What is Evidence? How to Handle It Beyond Our Minds

[Doctordick]

All I am trying to do is to get you to think.

Well, since you essentially finish by indicating you have some interest in what I have to say, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment. However, I find your response considerably lacking in intelligent analysis. I don't know whether this is intentional or merely lack of thought on your part. If you were to present your question, [Is "no" the answer to this question?] at random to a typical human being, would you really have the gall to claim it as, by your standards, a "well-defined question worthy of a serious search for a correct answer"? I personally do not know anyone who would even be tempted to take you seriously. Please, put a little thought into your analysis.

I do not find your example as reasonable evidence you understood what I said! In my mind, it is about as intelligent a question as, "what is the color, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?" The question is meaningless on the face of it. Now I admit that I am a very opinionated old man; many years ago, I went carefully through the incompleteness theorem and came to the conclusion that what it said was that there existed no logic formalism which guaranteed one could not construct the statement, "this statement is false"; that's nice and it may very well be true but it's not very useful to understanding anything. I am very tempted to take your response as an indicator that you don't want to think about the implications of the procedure I lay out and would prefer to marginalize the idea so you can ignore it.

I thought you said you were only looking for consistency and completeness. It sounds like you want an absolute (read: nonrelative) definition of something.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is.

BTW, did you consider all the possible answers to the questions of what ontology and epistemology are the study of? I'm sure most philosophers will find faults with the dictionary definitions.

You seem to have missed the point entirely; I wasn't looking to answer a question, I was merely pointing out the source of the confusion engendered by sloppy thinking.

I'm not sure what "undefined" means here. Do you just mean undefined by humans?

Well, you would have to tell me what else you think defines things. I am at a loss for what you have in mind. You do bring up an interesting point though. We communicate via a language which consists of a collection of symbols which we intuitively presume mean what we think they mean. Suppose we are wrong and there exists an interpretation far different than what we think we are hearing. How would you propose to take that possibility into account in your thinking? Now you haven't thought about that have you? I don't want to strain your brain but how about thinking about that for a while; can you come up with a way of accommodating that issue in your thinking? If you are going to define things, you have to start somewhere; where do you think one should begin?

At the moment, all I am trying to do is to get you to think about the real issues behind the problem of understanding reality. Nothing I have so far presented provides any answers to anything; all I am doing at the moment is putting forth some of the problems facing any rational attack designed to achieve defend-able answers.

With regard to my statement of the problem, "create an explanation of a body of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined process", it is really a very simple problem solved every day by hundreds of millions of newborn human brains. Put yourself in the position of a typical ignorant brain. All you have to go on are billions of nerves delivering impulses. To begin with, you have no idea of what causes these impulses. Mission Impossible (should you choose to accept it): your problem is to create a mental model of reality given nothing but that set of billions of nerve impulses. You are the one who must figure out what each of them signify an why they are there. And your only source of information is those nerve impulses themselves.

Look at the problem from another perspective. You are in a locked room and your only contact with the outside world is a wall with billions of flashing lights (one little light for each nerve in the problem above). Now come up with a way of assigning meanings to the lights so that you can explain reality (the reason the lights are flashing). That problem is virtually equivalent to the one just stated above. It is a very simple logic problem solved via intuition (squirrel decisions) every day by millions of newborn brains. If one wants to understand the universe as we perceive it, they had better understand the nature of the problem the "mind" has solved. All I am trying to do at the moment is to get you to recognize the existence of that problem. There is certainly no way to discuss the details of a solution if you aren't even aware such a problem exists. I am reminded of the old adage, "know thyself": just exactly how did you come to have such an excellent understanding of so much? How can you assert your personal solution (your mental model of reality) is valid if you have no idea how it came to you? Where would you suggest one look if one were interested is digging out the possible errors in that solution? Don't you think recognizing the problem itself is the first step?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet if I were only certain of the fact that I don't know, I can be assured that certainty does exist. So what does that say, except that certainty can only be experienced on an intimate level ... via an "experiential mind." And what does that suggest about the assessment of truth, except that it can only be "induced" through its relationship with the mind. Don't our thoughts in fact speak to us about the truth? And yet the truth and our thoughts are not one and the same. So, how does the truth (which is purely abstract) induce itself into our thoughts? Can we be all that certaint that we don't in fact receive the truth from some "remote" source?

 

[Doctordick]

All thought can be divided into two parts!

And yet if I were only certain of the fact that I don't know, I can be assured that certainty does exist. So what does that say, except that certainty can only be experienced on an intimate level ... via an "experiential mind." And what does that suggest about the assessment of truth, except that it can only be "induced" through its relationship with the mind. Don't our thoughts in fact speak to us about the truth? And yet the truth and our thoughts are not one and the same.

