All Circular Reasoning is Linear

[Atla]

Your framework is too irrational, so why agree with it.

And philosophy can't make decisions for humanity. Is philosophy the One World Government?

Lets not solve all of humanity's problems all at once now. Agree amongst yourselves on something. That'll be a start!

So - tell me what your objective standards for "rationality" vs "irrationality" is? What any 1st year statistics student calls a binary classifier ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification )

My framework is battle-tested (figuratively and literally) against entropy - real-world complex systems. Applied science, risk management and decision-making affecting the well-being of millions of people! Your framework has been "battle-tested" on a forum.

As far as I am concerned - rationality is risk management.

I don't believe that; your framework is nonsense outside of IT. Maybe even detrimental outside of IT.

i also don't care about your defective objective standards and binary classifiers.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't believe that; your framework is nonsense outside of IT. Maybe even detrimental outside of IT.

i also don't care about your defective objective standards and binary classifiers.

IT ? It's a framework that has been applied to industrial engineering, aviation safety, medical safety and patient care.Incident response. Military and police units around the world. Anywhere where decision-making and managing risk and the well-being of HUMANS is required!

Systems engineering is applied ethics!

Just so it happens in the field of computation we got to iterate MUCH faster than everybody else because we have a lot of control over our systems. Computers do EXACTLY as they are told! And so we learned faster than everybody else. About growth, scale and complexity. But we BORROWED the initial framework from them.

And we made it better.

[Atla]

I don't believe that; your framework is nonsense outside of IT. Maybe even detrimental outside of IT.

i also don't care about your defective objective standards and binary classifiers.

IT ? It's a framework that has been applied to industrial engineering, aviation safety, medical safety and patient care.Incident response. Military and police units around the world. Anywhere where decision-making and managing risk and the well-being of HUMANS is required!

Systems engineering is applied ethics!

Just so it happens in the field of computation we got to iterate MUCH faster than anybody else (because we have a lot of control over our systems). Computers do EXACTLY as they are told! And so we learned faster than everybody else. But we BORROWED the initial framework from them.

And we made it better.

That's no philosophical framework at all then, just a pragmatic approach. The fuck does that have to do with philosophy?

[TimeSeeker]

That's no philosophical framework at all then, just a pragmatic approach. The fuck does that have to do with philosophy?

No true scotsman?!?

What is your delineation/criteria for what is "philosophy" and what isn't?

Ethics? Check.
OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS? Check!
Ontology? Check!
Epistemology? Check!

We solved all those things. And you?

[Atla]

That's no philosophical framework at all then, just a pragmatic approach. The fuck does that have to do with philosophy?

No true scotsman?!?

What is your delineation/criteria for what is "philosophy" and what isn't?

Ethics? Check.
OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS? Check!
Ontology? Check!
Epistemology? Check!

We solved all those things. And you?

I don't think your approach is really about any of the things you listed. It's merely a pragmatic approach to reduce harm to humans.

[TimeSeeker]

That's no philosophical framework at all then, just a pragmatic approach. The fuck does that have to do with philosophy?

No true scotsman?!?

What is your delineation/criteria for what is "philosophy" and what isn't?

Ethics? Check.
OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS? Check!
Ontology? Check!
Epistemology? Check!

We solved all those things. And you?

I don't think your approach is really about any of the things you listed. It's merely a pragmatic approach to reduce harm to humans.

Well it is a pragmatic approach. But in order to get there we had to solve all of the philosophical grounding too!

Without a shared metaphysical, epistemic, ontological and ethical foundation amongst practitioners - we end up exactly like philosophers! Arguing miscommunicating and trying to outwit each other with stupid word tricks - instead of converging towards a decision!

We had to have objective frameworks for them so that we can move forward!

Q.E.D

We've built a community that can cooperate and solve problems. You've built a community of contrarians.

[Atla]

No true scotsman?!?

What is your delineation/criteria for what is "philosophy" and what isn't?

Ethics? Check.
OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS? Check!
Ontology? Check!
Epistemology? Check!

We solved all those things. And you?

I don't think your approach is really about any of the things you listed. It's merely a pragmatic approach to reduce harm to humans.

Well it is a pragmatic approach. But in order to get there we had to solve all of the philosophical grounding too!

Without a shared metaphysical, epistemic, ontological and ethical foundation amongst practitioners - we end up exactly like philosophers! Arguing miscommunicating and trying to outwit each other with stupid word tricks - instead of converging towards a decision!

We had to have objective frameworks for them so that we can move forward!

Q.E.D

You have a shared pragmatic framework, towards a goal.
By and large philosophy is framework vs framework, without a particular goal. If it has a goal then it's finding the "best" unviersal framework.

Not all human activity has a specific pragmatic goal, why do you have a problem with that?

[TimeSeeker]

You have a shared pragmatic framework, towards a goal.
By and large philosophy is framework vs framework, without a particular goal. If it has a goal then it's finding the "best" unviersal framework.

Not all human activity has a specific pragmatic goal, why do you have a problem with that?

