solving epistemology
solving epistemology
The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.
Actionable certainty is predictive accuracy.
Predictive accuracy for the future comes from replication in the past; you have reason to expect output Y from input X because it happens that way more often than not.
Logic and science describe how to go from past replication to future prediction.
All languages are descriptive of our experience.
Logic describes the relationships between things and how they change relative to various input.
Logical rules are those relationships which hold true 100% of the time.
Science describes that which has been measured.
Measurement is the process of distinguishing between parts of something larger or more complex.
Knowledge is justified belief.
Justification can be either scientific or logical.
Bayesian reasoning is the framework for understanding how we integrate new information.
Evidence produces more or less certainty according to how well it replicates.
In practice, evidence is weighted differently in every mind according to individual priorities and experience.
There is a heirarchy of kinds of evidence, of which anecdote is the least sufficient and experience itself is most sufficient.
To be externally meaningful ideas must have external validation.
Using these maxims you can solve any problem in epistemology.
The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.
Actionable certainty is predictive accuracy.
Predictive accuracy for the future comes from replication in the past; you have reason to expect output Y from input X because it happens that way more often than not.
Logic and science describe how to go from past replication to future prediction.
All languages are descriptive of our experience.
Logic describes the relationships between things and how they change relative to various input.
Logical rules are those relationships which hold true 100% of the time.
Science describes that which has been measured.
Measurement is the process of distinguishing between parts of something larger or more complex.
Knowledge is justified belief.
Justification can be either scientific or logical.
Bayesian reasoning is the framework for understanding how we integrate new information.
Evidence produces more or less certainty according to how well it replicates.
In practice, evidence is weighted differently in every mind according to individual priorities and experience.
There is a heirarchy of kinds of evidence, of which anecdote is the least sufficient and experience itself is most sufficient.
To be externally meaningful ideas must have external validation.
Using these maxims you can solve any problem in epistemology.
Re: solving epistemology
You don't need certainty to act. Only willingness to accept the cost of unforeseen consequences.
You don't skydive because you are certain your parachute will work. You skydive because you accept the risk of it failing.
Re: solving epistemology
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503181 time=1616175057 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503179 time=1616174923 user_id=15238]
The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.
[/quote]
You don't need certainty to act. Only willingness to accept the cost of unforeseen consequences.
You don't skydive because you are certain your parachute will work. You skydive because you accept the risk of it failing.
[/quote]
You can accept the risk without knowledge. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of knowledge.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503179 time=1616174923 user_id=15238]
The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.
[/quote]
You don't need certainty to act. Only willingness to accept the cost of unforeseen consequences.
You don't skydive because you are certain your parachute will work. You skydive because you accept the risk of it failing.
[/quote]
You can accept the risk without knowledge. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of knowledge.
Re: solving epistemology
Yeah, you are like a stuck record. The purpose of knowledge is "actionable certainty".
If dying doesn't bother you and you are committed to having the thrill of the experience knowledge doesn't add (subtract) anything to (from) your decision-making process.
Your uncertainty isn't preventing you from acting, so knowledge serves no purpose.
Re: solving epistemology
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503190 time=1616176882 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503186 time=1616176079 user_id=15238]
You can accept the risk without knowledge. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of knowledge.
[/quote]
Yeah, you are like a stuck record. The purpose of knowledge is "actionable certainty".
If dying doesn't bother you and you are committed to having the thrill of the experience knowledge doesn't add (subtract) anything to (from) your decision-making process.
Your uncertainty isn't preventing you from acting, so knowledge serves no purpose.
[/quote]
If you want to act with wreckless abandon, that's the opposite of the knowledge project. If you're just ok with acting with wreckless abandon, you're just not a philosopher.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503186 time=1616176079 user_id=15238]
You can accept the risk without knowledge. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of knowledge.
[/quote]
Yeah, you are like a stuck record. The purpose of knowledge is "actionable certainty".
If dying doesn't bother you and you are committed to having the thrill of the experience knowledge doesn't add (subtract) anything to (from) your decision-making process.
Your uncertainty isn't preventing you from acting, so knowledge serves no purpose.
[/quote]
If you want to act with wreckless abandon, that's the opposite of the knowledge project. If you're just ok with acting with wreckless abandon, you're just not a philosopher.
Re: solving epistemology
The "knowledge project" in your own words is about "actionable certainty".
Some people require less certainty than others.
If my 'reckless abandon' consistently results in me succeeding and outperforming you, if my 'reckless abandon' produces above 50/50 results at some point you ought to question your understanding of the game.
That's neither here nor there. There is recklessness in acting. And recklessness in not acting.
Either way, if you prefer armchair wisdom and intellectual masturbation above decision-making you are a Philosopher.
If my 'reckless actions' don't lead to harm, then I wasn't reckless. You were reckless in the over-analysis of your actions.
Re: solving epistemology
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503255 time=1616231950 user_id=17350]
The "knowledge project" in your own words is about "actionable certainty".