You are confused; that is quite evident from the way you pose your questions. If you are serious about wanting to understand the issues you speak of, you need a clear perspective which will separate the issues into those which can be rationally analyzed and those which cannot.

You are trying to understand your own certainty by logically analyzing it when that certainty did not arise via an analyzable sequence. You are failing to recognize the existence of the holistic mode of coming to conclusions often referred to as "intuition". The intimate experience of "knowing" (your personal assessment of truth itself) is an emotional response engendered by that holistic mode; a mode I have come to call "squirrel" thinking (because of some very significant connotations). There is a post I made last summer where I tried to clarify the issue:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

So, how does the truth (which is purely abstract) induce itself into our thoughts? Can we be all that [certain] that we don't in fact receive the truth from some "remote" source?

Clearly, what you refer to here by "our thoughts" is the process of logical analysis (your personal conscious awareness) where all logical decisions are performed. How do you decide what is true? That is a consequence of the intuitive holistic background thoughts which are beyond analyzing. And, yes, we obviously receive that "truth" from a "remote" source! The source is remote from logical analysis. What is more significant is that there can be no proof that it is a "valid" representation of the truth and that issue can be analyzed once you understand how to hold the two modes of thought separate from one another.

You need to think this out seriously -- Dick

 

[Mentat]

A Universal reference to all things? Well, it all originates from the same place. Therefore the whole of the Universe, and every single last detail therein, must remain consistent with that. I don't see how it can be any less absolute than that, do you?

But what if it didn't all originate from the same place? What if there is more than one Universe? Perhaps more than one ontology? Even if there is only one Universe, what if the very nature of that Universe were relative and probabilistic (as current theory seems to indicate)?

 

[Iacchus32]

You are confused; that is quite evident from the way you pose your questions. If you are serious about wanting to understand the issues you speak of, you need a clear perspective which will separate the issues into those which can be rationally analyzed and those which cannot.

No, I am not confused ... at least to the extent that I don't know, I would admit it.

You are trying to understand your own certainty by logically analyzing it when that certainty did not arise via an analyzable sequence. You are failing to recognize the existence of the holistic mode of coming to conclusions often referred to as "intuition". The intimate experience of "knowing" (your personal assessment of truth itself) is an emotional response engendered by that holistic mode; a mode I have come to call "squirrel" thinking (because of some very significant connotations). There is a post I made last summer where I tried to clarify the issue:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

Are you saying you are capable of understanding something outside of what your mind tells you? How so? And even if you "think" you could, "who" is it that's stepping up to the plate to acknowledge it? Hey, I don't doubt that there is other knowledge and truths out there, but how will I ever know unless it is "filtered" through my mind first?

Clearly, what you refer to here by "our thoughts" is the process of logical analysis (your personal conscious awareness) where all logical decisions are performed. How do you decide what is true? That is a consequence of the intuitive holistic background thoughts which are beyond analyzing. And, yes, we obviously receive that "truth" from a "remote" source! The source is remote from logical analysis. What is more significant is that there can be no proof that it is a "valid" representation of the truth and that issue can be analyzed once you understand how to hold the two modes of thought separate from one another.

You need to think this out seriously -- Dick

And yet of a certainty I can assure you when I say "I don't know." So yes, the truth is both remote and present, and "is" a valid reperesentation ... within the context of the mind that "experiences" it that is.

 

[Iacchus32]

But what if it didn't all originate from the same place? What if there is more than one Universe? Perhaps more than one ontology? Even if there is only one Universe, what if the very nature of that Universe were relative and probabilistic (as current theory seems to indicate)?

And what if our Universe were but a "subset" of the notion of total complexity? Wouldn't this allow for the possiblity of any and all things, while at the same time maintaining everything originates from the same source? What is "chance" (hence probability) but our inability to understand the full complexity of things? If everything (physical) has its own coordinates within time and space, how could anything occur as a result of chance? If everything is interconnected that is to say, how is it possible (by chance) for anything to occur outside of this?

 

[Doctordick]

Why do you bother responding?

No, I am not confused ... at least to the extent that I don't know, I would admit it.


Are you saying you are capable of understanding something outside of what your mind tells you? How so? And even if you "think" you could, "who" is it that's stepping up to the plate to acknowledge it? Hey, I don't doubt that there is other knowledge and truths out there, but how will I ever know unless it is "filtered" through my mind first?


And yet of a certainty I can assure you when I say "I don't know." So yes, the truth is both remote and present, and "is" a valid reperesentation ... within the context of the mind that "experiences" it that is.