If it has no goal (not even masturbatory self-gratification) then why do it? And if you are pursuing a "best framework" then surely you have some objective criteria for deciding which framework is "better" ? Flat earth vs round earth etc!

And if you go and say "Because we can" then.... By all means, but please go stop pretending that what you do has any relevance to important social issues like Truth and Knowledge! And especially - ethics.

You should put it on the warning label (like we do with food) so that people who are looking to learn about such things don't get confused that philosophy offers any value.

That's my grudge 5 years sunk cost - to figure out you know nothing!

For a bunch of 'intellectuals' one would've thought that you can't decide on "best" without some criteria for "good". So you had to solve "objective morality" first!

[Atla]

You have a shared pragmatic framework, towards a goal.
By and large philosophy is framework vs framework, without a particular goal. If it has a goal then it's finding the "best" unviersal framework.

Not all human activity has a specific pragmatic goal, why do you have a problem with that?

If it has no goal (not even masturbatory self-gratification) then why do it?

And if you go and say "Because we can" then.... By all means, but please go stop pretending that what you do has any relevance to important social issues like Truth and Knowledge! And especially - ethics.

You should put it on the warning label (like we do with food) so that people who are looking to learn about such things don't get confused that philosophy offers any value.

That's my grudge 5 years sunk cost - to figure out you know nothing!

Because it's a need for some people to try to make some sense of existence. (Which can be immensely gratifying btw.) We already established that you probably don't have this need, don't understand this need.

Btw your ignorance (entropy hehe) about what philosophy is about is mind-boggling to me.

Some people look at the world and ask: ok wtf is this, wtf is existence, wtf is going on?

[TimeSeeker]

Because it's a need for some people to try to make some sense of existence. (Which can be immensely gratifying btw.) We already established that you probably don't have this need, don't understand this need.

Btw your ignorance (entropy hehe) about what philosophy is about is mind-boggling to me.

Some people look at the world and ask: ok wtf is this, wtf is existence, wtf is going on?

For a bunch of 'intellectuals' one would've thought that you would realize you can't decide on "best" without some criteria for "good". So you had to solve "objective morality" first! Without solving THIS problem - all you get is different. Better? Well - we don't know.

So we have a few hundred philosophical frameworks and no way to decide which one is "good". Nice If I had time to spare I would be sure to read all of them. NOT.

And I would've imagined that those questions don't have good answers without corresponding human expectations as to what a "good answer" looks like! So - surely ethics should be the first port of call for any beginner?

If you are looking for something you at least need to know what it FEELS like or LOOKS like - when you find it.
Otherwise - you never stop looking for what you can't find.

[Atla]

Because it's a need for some people to try to make some sense of existence. (Which can be immensely gratifying btw.) We already established that you probably don't have this need, don't understand this need.

Btw your ignorance (entropy hehe) about what philosophy is about is mind-boggling to me.

Some people look at the world and ask: ok wtf is this, wtf is existence, wtf is going on?

For a bunch of 'intellectuals' one would've thought that you would realize you can't decide on "best" without some criteria for "good". So you had to solve "objective morality" first! Without solving THIS problem - all you get is different. Better? Well - we don't know.

So we have a few hundred philosophical frameworks and no way to decide which one is "good". Nice If I had time to spare I would be sure to read all of them. NOT.

And I would've imagined that those questions don't have good answers without corresponding human expectations as to what a "good answer" looks like! So - surely ethics should be the first port of call for any beginner?

If you are looking for something you at least need to know what it FEELS like or LOOKS like - when you find it.
Otherwise - you never stop looking for what you can't find.

Good/best highly depends on framework, obviously. I can't make sense of your sentences. Don't know what you mean by that they should "feel/look like" either.

[TimeSeeker]

Good/best highly depends on framework, obviously. I can't make sense of your sentences. Don't know what you mean by that they should "feel/look like" either.

You said: By and large philosophy is framework vs framework, without a particular goal. If it has a goal then it's finding the "best" unviersal framework.

The general theoretical problem of this scenario is called CLASSIFICATION (which you said you don't care about despite having done statistics): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

ALL CLASSIFICATION IS PREDICTION! That thing science cares about.

You have a bunch of items in a mixed bag. Your goal/objective is to predict/sort/classify the items from the bag into their respective categories.
In order to be able to complete this task you need sorting criteria: Classification rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ).
Red vs Green.
Round vs Square
Vanilla vs Chocolate
Cat vs Dog
Fat vs Thin
Ugly vs Beautiful
Sloppy vs Brilliant
Intellectual vs Pseudo-intellectual
.....
A vs B

This is how ALL prediction works! This is a generally applicable model!
Try it - you will see I am right.

Before you can sort "cats and dogs" into categories - first you need to know what a "cat" is AND what a "dog" is.

If you can't tell the difference between A and B, then what you are really trying to do is to sort a bag full of A into two categories.
HOW. But more importantly - WHY?

So if you can't differentiate good from bad........? Everything in philosophy is an A. Every framework is the same. Flat earth vs flat earth.

And so - without objective standards for sorting things into "good framework" and "bad framework".How is the arbitration supposed to happen?

