What is your definition of justification?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:43 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 am I try to do this also, but I am questioning doing it more and more. I mean, it's good to notice, but I am not sure being consistant is all it's cracked up to be.
:shock:
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 amA concern I have - and not as a rebuttal - is what voice/part of us is not motivated by emotion. So, this part decides...ah, there's an emotion involved and on some level evaluates the degree of potential bias and also the reasoned justification. But then, what is it's motivation for choosing that region of belief to focus on, and what biases does this part have not just for that choice but around its evaluations.

And we necessary use intuition in all beliefs, so how do we evaluate out own intuition (and then in each area of belief and evaluation)?

Here I'll paraphrase you're statement into a kind of heuristic (likely unfairly):

Check (regularly) your beliefs. Evaluate the justifications. Those based on intuition or emotion (or both), assess the justification, if any beyond intuition/emotion. This will allow us to no longer conflate the emotional state from the true/false status of the belief.

But then, this entails, I think, some kind of conclusion about intuition, in general, and then one's own and in that specific area. Perhaps your emotions/intuition in that area have a great track record, so going along with it despite the lack of empirical evidence, is something that should not be interfered with. (even to the degree of disabusing ourselves of its truth value).
I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false. 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. Only after testing these hypotheses myself and exposing my hypotheses to external criticism that also abandons any emotional attachments to any particular hypothesis, and they endure, then the odds become more in favor of these hypotheses having some validity.

When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are.
To FIND, or WORK, OUT just how LITTLE the adult human REALLY KNEW, back in the days when this is being written, just ask ANY of those so-called 'teachers' or 'students' of 'evolutionary psychology' or that 'branch of biology', which attempts to explain how "our" 'mind' is shaped, What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?

And then wait to SEE what ACTUAL answer you then get.

For ANY one who is CLAIMING to EXPLAIN how some 'thing' is 'shaped', or even 'works', then, SURELY, they would UNDERSTAND what that 'thing' IS, FIRST, right?
The mind is working memory - a live map, if you will, of the territory.

If you deny that the mind is shaped by the world, then explain learning.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm :shock:
The universe is not inconsistent.
Mine is. I am regularly dealing with anomolies, significant ones, less often. But then my inconsistancy come in dealing with complicated specific cases. Should I really make sure I hold to a monism all the time? Are there not times when spontenaity and expressiveness are safe and others where they are not? Am I really smart enough to know that this specific situation, should I process it/analyze it/classify it as X, means that I am not responding to subtle cues that it is different from other situations where I do Y, but in fact I am a hypocrite. It would take a genius well beyond anything humans have, I think, to think that the little voice in my head monitoring consistency is tracking (in real time also) all the factors.
I think you might be confusing the map with the territory, unless you're saying you live in a different universe than me. If so, what is a universe? Your map is inconsistent when it doesn't accurately represent the territory. It may appear contradictory, possible, or random. The universe is none of these things. 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.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
I dunno. I think eclectic people with eclectic epistemologies can say many useful things. I have never met anyone who seemed to have a consistant view (presented in their metaphors and sentences) of identity, relationships, time, communication, free will vs. determinism, and certainly other issues as well. They may well have official positions on these things, but if you follow them around recordning them and tracking their behavior, I don't think anyone comes out clean. And honestly, I'd be afraid of someone who managed.
Yeah, I just don't see how being inconsistent is helpful to others in understanding your position. 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. 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.

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.


Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pmWhen it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are. IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
We get intuitional skills via training and experience that is not organized like training, though it's training of a sort.
Natural selection trains our bodies and minds for survival in a dangerous world. You are constantly training every moment of your life that you acquire experience. You observe the world, act in it, and then observe the effects of your actions and then repeat. One might say that the conscious mind evolved to adapt more quickly to new situations than the time it takes to adapt the body to new situations.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8528
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Sculptor »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
Not necessarily raises the possibility. but is garnered to support a belief.
A Justification can be offered, implied or sought.

The justification can preded the idea inductively; or can follow the idea deductively.

Sherlock Holmes, despite Doyle's "elementary deduction", works mostly inductively to discover things from the evidence.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:40 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:43 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm
:shock:
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.


I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false. 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. Only after testing these hypotheses myself and exposing my hypotheses to external criticism that also abandons any emotional attachments to any particular hypothesis, and they endure, then the odds become more in favor of these hypotheses having some validity.

