issue which turns out to be one of the most significant aspects of leaving that question of squirrel conclusions open. Meaning of references is the central issue of understanding any language and managing to learn a language is not a solution achieved by logic alone. It is in fact almost a perfect example of the essence of a "squirrel" achievement: knowledge of a language is an inductive conclusion and cannot be proved valid (you should note that misunderstanding abounds).

 

It follows directly that, if we are serious about maintaining our objectivity, that set C must include all the information necessary to learn the language within which the explanation is to be expressed: i.e., the true nature of learning an explanation involves learning a language capable of expressing the explanation. The final point on this issue is that symbols (the actual notation used to denote those references called label-i above) are not constrained to be any particular symbols; the issue is a totally open question. Some very significant deductions can be made from this starting point. ;) For the moment, I will allow the reader to think about that issue a bit; perhaps, with a bit of thought, someone can come up with some interesting logical consequences of the circumstance described. :cool:

 

Meanwhile, I will bring up the final factor central to understanding the problem before us. C is supposed to represent the known information that the explanation is designed to explain; however, every explanation also includes elements implied by that explanation and presumed to be actual elements of A though they can not be proved to be so required. These elements also play the role of "known" information (if the explanation is to be seen as 100% reliable). For example, consider the edge of the world in a flat earth world view, the existence of angels in a theory of heaven or the existence of neutrino's in a modern particle physics. Please notice that existence of the neutrino can not be proved in the absence of modern physics theory. Its existence is proved by the requirement that the modern theory of physical reality be correct: conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, conservation of spin, conservation of charge and a number of other complex relationships. Please note that I am not denying the reliability of modern physics, I am merely pointing out that there are serious aspects of the theory which are arrived at inductively and cannot be considered to be absolutely valid. :fly:

 

It is to handle the above circumstance that I introduce a new concept. When a theory is created, the theory itself may require the introduction of elements which are not actual members of the set A. Though these elements are not true elements of A they must none the less obey all the rules the theory requires elements of A to obey (if they don't obey those rules, the theory is clearly unreliable and should be discarded forthwith). On the other hand, when it comes to creating theories, there are very serious differences between the two types of elements. When one creates a theory, that theory must explain elements of A which appear in C and no leeway exists as to the need of that part of the explanation. With regard to these other elements (the ones implied by the theory) the creator of the theory has the freedom to propose or not propose their existence. If proposing their existence makes his theory more reliable (or simplifies the rules of that theory) it behooves him to do so.

 

The point of the above paragraph is to make it clear that, in examining the abstract nature of an explanation, one needs to keep in mind the possibility of two very different components of what is presumed to be known. In order to make these two components easy to refer to, I will call those elements which are actually part of A "knowable data" in the sense that they must exist in every possible reliable theory of A. I will call those elements which are created by the theory "unknowable data" in the sense that it is possible that there exists a reliable theory which does not require them. Notice that I am requiring the rules of any reliable theory to apply as well to that "unknowable data" as to the "knowable data" so that no experimental mechanism (consistent with that reliable theory) can differentiate between them. This difference exists only in the abstract representation of C in that we are free to change one but not the other in our abstract analysis of all possible theories. :friday:

 

I know that the import of "unknowable data" is hard to comprehend and I hope you all take the time to consider it carefully as it has some profound logical consequences. :friday:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[cwes99_03]

I'm sorry, but I believe you yourself did not fully understand my post so I will re-explain.

 

1) our first logical decisions are made at a very young age (when I can't say, and is different for every person)

2) these logic decisions are made based upon what we are taught to be logical (i.e. we learn from others' examples)

3) at some point we begin to make logical decisions based upon our own experiences (though we still include the experiences learned earlier in life as they apply) In this case, I may say that someone else failed at doing this, but having examined their attempt I can logically find a few ways to try it differently and succeed based upon other logical events I have examined in my life.

4) All of these describe a logical process of evaluation of a problem. 1) identify the problem 2) compare the problem to a knowledge-base, to discover similar situations 3) if identical to a previous situation, make decision based upon success failure of previous situation 4) if not make gut logical decision on whether it is similar enough in nature to a previous situation 5) if not, gather more information and test again, 6) once the knowledge base has been exhausted, it may be possible to string together several similar situations to form a logical conclusion

5) If there exists no other similar or identical situation then we have a completely new phenomena. (how many times have you ever encountered a completely new phenomena?)

 

Your definition of "squirrel" logic is saying that squirrels are incapable of remembering any prior or learned event. I.E. they can never watch another squirrel attempt a feat, and make a decision from that attempt as to whether they themselves can accomplish this feat.

 

 

By the way, it is considered bad form to do the following as an answer.

 

:friday: , as a matter of fact it isn't!

 

Why? Because you aren't providing a counter point. Rules of engagement and argument.

