Krimel said: ...not only is probability a philosophical term it is a metaphysical term. It is not data it is a description of data, a way of conceiving of data, a way of understanding data. And by data I mean empirical experience.
dmb says: Okay now you're just being a weasel. My dictionary says "data" means "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis." But you want it to be a metaphysical-philosophical term that means "empirical experience"? There is data and then there is empirical data. I mean, facts and statistics (data) aren't necessarily based on empirical observations. C'mon Krimel, are you trying to change the meaning of the words just to "win" the game? That always backfires. [Krimel] I am saying one more time that almost all experience can be described in term of probability. Not only that but it is described that way and has always been described this way. All major religion begin with the triumph of order over chaos. Our language and other languages are rich in probabilistic language. We have an innate ability to estimate probability. But I will be happy to swap out that term data for experience. [Krimel said] What you have not repeated or even stated is what volition says about that data. dmb says: It says the data is consistent within the MOQ. It says the data is consistent with a broadened picture of the theory of evolution. It says undermining things about determinism. It says that volition and awareness don't enter at some point in the history of the universe but rather it was always here and evolved just like everything else that's here and evolved. In short, it puts that data in a larger, coherent context and otherwise makes sense of it in the big picture. That's one reason why "it's just no good to mix philosophy and science the way you do". [Krimel] What you are trying to do is ascribe intention to the universe in the same way that theists do. You are trying to preserve the Myth of Control. The world around us is driven and control by its own internal intentions. It chooses to be this way. You are just reading theology into MoQ and pretending that's somehow the larger context. Krimel said: Who says it's not good? Not Plato or Aristotle. Not Descartes or Locke or Hume or Kant. In fact neither do James or Pirsig. I guess it just depends on who you want to talk to. dmb says: Oh yea, you're just like those guys. I'm not saying the philosophy of science is a bad idea, I'm saying it's no good the way YOU mix them up. And in this case, "mix" means scramble, confuse, jumble, disorganize and that sort of thing. [Krimel] If you can point to some particular confusion I have inspired; I would be happy to clarify. Sadly though you just refuse to address the issues. [dmb] Like a scientific theory, a philosophical idea follows from the data and serves to interpret them. Theories and ideas organize them into a coherent picture or they fit the facts into a larger picture, as in the case of inorganic "preferences". [Krimel] How would you demonstrate "preference" in the inorganic in a radically empirical way? [dmb] This data has implications for determinism no matter how you slice it. This data pushes us in the direction of "preferences". It's just a matter of how far you feel justified in going. You can quibble about the distance but it's not a random, meaningless idea. To suggest that, I think, only shows that it's meaningless to YOU. Okay, but I'll bet that meaninglessness has something to do with the fact that you don't know a data set from a hole in the ground. [Krimel] Really Dave my main objection in all of this is that you can do better than this. You either don't understand what I have been saying or you are trapped by you own static latch. Free your mind. Its refreshing. [dmb] Are you so anti-romantic that even philosophy is too artsy fartsy for you, egg-head? Does your imagination hurt? [Krimel] It really must be frustrating having forced yourself into such an untenable position. I understand your frustration. Maybe a nice hot chocolate would calm you down. [dmb] And tell me, since it is a philosophical term, what does "probability" mean among philosophers? How do metaphysician employ the term? To calculate the odds of being published? To figure the chances that some geek will confuse statistics with metaphysics? [Krimel] You tell me. You are the philosophy student. Include the terms chance and chaos while you are looking; I think you will find they had quite a lot to say. 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/