You don't pay any attention at all to anything I say do you! Do you even read it?

And I am supposed to regard you as intelligent?

Have fun

 

[Mentat]

And what if our Universe were but a "subset" of the notion of total complexity? Wouldn't this allow for the possiblity of any and all things, while at the same time maintaining everything originates from the same source? What is "chance" (hence probability) but our inability to understand the full complexity of things? If everything (physical) has its own coordinates within time and space, how could anything occur as a result of chance? If everything is interconnected that is to say, how is it possible (by chance) for anything to occur outside of this?

Interesting concept. It is quite Classical, though... Consider that Relativity has shown time and space to also be dynamic entities, relative to anyone observer's inertial reference frame.

 

[Iacchus32]

You don't pay any attention at all to anything I say do you! Do you even read it?

And I am supposed to regard you as intelligent?

Have fun

I have a mind which has been given to me expressly for the purpose of knowing. How about yourself?

 

[honestrosewater]

Forgive me, but I don't really like the wording of that question. Do you mean that the rules presuppose certain conditions wherein one player could declared (and recognized by the other player(s) as) "winner"?

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

The very concept of debate is a social one. Surely humans have a pre-disposition for language-games, but that would come to nothing if they'd never had someone show them how to play.

Think of this: Could you have ever even spoken if you'd not been taught the letters, their sounds, the formation of sentences, and the like? Even the teaching of those bare syntactic essentials is done by language-games. For example, the language-game of pointing to a picture of a letter, and then making a sound (e.g. pointing to an "A" and making the complementary sound). It has rules (e.g. one must understand that the letters are "pieces" in the game, and that the sound you make is both a name of the piece and an indication of (at least one of) its possible "moves"), and it is not the only language-game (which is why I don't just refer to it as "learning language"), but it is a rather essential one, if you are ever to play any of the other language-games.

It's still possible for a person to invent and play a debate game all by themselves.

Cute. Seriously, though, you must be able to see (by now) that the games themselves evolved as a multi-player games (evolved for social situations). Playing them on your own is like pretending that there are two people involved, which is just further indication that the game is intended for two people.

No, multi-player doesn't mean multi-person. One person can play multiple roles.

There is still a problem with relying on other people, if you have access to knowledge or evidence which is inaccessible to others.

Do I have access to such knowledge or evidence? If I do, how do you know I do, since it is inaccesible to others?

I can't come to know by playing a debate game- that's the whole point. If you want to be unable to know anything until you succeed in defending it in a debate game, go right ahead. I can come to know things all on my own.

Besides, is it really so strange a concept that someone win a game because they knew a particular trick/strategy/rule of which the other is unaware? I, myself, have won more than one game of chess against a player who was unaware that pawn-en-passant was a legal move.

Not what I'm talking about.

As to, specifically the language-game of debate, and the winning thereof by having greater knowledge or a greater amount of evidence on your side...well, how do you know that that's not part of the game? What if it is expected that one win by virtue of having greater knowledge?

Not what I'm talking about. Do you know what I was thinking about a minute ago? I do.

Seriously, though, I understand that; it's part of my point. We, in (safe to say) any endeavor other than pure "philosophy" (post-Kantian, theory-of-knowledge, accurate-representation philosophy, that is) don't worry about absolute truth, or the "actual" accuracy of a statement, etc. We just worry about playing the game at hand.

I don't just worry about playing the game at hand. I worry about making sense of all the evidence I have. Playing debate games creates more problems than it solves.

All I'm really saying is that the concept of "philosophical problems" (viz, the "hard problem of consciousness" vs. the "easy problem") could be dissolved if we'd just stop trying to "polish our internal mirrors of nature" (so to speak), and start speaking in much more relative terms ("current truth" etc). If we'd stop trying to "ground" the accuracy of a statement in something absolute (which is what we've been trying to by introspection since Descartes), then (I think) philosophy would find a much more comfortable place for itself, sans "intractable problems".

How would that work?

I don't know about that first one, but the second example is actually a very good one. For a while, the Earth was considered the center of the Universe. It still is, in some theories (doesn't the idea of a Big Bang that occurred everywhere at once indicate an expansion that's still occurring "everywhere at once", in which case any point in the Universe could be intelligently spoken of as "the center").

No. The geocentric model is not consistent with the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model agrees with observation, the geocentric model does not. And they aren't even about expansion; They're about orbits.

Thomas Kuhn explained the paradigm-shifts that take us (as a society) away from one method of explanation and toward another, but they are nothing more than that: methods of explaining phenomena.

And the results of debate games are inconsistent in themselves and irrelevant otherwise.