[Atla]

Good/best highly depends on framework, obviously. I can't make sense of your sentences. Don't know what you mean by that they should "feel/look like" either.

You said: By and large philosophy is framework vs framework, without a particular goal. If it has a goal then it's finding the "best" unviersal framework.

The general theoretical problem of this scenario is called CLASSIFICATION (which you said you don't care about despite having done statistics): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

ALL CLASSIFICATION IS PREDICTION! That thing science cares about.

You have a bunch of items in a mixed bag. Your goal/objective is to predict/sort/classify the items from the bag into their respective categories.
In order to be able to complete this task you need sorting criteria: Classification rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ).
Red vs Green.
Round vs Square
Vanilla vs Chocolate
Cat vs Dog
Fat vs Thin
Ugly vs Beautiful
Sloppy vs Brilliant
Intellectual vs Pseudo-intellectual
.....
A vs B

This is how ALL prediction works! This is a generally applicable model!
Try it - you will see I am right.

Before you can sort "cats and dogs" into categories - first you need to know what a "cat" is AND what a "dog" is.

If you can't tell the difference between A and B, then what you are really trying to do is to sort a bag full of A into two categories.
HOW. But more importantly - WHY?

So if you can't differentiate good from bad........? Everything in philosophy is an A. Every framework is the same. Flat earth vs flat earth.

And so - without objective standards for sorting things into "good framework" and "bad framework". I ask again - WHY?

I don't understand your comment. Objective standards don't exist, it's just that some weak people are clinging to them. Personally I think (and some will undoubtedly disagree with me) that the better a framework describes the world we see (without resorting to magic and contradictions), the better it is.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't understand your comment. Objective standards don't exist, it's just that some weak people are clinging to them. Personally I think (and some will undoubtedly disagree with me) that the better a framework describes the world we see (without resorting to magic and contradictions), the better it is.

Yes. I know and accept that objective standards don't exist BUT if you set out on an endeavor to select the better of two things: A vs B.
You need SOME procedure to decide that:
A > B OR B > A

Otherwise you have a stale mate. Buridan's ass - can't decide between Food or Water and dies of indecision.

Here are some strategies to SELECT a 'winner':
1. Human values (I like A more than I like B because <insert subjective reason here>)
2. Roll a dice (entropy)
3. Survival of the fittest (competition)

If you are to pit A vs B in a competition then you necessarily need to have some rules by which one "wins" the competition. You need success vs failure criteria. Otherwise everybody is a winner! And you haven't solved the problem.

Personally I think (and some will undoubtedly disagree with me) that the better a framework describes the world we see (without resorting to magic and contradictions), the better it is.

Well there is a lot of "world" to describe! Let me give you some perspective (even though you don't believe in information)
A grain of salt contains 1.2x10^18 atoms ( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae342.cfm )

If you were to "describe" the grain of salt in detail then you need at least 1.2x10^18 bits of information just to represent each atom. So that's 888 Petabytes to describe one grain of salt. Let me help you visualise a Petabyte: https://www.thefactsite.com/2010/05/vis ... abyte.html

It is a BIG FUCKING NUMBER ok?

So which description do you think is better?
A: grain of salt
B: A few skyscrapers full of paper

"Accurate description of reality" is a moronic illusion. This place is too complex for our monkey brains! All we have is pragmatism and over-simplifications like "grain of salt".

[Atla]

Yes. I know and accept that objective standards don't exist BUT if you set out on an endeavor to select the better of two things: A vs B.
You need SOME procedure to decide that:
A > B OR B > A

Otherwise you have a stale mate. Buridan's ass - can't decide between Food or Water and dies of indecision.

Here are some strategies to SELECT a 'winner':
1. Human values (I like A more than I like B because <insert subjective reason here>)
2. Roll a dice (entropy)
3. Survival of the fittest (competition)

If you are to pit A vs B in a competition then you necessarily need to have some rules by which one "wins" the competition. You need success vs failure criteria. Otherwise everybody is a winner! And you haven't solved the problem.

Of course philosophy is a "stale mate" by definition. Many declare themselves winners based on their own criteria, which others completely reject. How else could it be? There can be NO objective standards. It's just how it is and no one can change it, why do you have such a hard time accepting it?

Well there is a lot of "world" to describe! Let me give you some perspective (even though you don't believe in information)
A grain of salt contains 1.2x10^18 atoms ( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae342.cfm )

If you were to "describe" the grain of salt in detail then you need at least 1.2x10^18 bits of information just to represent each atom. So that's 888 Petabytes to describe one grain of salt. Let me help you visualise a Petabyte: https://www.thefactsite.com/2010/05/vis ... abyte.html

It is a BIG FUCKING NUMBER ok?

So which description do you think is better?
A: grain of salt
B: A few skyscrapers full of paper

"Accurate description of reality" is a moronic illusion. This place is too complex for our monkey brains! All we have is pragmatism and over-simplifications like "grain of salt".

I have a perspective that goes several levels beyond yours, you don't have to give me such self-evident examples.