Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:51 pm
I think you might be confusing the map with the territory, unless you're saying you live in a different universe than me.
I'm guessing it's the same one, but mine is not consistant in any case. I was black boxing the issue of how our experiences would be different and also attempting to be wry. Or half wry. I think it's obvious that my universe is inconsistent (for me, for my experience, which, in the end is all I have along with other people's experiences and conclusions, and the lot of us are both fallible, paradigm-habitual and blindspotty)
If I really tried at all times to have one epistemology, one ontology, one ethics and so on, this would imply that I've got the perfect model in each one. And no other models are ever useful, given my limited knowledge and our limited knowledge.
If so, what is a universe? Your map is inconsistent when it doesn't accurately represent the territory.
Well, that's possible. But then other people's maps aren't working for me either, in some always consistent way.
It may appear contradictory, possible, or random. The universe is none of these things.
I am not sure, but I am not arguing it is random, possible (at least I don't think so), nor contradictory.
It is deterministic, but the problem is that the every event in the universe is unique, but can be similar, so we can only make judgements and predictions based on similar experiences with similar events. Often times that is good enough, but not always, hence our mistakes and ability to learn.
Given the way I experience it, I do not assume that it must be consistent over time or in all locations. I am not arguing it isn't though there is support for differences, even in laws and constants over time, and cetainly different contexts have different phenomena. And since our understanding is incomplete, I don't have to decide.
But let's go back to where this started. I said I was not sure the goal of being consistant is a good one. Especially if that is taken to mean always or nearly always.
You're response was...
The universe is not inconsistent. Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy). Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
Let's look at that first part. I should be consistent because the universe is consistent. I don't think that holds. If it was simple and phenomena were simple, easy to break down, we knew all the rules, etc., then ok, I get that. But given that I have all sorts of unbelievably complicated situations and I personally and we as a species have incomplete knowledge, my holding myself to consistency need not be the best set of heuristics. Because perhaps, as a fallible human, what seem to me to be inconsistances are in fact me working from models that are all not perfect and using heuristics that may often be correct, except when......they're not.
And that using intuition for gliding between models and heuristics may well be the best approach for me.
Who is this little voice in the brain demanding consistency? Why do I assume that it's models and heuristics are perfect?
Yeah, I just don't see how being inconsistent is helpful to others in understanding your position.
Well, 1) it's honest. 2) I see other people mixing epistemologies and ontologies all the time. People with time on their hands, typing into a philosophy forum, may manage to be consistent, but I think they are not really like this in real life. And even here contradictions come regularly. I am not arguing that inconsistancy is helpful. In fact, I said it was no longer the goal for me. And after undergoing/making that change, I do not notice that I am worse at/less effective in life. Quite the opposite, and with less stress. (of course, that anecdotal evidence doesn't demonstrate my choice was right for me or others. However, I think I have some good reasons for thinking I do not necessarily lose anything and may gain. Given our limited knowledge, probably oversimplified heuristics and models (or incorrect ones). And then, everyone else seems to have contradictions (just listen to the way people constitute identity over the course of an afternoon of conversation) while pretending otherwise.
Effectively you don't have a position if you are inconsistent, as being inconsistent literally cancels out anything that you said prior to what you are saying now.
Well, what I say is in specific contexts. And further, I don't know what else eclecticism would entail. The truth is I come to what I consider is truth through a variety of methodologies/epistemologies. I'd be embarrassed, but then everyone I meet is like this.
Contradictions are meaningless - just scribbles on the screen or sounds in the air. It is improper language use, which is where most philosophical problems are created.
A single utterance of a contradiction, an oxymoron, say is generally useless. But that's not the same as being inconsistant over time. Further even oxymorons can be useful There's a consulting firm, Synectics, that actually demands that it's experts come up with oxymorons as part of a process of generating solutions.
And if I am doing experiments and it seems like X is a particle and later it seems like a wave and as far as any sane ontology demands this must be a contradiction, I could lie, stop talking about one set of results, blame my machinery...or I could just go with what seems like a contradiction (and perhaps is one) for decades even, until we find some way to reconcile this.
I am always in the position of having limited knowledge. I could throw out anything that is (which means seems, because I am a person who has limited knowledge and our whole species is also in this position) a contradiction...or I could move forward with contradictions and sit with them, yes, even for decades. Maybe it will turn out that it is my machines or a weak protocol. Or maybe there is something so strange even after 80 years someone like Feynman (I'm not sure when he died) will say no one understands it, but the results are good. And so in some way a contradiction or seeming one is the case.
And this is in science. In my life, dualism and monism both seem to generate useful thoughts and 'fit' situations. In my interactions with humans pretty much any psychological theory, sociological research, developmental theories works sometimes other times not. I contradict myself. I can only hope that I choose when to shift based on good intuition. And that I will notice areas when my intuition has failed me more than in other areas. But I see no reason to hang onto consistency. I'll go to the accupuncturist and a physiotherapist on referral from the doctor for the same ailment. I'll view the body through TCM and through Western nutritioinal standards on different occasions. So, to with all sorts of other things.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pmSure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis.
I can say with great certainty that I cannot eliminate my attachments to most hypotheses I consider. Some I care about little, some tremendously, but preferences are always there. And if I couldn't find one, I'd assume there's a good chance I don't want to notice it, which might be a more dangerous (in the sense of fooling myself).
Again, confusing the map with the territory. Your caring has no bearing on what is true.
I didn't say that. I did not say that my caring has no bearing on what is true.
I responded to
Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis.
My emphasis added.
To me I am simply being honest. I cannot NOT have an emotional attachment. My limbic system does not go away. Perhaps you mean something like, I try my best to examine the facts and even if it causes me emotional pain or goes against what I want, I choose the most justified conclusion. But that's not what you wrote.
I have emotional attachments to various hypotheses. Those don't go away, even if it is bad that this is the case. I don't think they are bad to have. and I can work with this situation. And quite often I have noticed that the feelings were right. Which does not mean I only go with feelings. But sometimes when my gut tells me that there is something I cannot realize or find skewed about the evidence or deduction, I go with that. And it is not easy to separate out my desire from my spot on intuition, or my fears from my intuition. But as far as I can tell my track record is pretty good. Of course, I could be being fallible about that. But that is always the case about pretty much any conclusion.
I am in this situation, with limited knowledge, limited models, fallible fellow humans, incomplete heuristics, incomplete and fallible metaheuristics and metamodels. I used to aim for consistency. But now I trust more of myself and find a more complicated approach works better. I doubt that is universal. IOW I am not saying everyone should do that. I have no idea.
I am not saying the world is inconsistent. Nor do I rule that out. The world (or worlds) might be vastly more flexible then we realize.