Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
I´m very sorry John for my though response. But there are a lot of things to consider in the case and to extract a phrase from its context is not fair play. Just that. 2013/9/8 Alberto G. Corona > Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his fight > for the truth. No other presented the intellectual work of Galileo in his > gigantic intelectual dimension that was, more even than the case of > Einstenin and Feyerabend presented it as no one before. Having studied and > put clear all the reasoning steps of Galileo in relation with their > Aristotelian opponents and extracted invaluable lessons for the methodology > of science I think that Feyerabend deserve some respect , you idiot. Please > abstain from insults and disqualifications unless you have enough knowledge > of the case and present your arguments. > > > 2013/9/8 John Clark > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, wrote: >> >> >> > Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...] >>> >> >> Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words >> of wisdom from Feyerabend: >> >> "The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than >> Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social >> consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was >> rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of >> political opportunism." >> >> No doubt there are those on this list who will try to make excuses for >> the above moronic statement, but the fact remains that most professional >> philosophers think any provocative statement can make them stand out no >> matter how dimwitted it is. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical >> research program". >>> >>> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be >>> > concerned in the slightest. >> >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a philosopher; >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. >> >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather eat >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took this >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The Origin >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess philosophers >> are just slow learners >> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. >> >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? >> >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. >> >> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is less >> fit. >> >> >> Darwin knew nothing about genes. > > > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of winning > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about hereditary > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' genes > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. Telmo. > Thanks, > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. That is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot. 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: > >> > >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical > >> research program". > >>> > >>> > >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason > >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be > >>> > concerned in the slightest. > >> > >> > >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: > >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their > >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a > philosopher; > >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. > >> > >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. > >> > >> > >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he > >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would > rather eat > >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took > this > >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The > Origin > >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess > philosophers > >> are just slow learners > >> > >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed > >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. > >> > >> > >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should > >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? > >> > >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the > >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. > ie. > >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the > >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. > >> > >> > >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more > >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is > less > >> fit. > >> > >> > >> Darwin knew nothing about genes. > > > > > > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of winning > > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is > > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about > hereditary > > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' > genes > > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success > > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. > > Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees > that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that > neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain > the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to > misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like > "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. > > Telmo. > > > Thanks, > > Craig > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@go
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
John: I have been working in AI and I can say you that such indetermination in the concepts is very common when software designers create their semantic networks, specially when trying to mimic how human reasoning. That is unavoidable, because both Philosophers and AI experts try to define the basic human concepts, the structure of the mind and how it works. To have a clear definition of something you need clear defined base concepts in terms of which you combine them to get a definition. But what happens when we are defining such fundamental concepts? There is no possible clear definition. you go around and around until you find either more basic concepts in terms of which yo define your previous basic concepts or you create circular definitions among fundamental concepts. But if you don´t accept the challenge, you will never push the limits of human knowledge about basic and deep human questions that preoccupied the ancient philosophers. Modernity can be seen as the renounce of this challenge. Not only the renounce to take this challenge seriously, but to feel discomfort and anger when someone take such challenge seriously. It is not a surprise to find that this hole is now being filled with new age crap and esoteric charlatans, Hollywood philosophers and TV starts. That is because people can not live without finding responses to such deep questions (and this has a clear evolutionary explanation, to give a hook for your reductionist mind). What in the past was the preoccupation of people like Socrates, Plato Aristotle, Aquinas, Heiddegger etc to name a few examples, it is now the task of people like Oprah 2013/9/6 John Clark > This is what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have > sent the following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to > signifacantly contribute to global warming, > > * I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But > if I do [blah blah] > > * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then? > > * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah] > > * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah blah] > > * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah] > > * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for > free will to exist. > > * Are you maintain that the experience of free will does not itself exist? > > * Can you conceive of “free will” without introducing a subject in which > it arises and is experienced? > > And so it goes, on and on arguing about if free will exists or not, but > never once does anybody stop to ask what the hell "free will" means before > giving their opinion about it's existence. People argue passionately but > they don't know what they're talking about, by that I don't mean that what > they are saying is wrong, I mean that they quite literally DON'T KNOW WHAT > THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. > > When he was a student at Princeton Richard Feynman had an encounter with > philosophers, years later this is what he had to say about it and why he > developed a contempt not for philosophy but for philosophers. I gave this > quotation before but apparently it needs repeating: > > "In the Graduate College dining room at Princeton everybody used to sit > with his own group. I sat with the physicists, but after a bit I thought: > It would be nice to see what the rest of the world is doing, so I'll sit > for a week or two in each of the other groups. > > When I sat with the philosophers I listened to them discuss very seriously > a book called Process and Reality by Whitehead. They were using words in a > funny way, and I couldn't quite understand what they were saying. Now I > didn't want to interrupt them in their own conversation and keep asking > them to explain something, and on the few occasions that I did, they'd try > to explain it to me, but I still didn't get it. Finally they invited me to > come to their seminar. > > They had a seminar that was like, a class. It had been meeting once a week > to discuss a new chapter out of Process and Reality - some guy would give a > report on it and then there would be a discussion. I went to this seminar > promising myself to keep my mouth shut, reminding myself that I didn't know > anything about the subject, and I was going there just to watch. > > What happened there was typical - so typical that it was unbelievable, but > true. First of all, I sat there without saying anything, which is almost > unbelievable, but also true. A student gave a report on the chapter to be > studied that week. In it Whitehead kept using the words "essential object" > in a particular technical way that presumably he had defined, but that I > didn't understand. > > After some discussion as to what "essential object" meant, the professor > leading the seminar said something meant to clarify things and drew > something that looked like lightning bolts on the blackboard. "Mr. > Feynman," he said, "would
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi Alberto, On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting stuff but no unbounded complexification. One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this hypothesis. > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. That > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot. Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure of adaption. Telmo. > > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: >> >> >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical >> >> research program". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no >> >>> > reason >> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to >> >>> > be >> >>> > concerned in the slightest. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: >> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with >> >> their >> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a >> >> philosopher; >> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. >> >> >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. >> >> >> >> >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he >> >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would >> >> rather eat >> >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took >> >> this >> >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The >> >> Origin >> >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess >> >> philosophers >> >> are just slow learners >> >> >> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he >> >>> > followed >> >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. >> >> >> >> >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or >> >> should >> >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? >> >> >> >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the >> >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. >> >>> > ie. >> >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the >> >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. >> >> >> >> >> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more >> >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is >> >> less >> >> fit. >> >> >> >> >> >> Darwin knew nothing about genes. >> > >> > >> > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of >> > winning >> > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is >> > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about >> > hereditary >> > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' >> > genes >> > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success >> > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. >> >> Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees >> that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that >> neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain >> the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is ea
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
PD: Yesterday I saw an advertising in a wall: "Metaphysical Tarot, call (number)" 2013/9/9 Alberto G. Corona > John: > I have been working in AI and I can say you that such indetermination in > the concepts is very common when software designers create their semantic > networks, specially when trying to mimic how human reasoning. That is > unavoidable, because both Philosophers and AI experts try to define the > basic human concepts, the structure of the mind and how it works. To have a > clear definition of something you need clear defined base concepts in terms > of which you combine them to get a definition. But what happens when we are > defining such fundamental concepts? There is no possible clear definition. > you go around and around until you find either more basic concepts in terms > of which yo define your previous basic concepts or you create circular > definitions among fundamental concepts. > > But if you don´t accept the challenge, you will never push the limits of > human knowledge about basic and deep human questions that preoccupied the > ancient philosophers. Modernity can be seen as the renounce of this > challenge. Not only the renounce to take this challenge seriously, but to > feel discomfort and anger when someone take such challenge seriously. > > It is not a surprise to find that this hole is now being filled with new > age crap and esoteric charlatans, Hollywood philosophers and TV starts. > That is because people can not live without finding responses to such deep > questions (and this has a clear evolutionary explanation, to give a hook > for your reductionist mind). > > What in the past was the preoccupation of people like Socrates, Plato > Aristotle, Aquinas, Heiddegger etc to name a few examples, it is now the > task of people like Oprah > > > 2013/9/6 John Clark > >> This is what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have >> sent the following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to >> signifacantly contribute to global warming, >> >> * I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But >> if I do [blah blah] >> >> * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then? >> >> * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah] >> >> * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah >> blah] >> >> * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah] >> >> * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for >> free will to exist. >> >> * Are you maintain that the experience of free will does not itself exist? >> >> * Can you conceive of “free will” without introducing a subject in which >> it arises and is experienced? >> >> And so it goes, on and on arguing about if free will exists or not, but >> never once does anybody stop to ask what the hell "free will" means before >> giving their opinion about it's existence. People argue passionately but >> they don't know what they're talking about, by that I don't mean that what >> they are saying is wrong, I mean that they quite literally DON'T KNOW WHAT >> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> >> When he was a student at Princeton Richard Feynman had an encounter with >> philosophers, years later this is what he had to say about it and why he >> developed a contempt not for philosophy but for philosophers. I gave this >> quotation before but apparently it needs repeating: >> >> "In the Graduate College dining room at Princeton everybody used to sit >> with his own group. I sat with the physicists, but after a bit I thought: >> It would be nice to see what the rest of the world is doing, so I'll sit >> for a week or two in each of the other groups. >> >> When I sat with the philosophers I listened to them discuss very >> seriously a book called Process and Reality by Whitehead. They were using >> words in a funny way, and I couldn't quite understand what they were >> saying. Now I didn't want to interrupt them in their own conversation and >> keep asking them to explain something, and on the few occasions that I did, >> they'd try to explain it to me, but I still didn't get it. Finally they >> invited me to come to their seminar. >> >> They had a seminar that was like, a class. It had been meeting once a >> week to discuss a new chapter out of Process and Reality - some guy would >> give a report on it and then there would be a discussion. I went to this >> seminar promising myself to keep my mouth shut, reminding myself that I >> didn't know anything about the subject, and I was going there just to watch. >> >> What happened there was typical - so typical that it was unbelievable, >> but true. First of all, I sat there without saying anything, which is >> almost unbelievable, but also true. A student gave a report on the chapter >> to be studied that week. In it Whitehead kept using the words "essential >> object" in a particular technical way that presumably he had defined, but >> that I didn't understand. >> >> Aft
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Telmo: I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a explanation for it. And this applies too to the social level. http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind at all). Simply some paths in the block universe maintain the entropy constant against the surroundings. These paths are living beings along their lines of time. Usually the computational models, like any other programs are predictable: they work with your assumptions and produce the results that you expect. real evolution is pervasive . It does not work with limited assumptions and resources and levels. This paper is very interesting. How the evolutionary pressures make stable or unstable the aggregation of individuals to create higher level individuals and what are the mechanisms of cohesion: http://web.pdx.edu/~jeff/group_sel_workshop/michod_roze.pdf 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes > Hi Alberto, > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: > > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms > of > > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than > a > > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more > emergent > > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic > > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are > > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an > > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . > > Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not > convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for > my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded > complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo > model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this > sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting > stuff but no unbounded complexification. > > One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: > evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of > the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently > contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that > evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It > is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we > haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. > This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this > hypothesis. > > > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. > That > > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of > > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a > lot. > > Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a > species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure > of adaption. > > Telmo. > > > > > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Sent from my iPad > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a > metaphysical > >> >> research program". > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no > >> >>> > reason > >> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to > >> >>> > be > >> >>> > concerned in the slightest. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: > >> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with > >> >> their > >> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a > >> >> philosopher; > >> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. > >> >> > >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, > he > >> >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would > >> >> rather eat > >> >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it > took > >> >> this > >> >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The > >> >> Origin > >> >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess > >> >> philosophers > >> >> are just slow learners > >> >> > >> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he > >> >>> > followed > >> >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or > >> >> should > >> >> he tell him he's goi
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 08 Sep 2013, at 22:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Feyerabend made the best analysis of the endavour of Galileo in his fight for the truth. No other presented the intellectual work of Galileo in his gigantic intelectual dimension that was, more even than the case of Einstenin and Feyerabend presented it as no one before. Having studied and put clear all the reasoning steps of Galileo in relation with their Aristotelian opponents and extracted invaluable lessons for the methodology of science I think that Feyerabend deserve some respect , you idiot. Please abstain from insults and disqualifications unless you have enough knowledge of the case and present your arguments. Despite I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. Perhaps by chance or opportunity, the church was correct when asking Galileo to admit that he was presenting a theory, not a certainty. Galileo was blinded by its Aristotelianistic feeling and accepted only for the form. Of course he should have asked the Church to do the same, but that would have been dangerous for him. (And this points on another problem to judge philosophers in obscurantist period, they often hide or disguise their ideas). Bruno 2013/9/8 John Clark On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, wrote: > Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...] Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of wisdom from Feyerabend: "The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." No doubt there are those on this list who will try to make excuses for the above moronic statement, but the fact remains that most professional philosophers think any provocative statement can make them stand out no matter how dimwitted it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 09 Sep 2013, at 04:10, chris peck wrote: Hi John >> Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane thundered "RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !". It wasn't evolution that Popper thought was metaphysics, it was natural selection and the reason that he thought it untestable was. ... , actually, why bother? >>I believe sincerity is a hugely overrated virtue, I have more respect for somebody insincerely right than sincerely wrong. That you have a hard on for insincerity comes across loud and clear, John. You needn't point it out. Lol. Good point. At least it is nice that John can be sincere on this point. Bruno But, here's a question for you, what about people who are insincere and wrong such as yourself ? Does your love of insincerity outweigh your contempt for error just enough to provide a morsel of self respect? Btw. Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards? The perpetual grumpiness and tortuous attempts to be clever really ring a bell for some reason. Obviously there are many grumpy people in the world so I know its a long shot. Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:47:32 -0400 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM, wrote: > Mach was the big physicist and thermodynamicist, Mach's Principle. Ernst Mach was a big philosopher but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far far better remembered as a philosopher than a scientist. He spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity both general and special, and even the atomic theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely philosophical reasons I might add. Yet another reason philosophy has a bad name. The great philosophical discoveries were made by Darwin and Mendel and Watson and Crick and Maxwell and Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg and Feynman and Godel and Turing. None of these people called themselves philosophers and some even expressed contempt for the subject, but they made the great philosophical discoveries of the age nevertheless. Let me issue a challenge to all on this list: Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers have discovered in the last 2 centuries that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists had not discovered long before. John K Clark All I am saying that often in public discourses' I will see physicists, very hard case ones. delve into logical possitivism. They may also enjoy frosted flakes, as well, but the do the LP dance sometimes. But, what of it? It's simply my experience of these chats. I do really like it when philosophers do go deep into the sciences though. It clicks for me. -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms. Brent On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced. -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking. If by "physicalism" you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism. Positivism hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach. Too many unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 09 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Alberto, On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting stuff but no unbounded complexification. One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this hypothesis. Of course the universal dovetailing has unbounded complexity, but evolution (including the rise of the physical laws) is observed only in the first person selective selection. Bruno What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. That is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot. Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure of adaption. Telmo. 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: Sent from my iPad On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program". I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. People misunderstand Popper here. Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The Origin Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess philosophers are just slow learners Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is less fit. Darwin knew nothing about genes. Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of winning genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about hereditary supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' genes 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. Telmo. Thanks, Craig -- You received this message beca
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Telmo: > > I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a > darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a > explanation for it. And this applies too to the social level. I agree that it does. > http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf > > However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there > is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind at > all). Not sure I understand why there is no process of any kind in a block universe. > Simply some paths in the block universe maintain the entropy constant > against the surroundings. These paths are living beings along their lines of > time. I'm not sure I can agree that, for example, a program in the Tierra environment maintains a constant entropy against the environment. Could you describe more precisely what you mean? > Usually the computational models, like any other programs are predictable: > they work with your assumptions and produce the results that you expect. > real evolution is pervasive . It does not work with limited assumptions and > resources and levels. But biological darwinism relies on random mutations the same way the computational models do, no? > This paper is very interesting. How the evolutionary pressures make stable > or unstable the aggregation of individuals to create higher level > individuals and what are the mechanisms of cohesion: > > http://web.pdx.edu/~jeff/group_sel_workshop/michod_roze.pdf Thanks! Will have a read. Telmo. > > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes >> >> Hi Alberto, >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona >> wrote: >> > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms >> > of >> > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than >> > a >> > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more >> > emergent >> > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic >> > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are >> > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of >> > an >> > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . >> >> Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not >> convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for >> my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded >> complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo >> model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this >> sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting >> stuff but no unbounded complexification. >> >> One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: >> evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of >> the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently >> contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that >> evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It >> is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we >> haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. >> This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this >> hypothesis. >> >> > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. >> > That >> > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of >> > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a >> > lot. >> >> Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a >> species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure >> of adaption. >> >> Telmo. >> >> > >> > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a >> >> >> metaphysical >> >> >> research program". >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no >> >> >>> > reason >> >> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' >> >> >>> > to >> >> >>> > be >> >> >>> > concerned in the slightest. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with >> >> >> their >> >> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a >> >> >> philosopher; >> >> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. >> >> >> >> >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, >> >> >> he >> >> >> admitted he was wr