Some people require less certainty than others.
If my 'reckless abandon' consistently results in me succeeding and outperforming you, if my 'reckless abandon' produces above 50/50 results at some point you ought to question your understanding of the game.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503204 time=1616180891 user_id=15238]
If you're just ok with acting with wreckless abandon, you're just not a philosopher.
[/quote]
That's neither here nor there. There is recklessness in acting. And recklessness in not acting.
Either way, if you prefer armchair wisdom and intellectual masturbation above decision-making you are a Philosopher.
If my 'reckless actions' don't lead to harm, then I wasn't reckless. You were reckless in the over-analysis of your actions.
[/quote]
Everyone requires more certainty in some ways and less certainty in others. We have to hold those steady to have a meaningful discussion about the epistemology in the middle, the part that either is or is not sufficient in each case. The wreckless abandon i was speaking of was in relation to your own goals, there's no way to compare it to mine. We're not trying to do the same things with our epistemology, but any that doesn't have Truth as it's cornerstone is still arbitrary and that still cannot produce better than 50/50 results without luck. Perhaps you're lucky enough to be born into a world where all the epistemological bullshit is dumped on others as externalities, ever consider that?
And if you consider philosophy valuable, there is harm to yourself in not approaching it rationally.
The "knowledge project" in your own words is about "actionable certainty".
Some people require less certainty than others.
If my 'reckless abandon' consistently results in me succeeding and outperforming you, if my 'reckless abandon' produces above 50/50 results at some point you ought to question your understanding of the game.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503204 time=1616180891 user_id=15238]
If you're just ok with acting with wreckless abandon, you're just not a philosopher.
[/quote]
That's neither here nor there. There is recklessness in acting. And recklessness in not acting.
Either way, if you prefer armchair wisdom and intellectual masturbation above decision-making you are a Philosopher.
If my 'reckless actions' don't lead to harm, then I wasn't reckless. You were reckless in the over-analysis of your actions.
[/quote]
Everyone requires more certainty in some ways and less certainty in others. We have to hold those steady to have a meaningful discussion about the epistemology in the middle, the part that either is or is not sufficient in each case. The wreckless abandon i was speaking of was in relation to your own goals, there's no way to compare it to mine. We're not trying to do the same things with our epistemology, but any that doesn't have Truth as it's cornerstone is still arbitrary and that still cannot produce better than 50/50 results without luck. Perhaps you're lucky enough to be born into a world where all the epistemological bullshit is dumped on others as externalities, ever consider that?
And if you consider philosophy valuable, there is harm to yourself in not approaching it rationally.
Re: solving epistemology
And on a time-average, some people require less certainty than others in general.
Which would be one of characterising "fear", "anxiety", "self-doubt" etc.
Epistemology is not "in the middle". It's the mechanism which drives the decision-making. It's the thing which evaluates all the options.
Then why would you pass any judgment? if my 'reckless abandon' obtains all of my goals, and your 'diligent epistemology' fails to obtain yours - there's at least something to be said about the failure of your narrative.
My epistemology has information as its cornerstone. The very concept which elucidates what 50/50 even means, and the very concept which measures change/improvement over time.
Truth is not even a feature.
Perhaps. But I doubt it. I explicitly design all the systems I engineer such that I can know/track/detect externalities before anybody else.
Short of omniscience, this is a process of iterative improvement - not a priori certainty.
I don't consider it valuable. I consider Philosophy actively harmful and morally regressive. Just watch the dogmatism being demonstrated in defending distinctions/axioms/semantics/language games over human well-being.
Re: solving epistemology
I can relate to this. There are many different ways to function and move through this multi-dimensional Universe. Ideas such as truth and rules are used to create manageable/controllable structures/ideas which unavoidably limit potential. We humans tend to move in very mechanical and overly-controlled ways -- even though there is more capability for us than that. Just as there is more capability throughout all of nature, which operates efficiently and cooperatively.
Some people, too, can "flow" efficiently. Things seem to naturally come together for them. It's not "luck". It's a frequency. Perhaps a frequency that is accessing information and being informed via an energetic network... just like the rest of nature, which feels pulled into alignment and harmony with greater tides. Such tides are powerful and effective. From what I've seen, there is no need/advantage to obsess over "knowing" -- which is constructed from limited and distorted human terms. Furthermore, natural resonance is NOT random or reckless or thoughtless. It is both informed and in sync.
Re: solving epistemology
Advocate wrote:
But anyone who lacks the ability to doubt will act impulsively.The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: solving epistemology
Purposes are things that individuals have, and any individual can have a different purpose in mind, or even no purpose, when it comes to the same thing.
So there's not some overarching, abstract, impersonal purpose to something like knowledge.
