Krimel said to dmb: Calling a probability distribution a "preference" makes it sound all warm and fuzzy. But it is just clinging to the Myth that something or someone is in charge. You are expanding the hyperbole of "preference" into a conceptual framework you call consciousness. It is just a fancy fuzzy security blanket. If you lose the "desire" for that warm fuzzy, you begin to appreciate the beauty of the fractal vistas that open up; supported on nothing but multidimensional probability fields.
dmb says: What's the motive most reasonably applied to that assertion? Just what the assertion itself implies, namely the desire to explain unlaw-like behavior in physics, like "probability distribution" to use your example, in a way that also solves some other philosophical problems. [Krimel] I think you misunderstand. I am saying that "probability distribution" is a better philosophical term. Like James' percepts and pure experience it is continuous. It is empirically verifiable AND it is mathematically specifiable. As I have said before a Nobel Laureate claims that humans have the innate ability to estimate probability. He claims it is very much like our ability to judge distance and estimate the passage of time. Mostly we call this following our gut. Kahnamen and Tversky also have shown that our personal estimates of probability are skewed and sometimes downright misleading. When we see something as dynamic whether it is a quantum particle or our beloved, we are responding to something that is in some way changing unpredictably. We cannot predict is next state from its present state but we can give some kind of estimate of the range of variation. Often I cannot tell whether my beloved is going to laugh or cry but I am confident she will not turn into a petunia. You would assert that she "prefers" not to turn into a petunia. I would insist that thought never crosses her mind. But I know her better than you do. [dmb] It also extends the evolutionary theory all the way down and, as I was explaining, the false choice of "oops" or God as explanations for the present state. In other words, I think its a good idea, one that agrees with science and makes sense of a whole series of issues. Wanting that is motive enough. [Krimel] Wanting may be a motive but it is not a reason. What you are trying to extend "all the way down" appears to be volition, the exercise of free will. At least that's what "preference" implies to me. I cannot think of anything in science that would suggest that inorganic matter has choice. If you mean that preference does not mean "choice" at the inorganic level then it cannot imply "choice" at the biological level either. If no "choice" is implied at either level, are you saying that "preference" is just another word for "probability distribution"? [dmb] If there is an emotional quality, it's not about warmth or security. But I'll confess that I like the idea that the rest of the universe is NOT fundamentally different from you and me. It implies that alienation isn't quite possible and it rhymes with the mystic notion that "thou art that". These aren't badly motivated just because they're pleasant thoughts. They're just more philosophical problems addressed by this idea, problems of the existential variety. [Krimel] Understanding probability accomplish all of this and then some. As James says concepts are discrete. They establish a range of probability. You can judge the dynamic quality of a concept by the number of terms a language incorporates to describe it. I think this view solves philosophical problems while your term creates them. [dmb] In any case, it's just no good to condemn an idea for being too attractive, too pretty. If "preferences" can be used indifferently so that it applies at every level, then we have a concept that is simple and neat. In areas of thought as complex as this, that's quite an achievement. Simple and neat is as good as it gets, as in E=Mc2. [Krimel] If Pirsig can dismiss all of Kant because his ethics are ugly I don't see why I can't at least be suspicious of an idea that seem to me, "too attractive, too pretty." Experience has taught me to beware of things that seem too good to be true. But if you are insisting that "preference" will check its baggage before we use it, ok. In that case our respective use of the terms "preference" or "probability distribution" will indeed be just a matter of mere preference. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
