Spent the evening updating my new (old) computer. It can be difficult enough learning this kind of stuff, let alone fangle qualia arguments or unravel the balance sheet at the Bank of England to discover how much they were really lending to our wonder bankers. It's clear on this last one that institutional insiders knew the BoE was lending much more to banks than it was letting on in public and the laymen on the public accounts committee in Parliament were so lay they didn't know despite their claims to 'expertise'. Much of what troubles me about subjective decision-making is that it is routine to hide facts we need to make sensible decisions. How might we include this fact in a broad sense in our personal development?
On 25 Nov, 23:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The truth of theories is generally accepted as less reliable than > evidence in epistemic risk. Theories are under-determined by > evidence. Sagan may have put this in a simple manner. > I wonder, Bill and all, how we deal with the esoteric. It can be a > pettyfogging backwater for years and then produce something > insightive. Much of the time it is a distraction from simpler truths > we need to get into our practices, or becomes fodder for the swanker. > It gets in the way, too often, of our personal views, expressions of > what we are as people. I've had a framework in mind for some time > that allows us some protection from gullibility and being gulled. As > you say Orn, there are people who can't even read, let alone classes > of recalcitrant undergraduates in our silver spoon societies. > Eduication has caused a lot of damage, not least in telling so many > their ideas aren't worth spit. I believe (mostly) we should tell > others that their idea is a cow if we think it is - but what oif the > questions about how to do such? I can write academic papers in an > afternoon, but generally don't because they say nothing (as you > rightly guessed of that one on PTSD). Yet we can spark a few ideas > and see people change and do different things. This latter has been > lost under the mounds of paper that academics make their livings > sleeping on. > > On 25 Nov, 19:07, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In a different group, I did some research about a popular atheist, > > Carl Sagan. In closing I added the following. > > > “Do the ideas we believe about the world truly correspond well with > > and reliably represent the world we actually inhabit? > > > The late Carl Sagan–in an interview with questioners in an audience > > asking about seeing truth–suggested that "A simple question: How can > > we recognize the truth? It is, of course, difficult. But there are a > > few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It > > should not contradict itself; that is there are some logical > > criteria. > > It ought to be consistent with what else we know." > > > "We know a great many things–a tiny fraction to be sure, of the > > universe, a pitifully tiny fraction. But nevertheless some things we > > know with quite high reliability." > > > The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we should > > be. > > It involves a kind of courageous self-discipline. > > > I think those three principles at least will winnow out a fair amount > > of chaff. It doesn't guarantee that what remains will be true, but at > > least it will significantly diminish the field of discourse." > > > In response to a physicists prompt Sagan said: "So do I," referring > > to > > the questioner's point: "I don't believe as a physicist that physics > > deals with the truth. I believe that it deals with successive > > approximations of the truth."” > > - Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, ed. Ann > > Druyan, > > New York: Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 229-230, 239. > > >http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/PHYSIS.HTML > > > On Nov 25, 10:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > These philosophical issues are deeply misunderstood, not least by > > > practitioners of them. When we unpick rationalities we usually > > > discover them to be less rational than we had hoped or thought. This > > > is an unlikely place for 'answers' as you rightly point out Orn. On > > > the notion of even 'smelling' differently from someone else (not as a > > > result of body odour) DJ, the point is merely that this could be the > > > case in argument such as that around qualia. On Levine, one can > > > easily point to recent attempts to create life at Harvard in which > > > fatty-acids form 'cell-membranes' on contact with water - there is a > > > complex chemo-mathematical explanation of this, yet it falls short of > > > all kinds of other questions we can raise. Science does tend to > > > support that perception depends on the receiver, that it is > > > 'computational'. Other thought experiments include how a Martian with > > > no notion of empathy and so on could understand a memorial service. > > > > My eventual view is that we are broadly incapable of rational action > > > because we can't recognise the extent to which we are driven and > > > individuated - in short are kept several shillings short of the full > > > quid by basic issues in competition rather than solidarity. There is > > > a paradox - I loathe individualism yet yearn to be free as one. I > > > would restrict life in terms of population control, in order