A commonly accepted rule is that you know more about what you are thinking than anyone else. However, if neurology or neurophysiology develop to the point where one can directly read your cortical patterns, you may lose a bit of that privileged status.

The point is that debate games are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what I am thinking.

That last example brings me to my second problem: I'm not convinced that all knowledge and evidence is universally accessible. IOW, there may be an impassable epistemic gap.

And yet, this assumption is (almost surely) based on the idea that there are some things about which you are completely incorrigible (your own thoughts, for example), and others about which you are somewhat more doubtful, right?

No, it's based on evidence that I am the best at reading my mind.

Not really. Belief is a disposition to strongly hold a certain side. In any game that has any competitive aspect of any kind, one must choose a side. Therefore, "belief" is pre-game

So people can't lie?

Okay. I'm not looking for absolute truth. I'm looking for consistency and completeness.

In whose reference frame?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you were to present your question, [Is "no" the answer to this question?] at random to a typical human being, would you really have the gall to claim it as, by your standards, a "well-defined question worthy of a serious search for a correct answer"? I personally do not know anyone who would even be tempted to take you seriously. Please, put a little thought into your analysis.

I wasn't asking a typical human being nor did I claim it was worthy of a serious search for a correct answer. I didn't even claim it had a correct answer. I was applying your method to the question, and I all I got was another another question.

I do not find your example as reasonable evidence you understood what I said! In my mind, it is about as intelligent a question as, "what is the color, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?"

Your method doesn't require "intelligent" questions, it requires well-defined, conceivable questions. If you want people to pose only intelligent questions, then make it a requirement.

The question is meaningless on the face of it. Now I admit that I am a very opinionated old man; many years ago, I went carefully through the incompleteness theorem and came to the conclusion that what it said was that there existed no logic formalism which guaranteed one could not construct the statement, "this statement is false";

Then you came to the wrong conclusion.

that's nice and it may very well be true but it's not very useful to understanding anything.

Wrong. It is very useful for understanding formal systems.

I am very tempted to take your response as an indicator that you don't want to think about the implications of the procedure I lay out and would prefer to marginalize the idea so you can ignore it.

I used that question because it is very useful for understanding formal systems, and I wanted to understand your system.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is.

You came to the conclusion that they don't know what they're talking about. I presumed by "they" you meant ontologists and epistemologists. Yet you never asked either group what they think they are doing. You began with a dictionary definition. Perhaps by "they" you meant the people who wrote the dictionary.

You seem to have missed the point entirely; I wasn't looking to answer a question, I was merely pointing out the source of the confusion engendered by sloppy thinking.

As was I.

Well, you would have to tell me what else you think defines things. I am at a loss for what you have in mind.

A system of words, for example, can define other words. That's precisely what dictionaries do.

You do bring up an interesting point though. We communicate via a language which consists of a collection of symbols which we intuitively presume mean what we think they mean. Suppose we are wrong and there exists an interpretation far different than what we think we are hearing. How would you propose to take that possibility into account in your thinking?

You try to reveal the different interpretations by looking for inconsistencies.

Now you haven't thought about that have you?

Of course I have. What do you think my dog lovers example was about?

I don't want to strain your brain but how about thinking about that for a while; can you come up with a way of accommodating that issue in your thinking? If you are going to define things, you have to start somewhere; where do you think one should begin?

With a relation between two undefined terms.

All I am trying to do at the moment is to get you to recognize the existence of that problem.

Great, I recognize the existence of the problem you've stated.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

This concept can be very complex, but as I see it, it is very simple. "If it works, go with it."

_____________________________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Iacchus32]

I have a mind. That mind is aware. Through that awareness I interact. The truth is bound up inside of all of that. What is else is there to know? Without a mind? ... Not much.

I know it sounds awfully simplistic, but how do we know the truth except through our experience of it? Why should it have to be more complicated than that? I'm not saying we should implicitly trust what our minds tell us but, unless we understand that this is how how it works, how will we know anything?

 

[Doctordick]

To honestrosewater, exactly what is Evidence?

First, let me say that I found your latest response to be quite rational. It is entirely possible that we might be able to understand one another (believe me I don't blame you; I know I am not easy to understand as my mode of thinking is quite outside the norm). Maybe I can clear things up a little bit.

I was applying your method to the question, and I all I got was another question.

It isn't "my method"; it is nothing more than a different perspective on what is the standard method; a perspective which puts emphasis on different aspects than does the common representation. My perspective puts major emphasis on existence of alternate answers and the existence of meaningless questions, two issues not seriously considered in the standard perspective.

Let me put [forth the] following diagram of "the scientific method" in an objective attack.