For example, I don't think about knowledge in general as having any purpose. I might think about purposes for particular areas of knowledge. For example, I might want to learn how to check something on my car (I might want to gain that specific knowledge) so that I can check it myself without having to pay someone to do it (that would be my purpose in that case), but in general, I don't think of most knowledge as having a purpose. It's just stuff I happen to know, happen to have been curious about, etc.
And a focus on certainty is very misguided in my view, as I've mentioned before, because there is very little for which we can have certainty.
So there's not some overarching, abstract, impersonal purpose to something like knowledge.
For example, I don't think about knowledge in general as having any purpose. I might think about purposes for particular areas of knowledge. For example, I might want to learn how to check something on my car (I might want to gain that specific knowledge) so that I can check it myself without having to pay someone to do it (that would be my purpose in that case), but in general, I don't think of most knowledge as having a purpose. It's just stuff I happen to know, happen to have been curious about, etc.
And a focus on certainty is very misguided in my view, as I've mentioned before, because there is very little for which we can have certainty.
Re: solving epistemology
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=503480 time=1616341821 user_id=12582]
Purposes are things that individuals have, and any individual can have a different purpose in mind, or even no purpose, when it comes to the same thing.
So there's not some overarching, abstract, impersonal purpose to something like knowledge.
For example, I don't think about knowledge in general as having any purpose. I might think about purposes for particular areas of knowledge. For example, I might want to learn how to check something on my car (I might want to gain that specific knowledge) so that I can check it myself without having to pay someone to do it (that would be my purpose in that case), but in general, I don't think of most knowledge as having a purpose. It's just stuff I happen to know, happen to have been curious about, etc.
And a focus on certainty is very misguided in my view, as I've mentioned before, because there is very little for which we can have certainty.
[/quote]
The desire to attain the object of the purpose is inherent. It's indistinguishable. Meaning is just an advanced complexity version of the same avoid/approach mechanism in an amoeba.
Knowledge is justified belief, whether or not it's useful. Having knowledge is useful in general because you will inevitably come across a situation where something you didn't expect happens and something you know only incidentally saves your ass.
Certainty is in a class of words that reference the ultimate. They are only placeholders for the ineffable. Certainty means certain Enough. It is always purpose bound. Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Infinity means etcetera.
Purposes are things that individuals have, and any individual can have a different purpose in mind, or even no purpose, when it comes to the same thing.
So there's not some overarching, abstract, impersonal purpose to something like knowledge.
For example, I don't think about knowledge in general as having any purpose. I might think about purposes for particular areas of knowledge. For example, I might want to learn how to check something on my car (I might want to gain that specific knowledge) so that I can check it myself without having to pay someone to do it (that would be my purpose in that case), but in general, I don't think of most knowledge as having a purpose. It's just stuff I happen to know, happen to have been curious about, etc.
And a focus on certainty is very misguided in my view, as I've mentioned before, because there is very little for which we can have certainty.
[/quote]
The desire to attain the object of the purpose is inherent. It's indistinguishable. Meaning is just an advanced complexity version of the same avoid/approach mechanism in an amoeba.
Knowledge is justified belief, whether or not it's useful. Having knowledge is useful in general because you will inevitably come across a situation where something you didn't expect happens and something you know only incidentally saves your ass.
Certainty is in a class of words that reference the ultimate. They are only placeholders for the ineffable. Certainty means certain Enough. It is always purpose bound. Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Infinity means etcetera.
Re: solving epistemology
[quote=Belinda post_id=503358 time=1616266933 user_id=12709]
Advocate wrote:
[quote]The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
[/quote]
But anyone who lacks the ability to doubt will act impulsively.
[/quote]
But anyone who doubts too much will never take appropriate action.
Advocate wrote:
[quote]The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
[/quote]
But anyone who lacks the ability to doubt will act impulsively.
[/quote]
But anyone who doubts too much will never take appropriate action.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: solving epistemology
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=503492 time=1616351487 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503483 time=1616344005 user_id=15238]
The desire to attain the object of the purpose is inherent.
[/quote]
In other words, you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not? (Or in other words, you buy what is known as teleology?)
[/quote]
It sounds like you're discussing why questions. Why questions are either how/emperical causality or from what intent/to what end. We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. Everything we can measure is substantiated as real by replication. Meaning always exists in the mind. By that sense of purpose, yes, teleology, but also metaphysical things only exist according to purpose. Actuality is stuff doing stuff. We recognize attributes out of that stream of change according to how we want to change it.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503483 time=1616344005 user_id=15238]
The desire to attain the object of the purpose is inherent.
[/quote]
In other words, you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not? (Or in other words, you buy what is known as teleology?)
[/quote]
It sounds like you're discussing why questions. Why questions are either how/emperical causality or from what intent/to what end. We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. Everything we can measure is substantiated as real by replication. Meaning always exists in the mind. By that sense of purpose, yes, teleology, but also metaphysical things only exist according to purpose. Actuality is stuff doing stuff. We recognize attributes out of that stream of change according to how we want to change it.