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> Hi Alberto, >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona >> wrote: >>> >>> I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms >>> of >>> entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than >>> a >>> bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more >>> emergent >>> levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic >>> level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are >>> aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an >>> higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . >> >> >> Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not >> convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for >> my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded >> complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo >> model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this >> sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting >> stuff but no unbounded complexification. >> >> One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: >> evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of >> the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently >> contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that >> evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It >> is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we >> haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. >> This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this >> hypothesis. > > > Of course the universal dovetailing has unbounded complexity, Or even maybe the Mandelbrot set. A friend of mine uses that as an example of artificial life. I suspect you might agree. > but evolution > (including the rise of the physical laws) is observed only in the first > person selective selection. But could we have simulated evolution (in a simulation that we understand) and unbounded complexity? Telmo. > Bruno > > > >> >>> What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. >>> That >>> is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of >>> adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a >>> lot. >> >> >> Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a >> species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure >> of adaption. >> >> Telmo. >> >>> >>> 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote: >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical >> research program". >>> >>> >>> I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned in the slightest. >> >> >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with >> their >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a >> philosopher; >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. >> People misunderstand Popper here. >> >> >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would >> rather eat >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took >> this >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The >> Origin >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess >> philosophers >> are just slow learners >> Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the footsteps of many Darwinists. >> >> >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or >> should >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? >> It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. >> >> >> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who >> is >> less >> fit. >>
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal > philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. > OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself", you think somebody wanting to burn somebody else alive for saying the earth goes around the sun is much more faithful to reason than the scientist who said it. Bruno, at this point I really don't want to hear any more crap about "comp", right now I just want to know if that is what you're really trying to say. Being provocative is all well and good, but not to the point of stupidity. > Galileo was blinded > Blinded? BLINDED!? Were talking about Galileo and the church but it's Galileo who was blinded!? This is yet another thing that gives philosophy a bad name, I may have heard stupider remarks in my life but I can't think of one right now. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi PGC It seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. Unsuprising given his misunderstanding of Popper not to mention Darwin. Feyerabend is not really defending the church here. Hes making the point that in order to get his theory out and give it life Galileo had to at some stage abandone pretty much every methodological principle falsificationists, and philosophers of science generally, hold dear. From a Popperian point of view Galileo ought to be regarded as unscrupulous and the church should be regarded as the more reasonable party in the affair. Feyerabend infact champions Galileo's anarchic approach and regards philosophical attempts to prescribe a single method scientists must follow as backward and stultifying. The irony is that John should really be championing Feyerabend because no-one has ever attacked philosophical attempts to define science with greater wit and venom. But it all flies right over his head. Thats if you assume he isnt just flaming. All the best. --- Original Message --- From: "Platonist Guitar Cowboy" Sent: 10 September 2013 5:49 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal >> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. >> > > OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of > Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself", you think > somebody wanting to burn somebody else alive for saying the earth goes > around the sun is much more faithful to reason than the scientist who said > it. Bruno, at this point I really don't want to hear any more crap about > "comp", right now I just want to know if that is what you're really trying > to say. > > Being provocative is all well and good, but not to the point of stupidity. > I think I'm beginning to see how this constitutes an actual argument in John Clark's world... You love to be provocative, which is why its all "well and good", revealing today clearly, your penchant for linguistic gaming to intimidate and impress yourself. That's not very scientific, even by your standards. Bruno's statement is consistent with his work. Your statements are consistent with some personalized interpretation of McDonald's reviewed Big Macs. It's you playing rationality's messianic priest here with ad hominem again. But this simply indicates you are perhaps as pompous, arrogant, and insecure, as more and more people are understanding in these lists of late. > > > Galileo was blinded >> > > Blinded? BLINDED!? Were talking about Galileo and the church but it's > Galileo who was blinded!? This is yet another thing that gives philosophy a > bad name, I may have heard stupider remarks in my life but I can't think of > one right now. > Try reading your own text once, after you write it, with scientific distance instead of vanity. You might find some stupidity in there just like the rest of us to from time to time. Concerning the point: yes "blinded", of course. Replacing one model of reality forcefully for another is a violent act. Doesn't matter if Church or your messiah Galileo. Or do you want to make an argument for "why John Clark should tell people how to live"? What gives philosophy a bad name, adopting your provocative view and tone, is that it is yet another set of perspectives that will not be bullied by John Clark 5th grade size comparisons of intellectual genitalia and precise judgements and conclusions á la "this is stupid!". So, I see it's hard for you, but keep your caterwauling down, lest you scare away everybody who'd want to be part of John Clark's empire of the church of the scientific bombastic, exposing "stupidity" for the rest of the world. PGC > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal >> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. >> > > OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of > Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself", you think > somebody wanting to burn somebody else alive for saying the earth goes > around the sun is much more faithful to reason than the scientist who said > it. Bruno, at this point I really don't want to hear any more crap about > "comp", right now I just want to know if that is what you're really trying > to say. > > Being provocative is all well and good, but not to the point of stupidity. > I think I'm beginning to see how this constitutes an actual argument in John Clark's world... You love to be provocative, which is why its all "well and good", revealing today clearly, your penchant for linguistic gaming to intimidate and impress yourself. That's not very scientific, even by your standards. Bruno's statement is consistent with his work. Your statements are consistent with some personalized interpretation of McDonald's reviewed Big Macs. It's you playing rationality's messianic priest here with ad hominem again. But this simply indicates you are perhaps as pompous, arrogant, and insecure, as more and more people are understanding in these lists of late. > > > Galileo was blinded >> > > Blinded? BLINDED!? Were talking about Galileo and the church but it's > Galileo who was blinded!? This is yet another thing that gives philosophy a > bad name, I may have heard stupider remarks in my life but I can't think of > one right now. > Try reading your own text once, after you write it, with scientific distance instead of vanity. You might find some stupidity in there just like the rest of us to from time to time. Concerning the point: yes "blinded", of course. Replacing one model of reality forcefully for another is a violent act. Doesn't matter if Church or your messiah Galileo. Or do you want to make an argument for "why John Clark should tell people how to live"? What gives philosophy a bad name, adopting your provocative view and tone, is that it is yet another set of perspectives that will not be bullied by John Clark 5th grade size comparisons of intellectual genitalia and precise judgements and conclusions á la "this is stupid!". So, I see it's hard for you, but keep your caterwauling down, lest you scare away everybody who'd want to be part of John Clark's empire of the church of the scientific bombastic, exposing "stupidity" for the rest of the world. PGC > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, chris peck wrote: > Hi PGC > > It seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. Unsuprising > given his misunderstanding of Popper not to mention Darwin. > > Feyerabend is not really defending the church here. Hes making the point > that in order to get his theory out and give it life Galileo had to at some > stage abandone pretty much every methodological principle > falsificationists, and philosophers of science generally, hold dear. From a > Popperian point of view Galileo ought to be regarded as unscrupulous and > the church should be regarded as the more reasonable party in the affair. > Technically on this level, sure. John's point, on some days I can only guess, would be that Galileo didn't burn anybody. But witch burning seems to often follow for the "overly confident"; no matter what the cause is they stand for. > Feyerabend infact champions Galileo's anarchic approach and regards > philosophical attempts to prescribe a single method scientists must follow > as backward and stultifying. > "Anarchic approach" is good ;-) Although Galileo seems to realize the problem on some levels, it was my impression that he tended towards empirical, physical objects, sun, motion etc. even granted the emphasis on thought experiments and contradiction. > The irony is that John should really be championing Feyerabend because > no-one has ever attacked philosophical attempts to define science with > greater wit and venom. But it all flies right over his head. Thats if you > assume he isnt just flaming. > > Another irony is that he attacks church for authoritative witch hunting. After which he commands and frames the question of the differences between Church's and Galileo's ontological stance as: "Don't want to hear any crap about comp. Are you really saying that burning people is exactly the same as positing heliocentrism?" Direct causality and consequences of held beliefs is less clear than the question would have us believe. I know Christians who are not: 1) Crusading and 2) trying to convince me. PGC All the best. > > > > --- Original Message --- > > From: "Platonist Guitar Cowboy" > Sent: 10 September 2013 5:49 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal > philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. > > > OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of > Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself", you think > somebody wanting to burn somebody else alive for saying the earth goes > around the sun is much more faithful to reason than the scientist who said > it. Bruno, at this point I really don't want to hear any more crap about > "comp", right now I just want to know if that is what you're really trying > to say. > > Being provocative is all well and good, but not to the point of > stupidity. > > > I think I'm beginning to see how this constitutes an actual argument in > John Clark's world... > > You love to be provocative, which is why its all "well and good", > revealing today clearly, your penchant for linguistic gaming to intimidate > and impress yourself. That's not very scientific, even by your standards. > > Bruno's statement is consistent with his work. Your statements are > consistent with some personalized interpretation of McDonald's reviewed Big > Macs. > > It's you playing rationality's messianic priest here with ad hominem > again. > > But this simply indicates you are perhaps as pompous, arrogant, and > insecure, as more and more people are understanding in these lists of late. > > > > > Galileo was blinded > > > Blinded? BLINDED!? Were talking about Galileo and the church but it's > Galileo who was blinded!? This is yet another thing that gives philosophy a > bad name, I may have heard stupider remarks in my life but I can't think of > one right now. > > > Try reading your own text once, after you write it, with scientific > distance instead of vanity. You might find some stupidity in there just > like the rest of us to from time to time. > > Concerning the point: yes "blinded", of course. Replacing one model of > reality forcefully for another is a violent act. Doesn't matter if Church > or your messiah Galileo. Or do you want to make an argument for "why John > Clark should tell people how to live"? > > What gives philosophy a bad name, adopting your provocative view and > tone, is that it is yet another set of perspectives that will not be > bullied by John Clark 5th grade size comparisons of intellectual genitalia > and precise judgements and conclusions á la "this is stupid!". > > So, I see it's hard for you, but keep your caterwauling down, lest you > scare away everybody who'd want to be part of John Clark's empire of the > chur
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:58:37AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona
> wrote:
> > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms of
> > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than a
> > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more emergent
> > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic
> > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are
> > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an
> > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria .
>
> Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not
> convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for
> my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded
> complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo
> model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this
> sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting
> stuff but no unbounded complexification.
>
> One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this:
> evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of
> the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently
> contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that
> evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It
> is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we
> haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point.
> This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this
> hypothesis.
>
I think this idea goes by the name of "modal bacter". It was, perhaps, most
forcefully argued in Stephen Gould's 1996 book "Full House".
I suspect the idea is wrong, because it fails to explain the
exponential growth of diversity, seemingly observed by
Palaeontologists such as Michael Benton:
@Article{Benton01,
author = {Michael J. Benton},
title ={Biodiversity on Land and in the Sea},
journal = {Geological Journal},
year = 2001,
volume = 36,
pages ={211--230}
}
> > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. That
> > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of
> > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a lot.
>
> Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a
> species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure
> of adaption.
>
That measure is called persistence, and no, it is not really related to
adaption. For an adaption measure, one good possibility is Mark
Bedau's "cumulative evolutionary activity"
@InProceedings{Bedau-etal98,
author = {Mark A. Bedau and Emile Snyder and Norman H. Packard},
title ={A Classification of Long-Term Evolutionary Dynamics},
crossref = {ALifeVI},
pages={228--237}
}
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:26:02PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: > > > > However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there > > is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind at > > all). > > Not sure I understand why there is no process of any kind in a block universe. In a trivial way, there is no "change" in a block universe. But in a somewhat less trivial way, there are no irreversible processes in a block universe > > > Simply some paths in the block universe maintain the entropy constant > > against the surroundings. These paths are living beings along their lines of > > time. > > I'm not sure I can agree that, for example, a program in the Tierra > environment maintains a constant entropy against the environment. > Could you describe more precisely what you mean? > Its more of an entropy pump. Chris Adami has written some stuff on that, using a related system called Avida. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the > test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell the > difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, get a > small group of people who lean toward aspberger's traits and show them > short, unrelated examples in a highly controlled context. > You accept, of course, that people with Aspbergers have fe > If you want to really bring out the differences between the two, use a > diverse audience and have them interact freely for a long time in many > different contexts, often without oversight. What you are looking for is > aesthetic cues that may not even be able to be named - intuitions of > something about the AI being off or untrustworthy, continuity gaps, > non-fluidity, etc. It's sort of like taking a video screen out into the > sunlight. You get a better view of what it isn't when you can see more of > what it is. > > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
(Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.) On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the >> test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell the >> difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, get a >> small group of people who lean toward aspberger's traits and show them >> short, unrelated examples in a highly controlled context. >> > > You accept, of course, that people with Aspbergers have feelings even > though they don't express them like everyone else? > > >> If you want to really bring out the differences between the two, use a >> diverse audience and have them interact freely for a long time in many >> different contexts, often without oversight. What you are looking for is >> aesthetic cues that may not even be able to be named - intuitions of >> something about the AI being off or untrustworthy, continuity gaps, >> non-fluidity, etc. It's sort of like taking a video screen out into the >> sunlight. You get a better view of what it isn't when you can see more of >> what it is. >> > It sounds like you're proposing a variant of the Turing Test. What would you say if the diverse audience decided the AI probably had feelings, or probably had feelings but different to most people's, like the Aspergers case? > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:39:31 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > (Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.) > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of >>> the test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell >>> the difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, >>> get a small group of people who lean toward aspberger's traits and show >>> them short, unrelated examples in a highly controlled context. >>> >> >> You accept, of course, that people with Aspbergers have feelings even >> though they don't express them like everyone else? >> > Certainly. I was using the idea of selecting for Aspberger traits as a way of stacking the deck toward a result that de-emphasizes emotional discernment of others behavior. > >> >>> If you want to really bring out the differences between the two, use a >>> diverse audience and have them interact freely for a long time in many >>> different contexts, often without oversight. What you are looking for is >>> aesthetic cues that may not even be able to be named - intuitions of >>> something about the AI being off or untrustworthy, continuity gaps, >>> non-fluidity, etc. It's sort of like taking a video screen out into the >>> sunlight. You get a better view of what it isn't when you can see more of >>> what it is. >>> >> > It sounds like you're proposing a variant of the Turing Test. What would > you say if the diverse audience decided the AI probably had feelings, or > probably had feelings but different to most people's, like the Aspergers > case? > Between the two tests, I'm showing the opposite of what is typically intended by the Turing Test. I am proposing a way to test the extent to which any given Turing-type test reflects the bias of the interpreter rather than any intrinsic quality of the target of the test. It's hard to say for sure that a positive outcome for the test has any meaning. It's mainly to prove a negative. Maybe only one person out of ten million can pick up on the subtle cues that give away the simulation, and maybe they are too shy to speak up in public. Maybe only dogs can tell its not a person. My hunch though is that this is academic. I expect that simulations will always be pretty easy to figure out given enough time and diversity of audience and interaction. If at some point in time that is no longer the case, the ability to tell the difference will probably be available as an app for our own augmented human systems. Craig > >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck wrote: > it seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. > It seems to me that "the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself" leaves little room for misunderstanding and is as clear as it is imbecilic. And I might add that anyone who feels compelled to defend such a moronic statement is also a moron. > Unsuprising given his misunderstanding of Popper > Even Popper misunderstood Popper because he admitted (in 1978!) that he was wrong about Darwin. That's almost as good as the church admitting (in the year 2000!) that they may have gone just a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and maybe just maybe he had a point after all. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive for saying that the stars were other suns, but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years. > not to mention Darwin. > Please show me that your understanding of Darwin is greater than my own. Dazzle me with your brilliance. > From a Popperian point of view Galileo ought to be regarded as > unscrupulous and the church should be regarded as the more reasonable party > in the affair. > Galileo discovered new knowledge for humanity, Popper and Feyerabend discovered nothing, zip zero zilch goose egg. And they were both philosophers and if it really was their point of view that Galileo was unscrupulous and the church reasonable then these ignorant jackasses are yet another reason philosophers have a bad name. And I am STILL waiting for somebody to tell me one thing that bozos like Popper and Feyerabend who call themselves philosophers have discovered in the last 2 centuries that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected and true that scientists had not discovered long before. It seems like a simple request and I have asked 3 times but nobody can think of a damn thing; and yet people continue to tell me how wonderful Feyerabend and Popper were. I think they were like bad movie critics, full of condemnation about how other people made their movie but couldn't make one themselves if you put a gun to their head. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
Craig, I've been trying to stay focused studying the past few days (medical exam D: ), but now im procrastinating So which of the following are you advancing No implementation of rules could ever perfectly exemplify (or at least to such a degree that no human could every tell it was a mere implementation of rules and not "the real thing") the behavior of: 1) an electron 2) an atom 3) a molecule 4) a macro-molecule 5) an organelle 6) a cell 7) a sponge 8) a nematode 9) a fruit fly 10) a frog 11) a dog 12) a rhesus macaque 13) a human ? On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:39:31 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: >> >> (Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.) >> >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell the difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, get a small group of people who lean toward aspberger's traits and show them short, unrelated examples in a highly controlled context. >>> >>> You accept, of course, that people with Aspbergers have feelings even >>> though they don't express them like everyone else? >>> >> > Certainly. I was using the idea of selecting for Aspberger traits as a way > of stacking the deck toward a result that de-emphasizes emotional > discernment of others behavior. > > >> >>> If you want to really bring out the differences between the two, use a diverse audience and have them interact freely for a long time in many different contexts, often without oversight. What you are looking for is aesthetic cues that may not even be able to be named - intuitions of something about the AI being off or untrustworthy, continuity gaps, non-fluidity, etc. It's sort of like taking a video screen out into the sunlight. You get a better view of what it isn't when you can see more of what it is. >>> >> It sounds like you're proposing a variant of the Turing Test. What would >> you say if the diverse audience decided the AI probably had feelings, or >> probably had feelings but different to most people's, like the Aspergers >> case? >> > > Between the two tests, I'm showing the opposite of what is typically > intended by the Turing Test. I am proposing a way to test the extent to > which any given Turing-type test reflects the bias of the interpreter > rather than any intrinsic quality of the target of the test. > > It's hard to say for sure that a positive outcome for the test has any > meaning. It's mainly to prove a negative. Maybe only one person out of ten > million can pick up on the subtle cues that give away the simulation, and > maybe they are too shy to speak up in public. Maybe only dogs can tell its > not a person. My hunch though is that this is academic. I expect that > simulations will always be pretty easy to figure out given enough time and > diversity of audience and interaction. If at some point in time that is no > longer the case, the ability to tell the difference will probably be > available as an app for our own augmented human systems. > > Craig > > >> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/jDy5twbibkQ/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