that life > > > could be worthwhile. I believe we could establish an acceptable > > > rationality by taking account of big and brutal facts, but in the end > > > people have to grok this. I wonder what the average person > > > experiences of revealing self in company? > > > > On 25 Nov, 09:57, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > At the risk of appearing extremely naïve and ignorant, I question what > > > > I can only guess is the prevailing view of the ‘hard problem of > > > > consciousness’. As I dog paddle, no, merely wade in the shallows of > > > > the ocean of western qualia, ….I stumble across Joseph Levine: “…our > > > > knowledge of chemistry and physics makes intelligible how it is that > > > > something like the motion of molecules could play the causal role we > > > > associate with heat…. Once we understand how this causal role is > > > > carried out there is nothing more we need to understand.” (Levine > > > > 1983) To this I reply balderdash! > > > > > A quick look at Popper finds his formula: > > > > PS1-->TT1-->EE1-->PS2 > > > > > Here he assumes that PS2 in fact is ‘more applicable’ than PS1 > > > > apparently by fiat. Further, even his own notion (requirement?) of > > > > falsifiability does not seem to apply! At least he does soften the > > > > more fanatical views of materialists. > > > > > I may just have to learn something here. So far, it is all too easy to > > > > just throw raspberries. Perhaps in time, it will not be a painful, > > > > however, for now, I still need water wings. As a not too small aside, > > > > I am quite happy that I’ve explored much of this territory without > > > > drinking the Kook-Aid of previous dogmatic views. > > > > > More from the stoned philosopher….errrr, philosopher’s stone > > > > anon! ....after I purchase a snorkel... [yawn] > > > > > On Nov 24, 11:57 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It is great to read these issues from you Neil! All too often, your > > > > > (appropriate) skepticism reduces most to an absurd and quickly > > > > > rejected state. Here, with just the few sketches by you of areas of > > > > > western philosophy, I have been given a taste of and arrows to new > > > > > (for me) areas of study even though the term is not new. It merely is > > > > > not a part of my vocabulary yet. Upon a quick perusal of things > > > > > qualia, almost immediately I shut down knowing from the first few > > > > > words that it is an area where no one seems to know anything no matter > > > > > how complex, simple or even simplex the presentation! I will say this… > > > > > most texts by the classic Buddhist philosophers start at knowledge > > > > > points that are leaps and bounds above what little I have read in this > > > > > western arena so far. > > > > > > Your binary (black/white) thought experiment reminds me of one of the > > > > > spiritually based tribes hidden deep in the forests of South America. > > > > > Ignoring the obvious sexism, they place their baby boys in a cave > > > > > where they are tended for in almost total darkness for the first hand > > > > > full of years of their lives. Then, in a ritual of coming of age, they > > > > > are led outside blindfolded and at the proper point the blindfold is > > > > > removed. It is reported this is a transformative and pivotal point of > > > > > their lives. I have no doubt at all of this. What a marvelous > > > > > awakening ….seeing sunlight for the first time ever, trees, mountains, > > > > > the sky etc. In a way, this seems a preferable ritual for humanity in > > > > > general to me. > > > > > > One of the issues found within explanations of things qualia include a > > > > > non agreement of definitions of terms used. (Something all too often > > > > > seen on the web.) For me, long ago such things were simplexly (?) > > > > > clarified for me by using the Buddhist term ‘appearances’. This simple > > > > > linguistic tool easily applies to everything one thinks about (words/ > > > > > concepts) as well as all that is ‘known’ through the senses. Starting > > > > > out with a tenet of this order is helpful for me on many fronts. > > > > > First, one doesn’t have to debate about the ‘right’ meaning of a term > > > > > nor even what different things actually are. They ALL are of the same > > > > > nature…subjective/relative. They all rely upon something for their > > > > > ‘existence’. This of course begs the question of what else is there > > > > > and as you know I present the absolute, that with no components, that > > > > > which relies upon nothing else for its existence. Of course, this > > > > > latter is difficult for strict materialists to swallow. Yet, in my > > > > > experience and apparently that of most qualophiles, such ineffable and > > > > > metaphysical realities are not doubted even though they may not be > > > > > clearly defined or even well understood. And, of course as is the case > > > > > for any dialectic, the qualophobes simply reject such phenomena. This > > > > > act, like most current day neo-con views perplexes me greatly. > > > > > > Again, with the cosmology of mind-only, even though there may appear > > > > > to be the different sets of relative and the absolute, seen through a > > > > > large objective ‘eye’, all such appearances of differences quickly > > > > > become reunified. > > > > > > Enough waxing and > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