(I guess I was sloppy when I typed the original; sorry.) Notice that I called it my "diagram" not my method. Take a look at a common presentation of the scientific method obtained by googling "scientific method" (those are my comments in parenthesis):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (Observation is trying to understand: i.e., asking a question; and the description corresponds to those answers to relevant questions we believe are true: i.e., brought up in my step 2.)

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. (All this says is "come up with a possible answer". The only difference in my presentation is that I ask for all possible answers. And as I said, this is the difficult part! In most cases, just coming up with one answer is so difficult that most people can't do it; that's why I say, "well, that's life; perfection is hard to come by". My point is simply that one should keep in mind the fact that other answers are possible. Most people tend to forget that.)

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. (Now isn't this just, "work out all the logical consequences of that answer being correct"?)

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. (The only difference between my presentation and this is that I explicitly specify the requirement that you should look at places where the predictions are different,)

Both you and Nereid both chose to use questions (which were obviously meaningless) for the purpose of understanding my supposed method. By doing so, you explicitly displayed your failure to relate what I said to the common presentation of the "scientific method" (the relationship I have just diagramed above). I took that to indicate that you both had totally failed to comprehend why I had written what I wrote.

I will not comment about "formal systems" as that subject is far too vast to discuss here and now, and understanding "understanding" must come first anyway.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is

I also know that most everything I know is there by intuition and that logic and analysis is about as close to worthless as one can get (something life has convinced him of). However, I am not confused by the apparent singular successes of logic and analysis (as the common man actually is) because I understand what it is and why and where it works.

A system of words, for example, can define other words. That's precisely what dictionaries do.

No, that is precisely what dictionaries do not do!

When I was in the third grade, the teacher told us that it was against the rules for the dictionary to use the word to be defined in its definition as then you would have to know what the word meant in order to find out what it meant and that would be stupid. (Not her words exactly; but in essence what she said). Well, the first thing that popped into my head was, "what happens if the definition contains a word whose meaning I don't know?" Well, it was obvious you would have to look that word up too. As soon as one heads down that road, it's clear the dictionary has to be circular in the final analysis.

Now I wasn't but ten years old and not a very sophisticated thinker so the consequences of that fact weren’t obvious to me. But I was curious as to how many words you would have to look up before you got back to the word you started with (it was just a question which popped into my head, and I had no comprehension of the possible lengths of such a string). Being dumb, I went to the dictionary (on a podium on the side of the room) to see what the answer was.

Since, in my head, it made no difference what word I started with, I started at the beginning. I was absolutely astounded to see the definition of "a"! Right there in black and white, the authority of the world, the official dictionary said, "a: the first letter of the alphabet; a pronoun ...". I closed the dictionary and went back to my seat convinced that the teacher had just given us a gullibility test. Why else would she have told us something so easy to disprove? I was a strange kid. I never said anything to anyone else because I thought it was a secret between adults and I wanted to be an adult. (I had a very strong aversion to being gullible when I was a child.) I know now that the error was not intentional but I have looked in a lot of dictionaries in my life and don't remember seeing one without that error somewhere in the definition of "a".

At any rate, it was then when I began to wonder just how we came to know what words meant. Dictionaries certainly were not the source and neither could language in general between people provide the source for exactly the same reason. Somehow we manage to achieve understanding of language from undefined information. Once you think about it for a while, it becomes pretty obvious that the answer to that question is fundamental to understanding anything and/or everything.

From that day forward, whenever anyone told me anything, the first question that appeared in my mind was, "how do I know that is true". In most cases the answer was, "I don't! They expect me to believe an authority!" That is the phenomena which lead me into physics. The answers in physics seemed to be better than anywhere else; until I got into graduate school when physics began to resemble the other fields (it became very dependent on authority).

You try to reveal the different interpretations by looking for inconsistencies.

That presumes there are inconsistencies; i.e., that there is but one valid solution. That is one of the specific reasons I stated the "scientific method" the way I did.

Yes, you did touch upon the issue with your "dog lovers" example and I had hoped you might understand what I was talking about but I have been disappointed so many times in the past that I really don't like to jump to conclusions.

With a relation between two undefined terms.

That is exactly the answer proposed by everyone I have ever heard of and it cannot possibly be the proper starting point as "two undefined terms" are "two undefined terms" and nothing more. That approach is exactly equivalent to picking at the threads of the Gordian knot; it simply can't be untied that way! You need to cut through the whole thing in one swift cut. (And you can't do that without creating a sword[/color] first. )

That's why I brought up the other post I referred to you. "Logical thought" cannot solve the problem because "logical thought" is far too limited to encompass the totality of relationships involved. And "squirrel thought" cannot solve the problem because there exists no way to validate "squirrel thought". The solution can only be achieved through intimate cooperation between the two modes and that has to be done with full knowledge of the range of errors possible in each and a way of handling those errors such that the consequences are minimized (hopefully eliminated).