[Doctordick]

I'm sorry, but I believe you yourself did not fully understand my post so I will re-explain.

No explanation is necessicary as you totally misunderstood the crux of what I was doing. Nothing you had to say even bears on the issue I was trying to communicate. :friday:

Your definition of "squirrel" logic is saying that squirrels are incapable of remembering any prior or learned event.

No, I am not saying that at all. What I am doing is setting up some definitions of terms I wish to use to make what I am trying to communicate down the line easier to accomplish. I am telling you what I will mean when I use the term "squirrel" as an adjective. You are confusing my aside as to why I chose to use the word "squirrel" with my intended use of the term. If one takes my definition as a given then any conclusion reach by any method which is not formal deductive logic is to be categorized as "squirrel". :doh:

 

In every dictionary I have ever looked at, the word "squirrel" is listed as a noun or, on occasions, a verb. To my knowledge it is not formally defined as an adjective anywhere so I am free to define it (as an adjective) anyway I choose and, as such, it implies nothing beyond the definition I give it. If this kind of formal logic is beyond your ability to follow, I don't think you could understand where I am going anyway so the difficulty you are having becomes rather moot. :eek:

 

With regard to squirrel and their thought processes, I think you would be overestimating the abstract reasoning powers of squirrels if you were to contend that they make decisions via formal deductive logic as understood by the scientific community. :friday:

By the way, it is considered bad form ... Bcause you aren't providing a counter point. Rules of engagement and argument.

Again, you don't seem to be comprehending what I am saying. K99 is simply making an unsupported assertion as to what I am doing; an assertion which I just happen to deny. :friday:

If you aren't going to claim you have a self explaining truth regarding the world, its probably some form of coherentism (belief sets which contain enough linked information that they seem to relieve any feeling of doubt) which suffers from the problem of not being uniquely capable of explaining events.

There is no "argument" here as he has absolutely no idea of what I am doing. :eek:

 

If you want to complain about something, point out the inconsistencies in my logic not my chosen vocabulary. I have already made a number of very significant steps; if you believe those steps to be inconsistent with my explicit definitions, then point out exactly where you think the discrepancy lies. (But do a little better job than what you have so far.) :hihi:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[cwes99_03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

By the way, it is considered bad form ... Bcause you aren't providing a counter point. Rules of engagement and argument.

 

Again, you don't seem to be comprehending what I am saying. K99 is simply making an unsupported assertion as to what I am doing; an assertion which I just happen to deny.

 

What do you think you are doing? Maing unsupported claims that he is wrong. Thus, bad form.

 

And since you seem bent on putting everyone who has a reply to your post down, I won't take it personally that you talk this way to me as well.

 

My post was an answer to your post. What you describe as squirrel logic, I redefine. I point out that squirrels are making judgements based off of information from their own previous experience, or learned experience. That is to say, you believe that they use some other type of "non-logical" reasoning, and I'm saying that they don't. If you do not agree to this statement, then what is your basis for using the word squirrel as an adjective to define this type of "non-logical" reasoning.

 

By the way, look up squirrelish. It is an adjective, used to define squirrel-like behavior.

 

If you were not referring to the actual action of the squirrel as "squirrel logic" then it would be an awfully poor adjective to describe it. An adjective should be descriptive of the object. Otherwise I could say the fish swam aviarily through the water, but aviarily would have some meaning like flapping of wings, which has nothing to do with how fish swim.

[Doctordick]

What do you think you are doing? Maing unsupported claims that he is wrong. Thus, bad form.

He is very definitely wrong about what I am doing as neither you or he have any comprehension of what I am talking about. If you did, you wouldn't be making the comments you are. :friday:

And since you seem bent on putting everyone who has a reply to your post down, I won't take it personally that you talk this way to me as well.

You misunderstand me; I have no desire to put anyone down. :friday:

What you describe as squirrel logic, I redefine.

Then we are clearly not talking about the same thing and I have no idea why you wish to continue. I have no interest in the categories you are talking about. :friday:

That is to say, you believe that they use some other type of "non-logical" reasoning, and I'm saying that they don't.

I wanted a reference to "not formal deductive logic" and I told you I was going to use the word "squirrel" to denote that and apparently upset your sensibilities greatly. I am sorry you find it so difficult to comprehend my approach to abstract reasoning. :eek:

If you do not agree to this statement, then what is your basis for using the word squirrel as an adjective to define this type of "non-logical" reasoning.

I didn't; you did! (see your "redefinition" above) What I meant was something quite different. :hihi:

By the way, look up squirrelish. It is an adjective, used to define squirrel-like behavior.

That's nice; however, I have no interest whatsoever in talking about "squirrelish" behavior. That's why I invented a different term. :eek: I merely told you what I meant but you insist on wanting it to mean something else implying you have no interest in discussing what I am talking about. :doh: That doesn't bother me a bit; why does it bother you so much? :eek:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity