Krimel said to dmb: 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. 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 says: I disagree. "Probability distribution" can't be a better philosophical term because it's not a philosophical term at all. It's a data set. Yes, it's derived from empirical observations and the observed behavior is then quantified so as to see the pattern of behavior. [Krimel] I was right, you misunderstand. Who says the "probability distribution" is cannot be a philosophical term? You? Why not? The MoQ in fact uses as its primary terms, words that can be understood as and which describe distributions of probability. Static and Dynamic are both terms about relative probability. This description of experience in terms of probability is central to both the MoQ and to evolutionary theory. Understanding this puts the MoQ front and center as a viable metaphysic for scientific enquiry. [dmb] The MOQ's assertion about "preferences" going all the way down are a comment about data sets like that one. It's an interpretation of the empirical findings, a claim about the implications of the data. [Krimel] Ascribing volition to the inorganic cannot be classified as empirical under any definition of that term; not even your beloved "radical" empiricism can do that. [dmb] Take Newtonian mechanics, for example. In the Newtonian world, physical reality behaves according to strict laws. Every action is completely determined by the laws of physics. This in turn implies a completely deterministic universe, which raises questions about free will. It's in that historical context that the discovery of things like "probability distributions" are revolutionary. Such un-lawlike behavior implies approximately the opposite universe and raises the opposite questions. "Preference" is the answer while "probability distribution" is one of the findings that raised the question. [Krimel] The historical revolution, the paradigm shift that you seem a trifle behind on "getting," is that Newtonian "laws" are subsumed under probability. They are a subset of probability. To say that something is "lawful" is not an absolute statement but a probabilistic one. [dmb] I should say "probability distribution", as I understand that the phrase, refers to the mathematical description of the fact that certain physical event sometimes occurs and sometimes doesn't and, basically, shows what the chances are. It shows the averages when things could go either way. "Preference" would be an explanation for the fact that outcome in each individual case remains unpredictable and unknown until it actually occurs. [Krimel] Again you miss the critical point. A probability distribution is constructed from the bottom up. It is a description a collection of outcomes. Those individual outcomes may result from any number of "causal" relationships. Here is an example that might help. At President Obama's inauguration it was said that about a million people attended. As a thought experiment, image that all of them brought a quarter and that at some point in the ceremony everyone was asked to stand up and flip their quarter. All who have tales are asked to sit down. Everyone else is asked to flip again and everyone with tales, again is asked to sit down. The process continues like this: Toss People left standing 1 500,000 2 250,000 3 125,000 4 62,500 5 31,250 6 15,625 7 7,812 8 3,906 9 1,953 10 977 11 488 12 244 13 122 14 61 15 30 16 15 17 7 18 4 19 2 20 1 The odds of someone in that crowd tossing heads 20 times in a row is about 100%. It is guaranteed. But the odds of any individual in that crowd tossing 20 heads is about a million to one. Probability describes likelihood in both directions. I don't see how "preference" matters at all. Please explain how the concept adds to an understanding of the situation? [dmb] And the Quantum world is full is such outlaw behavior, no? So "preference" is an answer to the questions implied by contemporary physics, a way to explain the variations observed. In that sense, lots and lots of science suggests something like preference or choice. [Krimel] Other than to acknowledge that quantum mechanics explains that there is uncertainty at the heart of physics I generally avoid using it. I don't understand it well enough to interpret it and it doesn't seem to me that most of the people who do use it understand it very well either. But I will say that it is exactly those kinds of findings in physics and in mathematics that are driving us toward a probabilistic understanding. The facts that some causes are not known or that many causes may contribute to an outcome, do not challenge determinism. They challenge prediction rooted in determinism. There are no "un-lawful" behaviors. There are only behaviors that are highly unlikely. That is all that your term "un-lawful" means. "Preference" is not an answer at all. It may be used metaphorically as when Dennett talks about "the intentional stance" but I suspect you want more from it than that and I do not see what it adds to understanding expect a mistaken sense of camaraderie with elementary particles. [dmb] In the biological sciences, where "preferences" don't seem at all far-fetched, it adds a certain efficiency and internal directedness to old fashioned "survival of the fittest". When the course of evolution is at least partly directed from within and by the creatures themselves we don't have to sit around waiting for some random mutation to adapt, to be most fit. Instead, the will to betterness on the part of every living creature helps to drive the whole, overall process forward. [Krimel] At a purely biological level "preference" is largely hardwired. I prefer sex to hitting my thumb with a hammer because I am biological constructed to enjoy sex and to dislike pain. The "course" of evolution is entirely about probability distributions. A species is a collection of individual traits within a population. Evolution is about how much and how often that distribution of traits changes. If the environment remains static the distribution of traits is likely to remain static. If the environment changes, the distribution of traits will likely be altered in proportion to how dynamically the environment is changed. The "preference" of individual members of the species is only relevant to the extent that con-specifics share that preference in sufficient numbers to shift the distribution of traits in the next generation. What you are calling "will to betterness" is a trait. It may or may not actually be better and what is "better" for this generation may not be better for the next. Species thrive in part on the basis of the diversity of traits within the population. Just as the number of people tossing coins increases the likelihood of someone tossing X number of heads in a row, having a lot of possibilities in the gene pool improves that odds that someone will possess the traits need to survive, come what may, in the new generation. By the way mutation is only one of many things that can cause a change in the distribution of traits in a population. It isn't the only one and it isn't even the most significant one. But if you are willing to define "betterness" as "diversity" we could someday wind up on the same page; but I just tried this with "preference' without much luck so I am guessing this won't suit you either. [dmb] I don't see why this should be at all controversial at the social level of evolution and intellectually speaking the formation of a scientific hypothesis serves as a great example of the kind of efficiency that comes with the ability to express preferences. Of all the gazillion possibilities, we somehow repeatedly pick the ones that end up working out. Without this capacity to guide it, scientific progress would crawl along like a snail through syrup on chilly day. [Krimel] Even at the social level the only way to talk meaningfully about the American "preference" hamburger is talk about how many Americans are likely to eat hamburger instead of other foods. What you get is a probability distribution. As I keep trying to tell you, we have the innate biological capacity to estimate probability. It is much the same as our built-in ability to judge space and time. And just like our ability to judge space and time; it is enhanced radically by the application of rational analysis and mathematics. That ability to use rationality is an evolutionary adaptation that helps us overcome some of the deficiency in our innate ability to estimate space, time and probability. As I said earlier the use of the term "preference" is not only misleading, unverifiable and philosophically problematic; evolutionarily speaking, it is a step in the wrong direction. 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/
