Russ, I know that we disagree, but I think there is still some confusion about what, exactly the disagreement is, and I would like to try to clarify.
Being consistent with other discussions that have been had on this list, I am definitely not arguing that, as you put it, "one conceptualizes, and then one acts." I am instead asserting that the distinction you are making between mind and action is bogus. If you carefully study a series of events and then act based on what produced positive outcomes in the past, then you are doing in induction. Period. If I watch you study a series of events and then act based on what produced positive outcomes in the past, I have seen you doing induction. Period. If you act confidently after examining a series of events, then you have faith in induction. At these moments, you have faith in induction, whether you know that is what you are doing or not, and whether you can articulate the rules of induction or not, and whether you have ever heard the word "induction" or not. There is no implication that you can "conceptualize" induction either before the events or afterwards.* Your faith is your behavior is your faith is your behavior -- one does not proceed or follow the other, they are one and the same. (This by the way, is quite compatible with centuries of christian teaching, in addition to being a cornerstone of American Philosophy, in addition to being a reasonable understanding of folk psychology.) Eric *Surely the great minds of the past formalized the rules of induction, and given it a name, as a result of self-reflection, but that is a completely separate issue. Failure to keep those issues separate is at the heart of the confusion in much of philosophy. On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 05:41 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >Eric,> > >>This is >an important point -- and I disagree with you about >it. > >> > >>From my >perspective action precedes conceptualization; from yours conceptualization >precedes action. > >> > >> >You say >"To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to >act as if it was the case'." The implication of that perspective is that one determines what >is the case, i.e., one conceptualizes, and then one acts. I don't >think most people spend most of their time like that. For the most part we just >do whatever we do without first devoting much effort to deciding what is the >case. By deciding something, I mean expressing it in predicates that have >true/false values. We don't tend to do that very much. > > >> > >>It's only after we >act and when we step back and look at ourselves and attempt to >explain ourselves, that we come up with the notion of induction. We say, >this is what the term (scientific or naive) induction means. And by >golly, it looks like we act that way. But that's very different from saying >that we explicitly invoke the framework of induction whenever we >act. > >> > >>To turn it around >would be similar to saying that nature acts according to evolution, i.e., that >nature consults the theory of evolution to decide what it should do next. Of >course that's not true. Nature does not consult a theory to see what it should >do next. It just does what it does. We are clever enough to have developed a >theory of evolution that seems to encompass much of what happens in >nature. > >> > >>And that's true >for most everything most of us do or expect. We don't consult the theory of >induction to decide what to do next or what to expect next. We do or expect >whatever we do or expect Induction is a good way of explaining how we got to >that result. > >> > >>The way you want >to put it suggests that we are programmed to follow certain rules -- where by >programmed I mean that there is some actual symbolic software that >executes when we act. (I don't mean by programmed that we are biologically set >up in a certain way. I'm taking the notion of programming seriously because I'm >a programmer and a program is a symbolically expressed recipe for >behavior.) Only very rarely do any of us consult a >symbolic recipe before acting. And when we do, it's generally not the >recipe for induction. We consult symbolic recipes when we want >guidance for what to do next when the decisions is far more complex >than normal naive induction. > >> >> >> > >-- Russ >Abbott >_____________________________________________> Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > Google voice: 747-999-5105 >> Google+: <https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/> > >> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> >_____________________________________________ > > > > > > >>On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <<#>> wrote: > > >But Russ, come on now. To >'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it was the case'. > > >Thus, if we act as if induction is the case, we have faith in >induction. If I see that someone routinely relies on induction when trying to >figure things out, and I have seen that he acts with confidence once the >inductive process is complete, then I have seen his faith. If we act as if the >world will be here tomorrow, then we have faith that the world will be here >tomorrow. If we act as if the bible is true, then we have faith in the >bible. > >The issue of self-consciousness, or people's ability to verbalize >basic principles, is a different issue. I am afraid I do not have the same >faith in people's abilities to accurately talk about themselves that you seem >to have. At the least, I have trouble acting as if it were the case ;- >) > >Eric >> >> > > >On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 03:50 PM, >Russ Abbott <<#>> wrote: > > > > >> >> >Nick,> > >>As far as >I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) induction and >faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate whereas faith is an >imported belief. > >> > >>You don't >need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the case. That's >simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit induction to >conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty much as it is now -- >at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to care most about. The >principle of induction simply explicates that way of >behaving. > >> > > >> >> >In contrast, >faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to explicitly for >answers. >> >> > >-- Russ >Abbott >_____________________________________________> Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > Google voice: 747-999-5105 >> Google+: <https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/> > > > >> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> >_____________________________________________ > > > > > > > > >> >>On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson <<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >Hi doug, and Bruce > > > > > > > >I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response. > > > > > > > > >I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction] > > > > > >is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back > > > > > >into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction. > > > > > > > > >Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things. > > > > > > > > >Nick > > > > > > >From: <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts >Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone? > > > > > > >Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing. > > > >> > > >> > > >--Doug >> > > >On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it. > > > > > > > > >I was asking you to expand my experience. > > > > > > >Or not. > > > > > > >Nick > > > > > > >From: <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> [mailto:<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts >Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM >> > > > >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone? > > > > > > > ><Lilke> >>> >> > > >On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: > > > >Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am >-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we >inhabit as is possible. > >To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the > > > > >definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively >uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There >are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement. > > > > > >Bruce >> > > >On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson ><<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: > > >> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies >> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my >> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that > > > > >> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an >> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking >> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these > > > > >> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. >> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off >> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the > > > > >> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR >> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming >> >> >> >> Nick >>> > > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >-- >Doug Roberts ><#13693cc0c4186d0d_> ><#13693cc0c4186d0d_> >> > > ><http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> > > >> > > ><> - Office ><> - Cell > > > > > > > > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >-- >Doug Roberts ><#13693cc0c4186d0d_> ><#13693cc0c4186d0d_> >> > > ><http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> > > >> > > > ><a value="" href="">505-455-7333</a> - Office ><a value="" href="">505-670-8195</a> - Cell > > > > > > > > >============================================================ > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > > > > > > > > >>> > > ============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > > >Eric Charles > >Professional Student and >Assistant Professor of Psychology >Penn State University >Altoona, PA 16601 > > > > > > > > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
