General

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

AJ — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:58:56 GMT

Well all right. Anyway, I don't even need to use the word real, and probably shouldn't since it obviously carries some baggage.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:10:30 GMT

People dont usually use the word "real" in the way you use it, and I pointed this out several times. But I was still willing to accept your definition for purposes of argumentation.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

AJ — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:04:30 GMT

Malachi:
How would you react in this analogous situation?

"we use the term "retard" to refer to human beings who are so foolish or stupid that they do not deserve to live. Bear in mind I have not identified any specific retards, nor do I claim that any actual retards exist. Furthermore, I do not propose a standard by which to evaluate the qualities that might make someone a retard. I am simply defining terms here. It is a matter of language and not theory"

Except that people don't usually use the word "retard" that way, especially if they're using it refer to people with mental disabilities.

See? That is how you respond when you don't like someone's definition, not by interpreting it as a theory.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Groucho — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 01:38:53 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Josh:
Unless I am The Solipsist, I know.

This does not answer the question, "how do you know?".

I guess the short answer is my checkbook balances.

So, I'm assuming here that you think the shaman tried it out first, then told everyone he had discovered it in a dream. In other words, he's full of it. Why to you consider that conclusion superior?

That is only your assumption; I never stated such a thing. I don't know anything about the shaman story beyond what is described in this thread.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:12:17 GMT

AJ:

Malachi:
Your act of proposing a definition is a statement. That definition refers to a theory, and implies a distinction I am not willing to make. By saying that some sense data are real, you make a statement about sense data, even if you expand the set of real sense data to include all sense data (as I do). Taking my position just makes your statement trivial.

You mean you're reading into my definition more than is there, assuming I'm making it with some ulterior motive, like perhaps that I want to dismiss certain sensory data. Well I'm not doing that. I'm simply trying to make a clear definition. I have no agenda, no theory to propose. I don't even think this is a field where it makes sense to have a theory or a position, even though it is fashionable in philosophy to do so. As far as I'm concerned it's solely a matter of clarifying the language.

How would you react in this analogous situation?

"we use the term "retard" to refer to human beings who are so foolish or stupid that they do not deserve to live. Bear in mind I have not identified any specific retards, nor do I claim that any actual retards exist. Furthermore, I do not propose a standard by which to evaluate the qualities that might make someone a retard. I am simply defining terms here. It is a matter of language and not theory"

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

AJ — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:12:11 GMT

Malachi:
Your act of proposing a definition is a statement. That definition refers to a theory, and implies a distinction I am not willing to make. By saying that some sense data are real, you make a statement about sense data, even if you expand the set of real sense data to include all sense data (as I do). Taking my position just makes your statement trivial.

You mean you're reading into my definition more than is there, assuming I'm making it with some ulterior motive, like perhaps that I want to dismiss certain sensory data. Well I'm not doing that. I'm simply trying to make a clear definition. I have no agenda, no theory to propose. I don't even think this is a field where it makes sense to have a theory or a position, even though it is fashionable in philosophy to do so. As far as I'm concerned it's solely a matter of clarifying the language.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:01:01 GMT

Josh:
Unless I am The Solipsist, I know.

This does not answer the question, "how do you know?".

So, I'm assuming here that you think the shaman tried it out first, then told everyone he had discovered it in a dream. In other words, he's full of it. Why to you consider that conclusion superior?

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:13:17 GMT

Josh:

Malachi:
How can you judge that the origins of the dreams are confined to your brain?

Because my nightcap has a tin-foil liner and they can't be beamed in. Seriously though, I have simply found no compelling reason to believe that dream events are taking place anywhere besides the brain of the dreamer. If people can be shown to communicate with one another in dreamed experiences (and If such a thing were possible, I think it would be easily demonstrable), I would immediately change my mind.

