Re: magic, morality, and mechanization

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <7kl9h5dv8pi6rdeao661pqm2jrchqndqvl@xxxxxxx>,
no@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <s3d4h5dqt5evv01r4e2gvc2ma9v6t2285m@xxxxxxx>,
no@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...

What's with the prediction thing? I mean, attempting falsification is
one of the procedural details, right? Or are you talking about
Nostradamus stuff, "the world will end at mid-day during the fourth
new moon of the year of the pig", or just what are we talking about?

Predictions, such as those made by Newton's Laws. Elliptical planetary
orbits, for example. Predictions of this kind are of course typical of
theories that are potentially falsifiable.

Yes, but what of those that are not definitely falsifiable, should
they be considered invalid out-of-hand?

Some would argue that, although I don't. I'm at a loss as to the
relevance, though.

We can record evidence of itching noses (self reporting or any
associated physiological changes etc.) and correlate it with sneezing
frequency.

Yet if I self-report correlations between certain mental states and
concurrent or subsequent events that is considered invalid, as are any
conclusions I might have drawn from the correlations, even though they
have been self-tested repeatedly?

Self-reporting the alleged correlations after the event is no good.
It's well established that we often see patterns when none are there.
What would be valid would be if you were to write down the theory ("if
I dream of cats, the price of gold will rise a week later", or
whatever), then record every dream of cats over a period and compare
the resulting dataset with data on the price of gold.

Suppose you go off and teach JF how to properly describe the feeling
he had with the sparrowhawk incident, then if he comes back and
describes it clearly and understandably, maybe that'll give me some
clues. Until then I'll have to continue groping for words (on any
occasions when I have reason to expect them not to be
ridiculed-by-default).


We do have means of measurement if the subject is capable of reporting
such matters, or if they can be traced by way of brain monitoring of
some kind.

The phrase "brain monitoring of some kind" is transparent handwavium,
so absent said physical monitoring we are left with nothing more than
the subject's reporting of the phenomenon, which can readily be
sniffed away as risible.

You spoke of itching noses and smells of almonds; I don;t see why we
couldn't correlate these with electrical activity in the brain. But
anyway, self-reporting is just fine so long as it's done right.

The devil's in the details of "done right" though. Between the point
where you can recognize something, act on it, and do that enough times
to be certain enough of the correlation that you'll bet your life on
it, and the point where you can describe whatever it is you've
recognized well enough that someone else can make sense of it, there's
a very large distance.


None of that is relevant; it's as absurd as arguing that issues arise
in our measurement of electromagnetic forces because our instruments
use such forces.

I'm sure that Werner Heisenberg would have found your opinion that
electromagnetic instruments do not affect that which they attempt to
measure to have been very valuable in his research.

He would have had no problem with the statement I made; indeed, his
work was based on observations made using just such instruments.

Arguing over what dead guys would have said or done or thought is a
waste of everything involved. I disagree, for whatever that's worth.


Measurement is always an issue. I could perhaps restate Newton's
three laws of motion as a beginning, or not. The effort could be
worth the time, or not. I have a sufficient number of other things to
do that I prefer to wait until I've learned enough to make restating
Newton's and Kepler's "laws" a triviality. It isn't a matter of
inventing something new after all, just of seeing old things from a
slightly new perspective.

So either you can't be bothered revolutionising our understanding of
nature, or you have nothing to say,

When every attempt to even discuss the possibility that things may be
as they are for reasons other than what has traditionally been
accepted brings about attack and ridicule, what motivation should
there be to attempt the education of, or even communication with, the
ridiculer? The motivation instead is to let them remain ensconced in
their belief that they hold the only true and complete understanding
of reality, and stay out from under the inverted pyramids they have
constructed upon the undeniably stable foundation of a flat earth.

Think of the fame when you demonstrate the truth of your new
principles!

Please tell me you are not dumb enough to think that I post under a
made-up name because I want to become famous. Fame is the worst
disease known to Man, bar none.