To make a long story short, one must expose the proper logical question to the powers of squirrel thought. You've heard that old adage, the "whole problem is asking the right question". At the same time you must take full advantage of logical thought.

So I will begin with definition. Definition is quite clearly a problem which can only be solved by squirrel thought. The difficulty here is that we have no way of knowing our interpretations are the same. As you said, inconsistencies are the only clew available. But that attack will fail in their absence. Again, as you pointed out, it is the relationships which are important. If there are no inconsistencies, the interpretations are equivalent to one another; that is, a consistent mapping may be constructed. The whole thing becomes equivalent to code breaking.

By the way, in your dog example, the picture is actually no more than another communicative entity and thus becomes the inconsistency looked for. You should realize that even that inconsistency might not exist. In regard to this question, there is a waiter at our local Red Lobster restaurant who is the spitting image of Eddie Murphy; so long as you see him face on. As soon as he turns his head the illusion totally vanishes.

What all this implies is that the shear unexamined volume of vocabulary is the real source of difficulties. The size of the information source is so large that "logical thought" cannot eliminate the existence of inconsistencies. We are lucky in this regard as, for thousands of years, a certain number of logically facile people (called mathematicians) have been working very diligently on a language which, to the best of their ability, lacks inconsistencies. I have often defined mathematics to be the invention and study of self consistent systems (which I think is considerably better than what you will find in a dictionary). What is important to me is that there is considerably less room for confusion if something can be expressed in mathematics. Of course, it isn't a very powerful language for expressing complex squirrel ideas. That's why this post is being written in English. So long as I and my reader remember that communications via English are fundamentally vague and inexact we can make good use of it.

All of this was to get down to one very simple statement: the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics". I leave your understanding and facility in that area entirely to your personal "squirrel thought" capabilities. That is, I am essentially assuming that statements I make in mathematics are communicable; the procedures and relationships so expressed are "equivalent" in your world view and mine in spite of the fact that there might actually exist an alternate interpretation of that collective set of concepts and relationships. (And, if there are inconsistencies, people much more qualified than I am are already working hard to straighten it out.)

If you can understand what I have just said and why I said it, we are perhaps beginning to communicate. The issue here is to keep the possibility of alternate interpretation always open in spite of the fact that I can not think of one. You should be able to comprehend that the fact that you cannot think of a totally consistent alternate interpretation of something is no evidence that such a thing does not exist.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Mentat]

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

I suppose.

It's still possible for a person to invent and play a debate game all by themselves.

I've never argued against that. What I argue against is the concept that s/he could have come up with the game without having been exposed to society at any point in his/her life.

No, multi-player doesn't mean multi-person. One person can play multiple roles.

What is a "role" in a multi-player game, if not the "role" of another person?

I can't come to know by playing a debate game- that's the whole point. If you want to be unable to know anything until you succeed in defending it in a debate game, go right ahead. I can come to know things all on my own.

But what you mean by the word "know" is what this entire debate hinges on. If you are talking about something absolute, indubitable, about which you are allowed (by whomever) to be incorrigible, then you're wasting your time. The only things you are allowed (by whomever) to be incorrigible about are those things about which you can convince someone else that you have privileged access.

As to incorrigibility when nobody else is involved: that's just ridiculous. Of course your going to be incorrigible in a game you play which yourself (like "introspection"). It's as I've already said: when you play on your own, you win, no matter what.

Not what I'm talking about.

Then what are you talking about?

Not what I'm talking about. Do you know what I was thinking about a minute ago? I do.

Then it is what you were talking about, since that's exactly what I was saying: you have greater knowledge (or, at least, are expected to) about what you were thinking about a minute ago.

I don't just worry about playing the game at hand. I worry about making sense of all the evidence I have. Playing debate games creates more problems than it solves.

It's not just about "debate" games. It's about all games. (That's why I asked if you really wanted to specialize, and only talk about the "debate" variety...there are so many others).

Establishing relative truth in argument is obviously a matter of winning debate. But, playing other games can be quite different. For example, you mentioned making sense of all the evidence you have. That's a game, too. It works differently than the debate game, but it's still just a "game" with family resemblances to the other "games". Because of this, you will never find an "absolute grounding" of "indubitable truth", and it is the pursuit of such a thing that I say has mis-guided philosophy for the past centuries.

How would that work?

What do you mean?

No. The geocentric model is not consistent with the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model agrees with observation, the geocentric model does not.

I didn't say the models were consistent with one another. I didn't say they were both "true". (You'd really have less difficult understanding me if you'd just drop this "truth" problem you seem to have. I don't mean that to be offensive, but it's getting in the way.)

The geocentric model was what was held at one time, the heliocentric model was held at another time. Now, neither is really held. The current concept is relative to inertial reference frames (pace Einstein).

And they aren't even about expansion; They're about orbits.

I know they're about orbits, but that doesn't change the fact that the (currently held...by some) concept of a Universe wherein every point is "expanding" away from every other point allows for us to place the "center" arbitrarily.

And the results of debate games are inconsistent in themselves and irrelevant otherwise.

Language-games, my dear honestrosewater, debate games are just one language-game.

And what do you mean by "irrelevant otherwise"? What is "otherwise"? Is there something that can be discussed without discussion (discussion=language=language-games)?

BTW, the results are not incosistent "in themselves", they are inconsistent with one another, which is why there are paradigm-shifts.

The point is that debate games are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what I am thinking.

Well, you can form an opinion about what you are thinking completely on your own. You can believe it with all your heart. But it won't mean anything at all to us (the rest of humanity) unless you tell us about it (telling us is positing something in the language-game). And it will only hold privileged status if we hold that it is the case that people have privileged status to what's going on in their cortical patterns. As I said, this will not be a very strong rule if neurology discovers an algorithmic (or, at least, heuristic) model of cortical patterns and their interactions.

No, it's based on evidence that I am the best at reading my mind.

You "read" your mind? I know it's just a metaphor, but I don't think it's a very good one. There is nothing "written" on your brain, in any meaningful sense. Your brain is not a tabula on which to have something "written". It is, instead, a dynamic organ, with dynamic patterns that change with time and use. You can't read your brain. Neither can anyone else. There's nothing to read.

Now, if you mean that you have privileged access to your cerebral patterns and their behavior, then I would say that's highly unlikely.

So people can't lie?

What does lying have to do with belief?

 

[honestrosewater]

Sorry, I've been busy. I haven't forgotten about this thread and will respond ASAP.
BTW, Mentat, I think we agree on just about everything.

 

[Mentat]

Sorry, I've been busy. I haven't forgotten about this thread and will respond ASAP.
BTW, Mentat, I think we agree on just about everything.

Really? Then I anxiously await your next post .

 

[honestrosewater]

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

I suppose.

Has someone won this game yet?

 

[honestrosewater]

All of this was to get down to one very simple statement: the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics". I leave your understanding and facility in that area entirely to your personal "squirrel thought" capabilities. That is, I am essentially assuming that statements I make in mathematics are communicable; the procedures and relationships so expressed are "equivalent" in your world view and mine in spite of the fact that there might actually exist an alternate interpretation of that collective set of concepts and relationships. (And, if there are inconsistencies, people much more qualified than I am are already working hard to straighten it out.)

Okay, great. Define "the field of mathematics".

 

[Chronos]

Let's be rigorous about this and stop playing games with rose. Verbosity is not the same as validity. What is evidence? It's your trap, so show me the bait. I see what I see, hear what I hear, and smell what I smell - and it smacks of undigested hay. That is the observational evidence. Other forms of evidence are irrelevant. I will be more forgiving when your tea leaves make testable and experimentally validated predictions.

 

[Doctordick]

All of this was to get down to one very simple statement: the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics". I leave your understanding and facility in that area entirely to your personal "squirrel thought" capabilities. That is, I am essentially assuming that statements I make in mathematics are communicable; the procedures and relationships so expressed are "equivalent" in your world view and mine in spite of the fact that there might actually exist an alternate interpretation of that collective set of concepts and relationships. (And, if there are inconsistencies, people much more qualified than I am are already working hard to straighten it out.)

Okay, great. Define "the field of mathematics".

You have apparently missed my point entirely. It is probably my fault. I have examined peoples reaction to what I say carefully and have noticed that it is very difficult to get them to pay any attention to the issues I think are critical. I am at a loss as to how one gets them to think about these issues. The experience is very much like squeezing a bar of soap; as soon as I think I have constrained the issue to a specific fact, their attention spurts out to another subject. The best I can do is to repeat myself from another direction. Believe me I am seriously trying. Try reading

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=452793#post452793

I have tried to make it clear that the issue of definition is a result of intuitive correlation of massive amounts of information: i.e., each of us have, in our heads, meanings attached to the symbols we use. I have labeled the procedure by which we achieved that result "squirrel thought"; quantumcarl calls it "zen" and others just call it "intuition". I chose to put forth a new label for the simple reason that I wanted to bring to the forefront the fact that, although it is clearly the most successful and the most powerful mechanism" by which we can come to "know" anything, it is utterly impossible to prove that knowledge correct. I did that to avoid the ambiguity which would exist if I used the label "zen" or "intuition" (I don't want to mess with other peoples words).