Well at least you try to keep an open mind. It's not easily demonstrable when you grow up immersed in a culture full of propaganda that derides anything outside of a narrow band of materialistic interests. Lucid dreaming is way more lame than dirtbikes, bro

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:09:00 GMT

Your act of proposing a definition is a statement. That definition refers to a theory, and implies a distinction I am not willing to make. By saying that some sense data are real, you make a statement about sense data, even if you expand the set of real sense data to include all sense data (as I do). Taking my position just makes your statement trivial.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

AJ — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:53:29 GMT

Malachi, you're not recognizing the difference between a definition of a term, and statement using a term interpreted with YOUR definition. You keep substituting your own definition of "real" into my definition and then interpreting it like a proposition. I say "Let's define real sense data as X" and you see instead "X are the real ("valid") sense data." It's easy to tell you're doing this because you say things like "I reject the real/unreal distinction." You're not reading. I'm not using your definition and then making a statement; I'm proposing my own definition and making NO statement with it at all. I'm not rejecting any sense data as "invalid" (whatever that even means). You might even be surprised that we're in agreement about sense data, since as of now you have no way of knowing what I thin k about them since I've said zero about that so far.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Groucho — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:41:43 GMT

Malachi:
How can you judge that the origins of the dreams are confined to your brain?

Because my nightcap has a tin-foil liner and they can't be beamed in. Seriously though, I have simply found no compelling reason to believe that dream events are taking place anywhere besides the brain of the dreamer. If people can be shown to communicate with one another in dreamed experiences (and If such a thing were possible, I think it would be easily demonstrable), I would immediately change my mind.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:26:25 GMT

If a shaman's visions were right twice a day, I think he would be extraordinarily popular.

hell, they might even make him the shaman.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Groucho — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:15:35 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

How do you know?

Unless I am The Solipsist, I know.

Of all the thousands of plant species in this one man's immediate enviroment?

How long had they lived in that environment? All of their lives, for generations stretching back who knows how far? I would imagine there were a great many unsuccessful attempts to treat snake envenomation for a very long time before this particular shaman tried this plant in an way that worked.

And a stopped clock is right twice a day.

If the shaman had the same record, he'd probably be out of a job real quick!

If a shaman's visions were right twice a day, I think he would be extraordinarily popular.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:59:01 GMT

AJ:
For example, if Winston believes that the jagged line on his visual field is a crack in his window (meaning that he will, for instance, want to avoid bumping into it), he will call it real, and if he believes it's a trick of the light, he won't call it real (since he doesn't believe it means anything for his actions). The is the definition I'm proposing, again, in simpler terms: Real sensations = sensations the speaker believes provide reliable guidance for his actions.

If he believes it to be a trick of the light he should call it a real trick of the light, instead of creating a mental category that makes no sense. This is exactly what I am talking about. And, you did it again. "Real sensations = sensations the speaker believes provide reliable guidance for his actions" when viewed through the lens of causal relationships. Meaning anything defined as "unreal" is divorced from cause/effect, and therefore meaningless, and cold not possibly suggest modification to his theory of cause/effect.

Re: Action Axiom, Free Will, and Physics

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:53:01 GMT

The definition mentions a feeling that people may have, and although that feeling may be the result of each person's own theory of cause and effect (or just their unreasoned feelings), no such theory is proposed by the definition.

that feeling is necessarily the result of a theory of cause and effect. Your definition of "real" presupposes several things. It presupposes a real/unreal distinction, and it presupposes a theory of cause and effect. My point is (and has been from the beginning) that your decision to eliminate certain data as "not real" has the tendency to put you in an echo chamber where everything that reinforces your theory of cause and effect is valid data, and everything that suggests a different theory is invalid data. "no such theory is proposed by the definition" you should have said "no specific theory" which would make my point more clear. My problem is with dogmatic exclusion of evidence based on any theory.

The definition only points to sensations, only names them, only gives a key for the readers to understand the terms used in the upcoming discussion.

And note how convenient the upcoming discussion would be for you if you were able to beg the question in this manner. I reject the real/unreal distinction. Things are real insofar as they are sensed or thought of. Interpretation starts when the senses are filtered into percepts. This interpretation relies on theory. I reject the dogmatic dismissal of sense data.

I am making a point about word usage, not a theory. We need to define terms BEFORE moving into the theory phase, and this exchange is a perfect example of why.

I am making a point about terms. see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_definition