Think of the gnashing of teeth among those benighted
adherents of conventional science!

Why should I care? No really, why should I care. That my own life is
such that I can find no way to complain about it is sufficient.
People want to think I'm deluded or whatever, that's their problem; it
works for me and other people can scale their own fish, especially
those who want to explain to me how stupid I am not to accept the
conventional view of things.


Surely it's worth setting them
down. If you really *do* believe in them, of course...

I suppose that would include people who imply that I'm just flapping
my gob.


although you say it using many
words -

I am currently in a state of writing withdrawl where my only outlet
for the damned words is the content of a few posts; I apologize for
the weakness implied. On the other hand, it seems to be that the more
precision that can be brought to bear when attempting to express a
given thought, the less likely it is to be grossly misinterpreted.

If only prolixity equated to precision!

Yes, if beggars were horses they'd be there for anyone to ride as they
wish.


you remain studiously ambiguous on the issue.

Piffle, where have I been ambiguous? If you can bring yourself to
state some question clearly enough to allow an unambiguous reply, it
will be forthcoming.

You've never specified just what these special correlations you see
consist of.

Oh goodness, I do apologize for being too busy attempting to defend
myself against the attack of unthinking conformists to ever get to the
meat of the topic. Here, a few pearls headed your way to ease your
hunger, I'm sure you'll find them tasty.


In point of fact, though, it's not really the case that some things
have been ascribed to random chance in an absolute sense. Certain
interpretations of wave function collapse do invoke randomness, but to
many (including me) these seem obviously inconsistent. In more modern
interpretations, the wave function does not collapse but only appears
to, and the multiverse as a whole is deterministic.

Sorry but it seems like you've just said "certain [things] do invoke
randomness" but some people think that doesn't make sense?

I've said that certain *interpretations* of quantum mechanics have
invoked randomness, and that some people do indeed think that these
make no sense.

I don't feel the need this morning to jump upon your every attempt to
backpedal.

There's no backpedalling involved. I refer to the Copenhagen
interpretation.

Ah. Well, it really doesn't matter whether there's any objective
reality behind our experiences or not, if you cut yourself it hurts
and that's that.


But if this is so, it surely has the status of a
hitherto unknown law of nature, one that we have not yet discovered.

Another way of stating the old saw about magic vs technology is that
until you understand it, it's "magic".

I have not mentioned magic anywhere.

Then what the bloody hell are you doing posting in a thread
specifically about "magic, morality, and mechanization"?

Whatever topic the thread started with, it has drifted far from.

Perhaps we ought to let it die then, or move it to a new thread if
that is more appropriate.


Erm... they don't. I fail to see how your two statements add up to
Newton's first law, or anything like it.

I agree that you fail to see it, we are in agreement on that at least.

To be more exact: I submit that no reasonable person would see it.

You're becoming tiresome.


You claim that your behaviour is influenced by emanations from outside
the physical universe -

No, I claim that my body is an accretion of dust that has stuck to
what is me as I have passed through occurrence; the body is effect,
not cause.

I didn't speak of your body, but of your behaviour.

How silly of me to become confused just because you maintain some
illusory view of reality foisted off on you by primary-school
teachers.


I ask, again: at what point do these emanations
affect the physical components of your body such that you type
statements of that sort? And if the impetus comes from such
emanations, what on earth are your neurons up to, and why did they
evolve?

Neurons, bones, blood and guts, those are indications or tracks of
something that has stuck its metaphorical finger into the physical
universe.

So you think your body is a kind of puppet?

No. You're either not paying attention or you're severely constrained
in what you're permitted to think.


If so, the detailed
internal construction seems unnecessary. Consider the internal
differences between a cat, and a glove puppet of a cat...

I've enjoyed near as much of this thread as I can abide for now, so
unless you actually wish to communicate instead of win an argument,
and offer some evidence of actual interest in the topic rather than in
an opportunity to ridicule it, I'll consider my participation in this
discussion to be complete.

--
arggh, is it priate day again?
.

Relevant Pages