When I said, 'the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics"', what I meant was that I would regard "the field of mathematics" as a defined issue. What I am trying to do is create an accepted vocabulary which we can use to communicate. So long as we are stuck with common English, we cannot believe we are communicating; all we are really doing is exchanging vague nuances which can not (in general) ever be considered exact.

I have talked to philosophers before and, like that proverbial bar of soap, getting them to accept mathematics as a useful tool is almost impossible. The discussion always goes off into that never never land of "how do you know logic is rational?" Of course the correct answer is I don't; but that shouldn't be sufficient to stop one from thinking. The central point is that, so long as we are in the field of mathematics, the consequences of symbolized operations and procedures can be consistently be symbolized: i.e., we can get far reaching agreement on those consequences. Thus, whether mathematics is right or wrong is of no critical importance; what is important is that the vast majority of human beings will agree that they are agreeing. Agreement is the central measure of any real communication.

So, what I am saying to you is that I will accept "the field of mathematics" as an understood thing. In your own head, you can use any definitions of the terms, symbols, operation and consequences you wish and I will be willing to presume we are communicating (so long as the professionals in the field agree with any arguments you present using those meanings: i.e., you are up to snuff on what the mathematicians have concluded constitute "valid" mathematics).

The central issue here is to make no commitment to the idea that anything we "know" is correct! How do we do that and still communicate? Isn't that a fundamental problem in philosophy? I think I know what "evidence" is (or should be if we want to be exact) and I would like to discus the issue in an exact (scientific) manner; however, we need to agree on a vocabulary with which to communicate.

Looking to hear from you -- Dick

 

[honestrosewater]

When I said, 'the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics"', what I meant was that I would regard "the field of mathematics" as a defined issue.

Oh, my fault. Go ahead, me :!) math. (I'm actually planning on returning to school and majoring in math.)

 

[Doctordick]

To honestrosewater!

Oh, my fault. Go ahead, me :!) math. (I'm actually planning on returning to school and majoring in math.)

Sorry about not answering your post directly but I have already answered "saviourmachine" on the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?"thread; and I think everything I have said to him goes directly to our conversation. Take a look at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=453914#post453914

Perhaps it would be convenient to start a new thread combining the issues of these two threads, I certainly consider them to be very closely related. If you think that is true and a worthwhile step, I will follow your lead.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Iacchus32]

The central issue here is to make no commitment to the idea that anything we "know" is correct! How do we do that and still communicate? Isn't that a fundamental problem in philosophy? I think I know what "evidence" is (or should be if we want to be exact) and I would like to discus the issue in an exact (scientific) manner; however, we need to agree on a vocabulary with which to communicate.

Looking to hear from you -- Dick

Why so complicated as this? Is a hammer used for driving nails? If the Universe exists, and the truth about that Universe exists and, if we have a mind by which to assess these truths, what else is there to know, outside of what the mind knows? It all pretty much comes from the same place doesn't it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Indeed, it's very important that we're "cognizant" to recognize the truth of anything. So, might I suggest that the key to unlocking the secrets of the Universe, plain and simple, resides within cognizance?

 

[Mentat]

Has someone won this game yet?

Not 'til one of use backs down. If you'd like that person to be me, it will be so.

 

[honestrosewater]

Not 'til one of use backs down. If you'd like that person to be me, it will be so.

Reading loseyourname's posts in your wrong turns thread, I thought we would agree. But now that I've this post, it sounds like you're a behaviorist. Regardless of the nature of mental states, I don't understand how you can deny they exist. So I guess we don't agree. We seem to just be talking past each other anyway. Perhaps we'll eventually understand what each other are saying, but I think we should just drop it for now.

 

[Mentat]

Reading loseyourname's posts in your wrong turns thread, I thought we would agree. But now that I've this post, it sounds like you're a behaviorist. Regardless of the nature of mental states, I don't understand how you can deny they exist. So I guess we don't agree. We seem to just be talking past each other anyway. Perhaps we'll eventually understand what each other are saying, but I think we should just drop it for now.

Not exactly a behaviorist, but something of a Wittgensteinian. However, the fact that I've been asking everyone here to define "mental states" for me -- and no one has thus far succeeded -- seems like a clear indication that I don't (yet?) hold that they exist. After all, I don't even know what they are, so how could I decide whether I think they are real?