When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are.
To FIND, or WORK, OUT just how LITTLE the adult human REALLY KNEW, back in the days when this is being written, just ask ANY of those so-called 'teachers' or 'students' of 'evolutionary psychology' or that 'branch of biology', which attempts to explain how "our" 'mind' is shaped, What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?

And then wait to SEE what ACTUAL answer you then get.

For ANY one who is CLAIMING to EXPLAIN how some 'thing' is 'shaped', or even 'works', then, SURELY, they would UNDERSTAND what that 'thing' IS, FIRST, right?
The mind is working memory - a live map, if you will, of the territory.

If you deny that the mind is shaped by the world, then explain learning.
Learning is achieved with the brain, through, or with, the Mind.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:34 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:40 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:43 am

To FIND, or WORK, OUT just how LITTLE the adult human REALLY KNEW, back in the days when this is being written, just ask ANY of those so-called 'teachers' or 'students' of 'evolutionary psychology' or that 'branch of biology', which attempts to explain how "our" 'mind' is shaped, What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?

And then wait to SEE what ACTUAL answer you then get.

For ANY one who is CLAIMING to EXPLAIN how some 'thing' is 'shaped', or even 'works', then, SURELY, they would UNDERSTAND what that 'thing' IS, FIRST, right?
The mind is working memory - a live map, if you will, of the territory.

If you deny that the mind is shaped by the world, then explain learning.
Learning is achieved with the brain, through, or with, the Mind.
Then you're agreeing with me that the mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as the body is? I could bring up the hard problem and what the relationship between mind and brain actually are but that would steer this conversation off-topic and it isn't even necessary to show that minds have been shaped by natural selection just as our bodies have been. Even if you claim the mind as a process of the brain, natural selection shapes the brain which would include it's processes.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm
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)
Then I was right, you are confusing the map (YOUR experience) with the territory (OUR universe).

If you're comparing both of our experiences of the same world, then they are consistent with our location in space time relative to each other. You may see one side of road, while I am standing on the opposite side of the road and see another side of the road. This does not mean that the universe is inconsistent. It means our experiences are consistent with our locations within the universe, as well as our past memories of our experiences in OUR universe that which can also skew our view even further, but that is all consistent causes leading to consistent effects.

The universe, if rewound and run again, would be exactly the same. Again, it is the individual events in the world that are not the same. They are similar or different than other events with those being more similar leading us to be able to make more accurate predictions about future events depending on our goal at the moment (sometimes you don't need exact measurements all the way down to an infinite number of decimal places (significant figures)).

When you say that your experience is inconsistent, can you give an example? When you say things like that, I'm expecting something like 5 times out of ten your home is in a different place when you arrive home each day from work, or that the size of your glass changes shape when you pour water in to it. When you pour a glass of water are you consistently able to get all the water in the glass? How is that possible if the world were inconsistent? Just think about all the mundane things you do day in and day out the same way, consistently? How could any of that be possible if the world were inconsistent? And when you actually spill water sometimes, can't you explain why that happened in a consistent fashion (your hand was shaking, your jumped at something scaring you, etc.)? Inconsistent is the same as random, and random things are simply unexplained things. The universe is not inconsistent or random, but our experiences can be because we are not omniscient and every event in the universe is unique.

When people say that the appearance of life was random, or that the appearance of humans was random, it makes me crazy. How do they know the probabilities of life evolving in this universe? There are no probabilities. Life evolved in this universe. It's a fact, not a probability or random event. It was a given, given the nature of this universe (and who knows if there are others with different properties). Your experiences at any given moment are a given, given your life's history and your current position in space-time in this universe.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm 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.
You don't have to try anything. You just go where the evidence leads you. You know when you're heading in the right direction when the ideas from different domains begin to support each other. How could that be possible if the world were inconsistent? Think of how the theory of genetics (the study of biology on the molecular scale) supported evolutionary theory (the study of macro-sized organisms and how they change over generations). Unfortunately, we haven't accomplished the same feat in physics where classical physics does not integrate well with quantum physics, but I think we will eventually get there.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:51 pm 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.
Probably because you don't share their life experiences, nor their location in space-time. One would consistently expect other's maps to not work for you because you and they are not the same person! Now, could maybe part of their maps be useful? I'm sure that you have adopted portions of other's maps as this can't be helped being part of a culture. I'm sure that if you cancel out the differences in life history and location in space-time between yours and others' maps, then you would find what remains useful, after all this is how we test scientific theories and find them useful or not, because we share the same world, not the same experiences.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm I am not sure, but I am not arguing it is random, possible (at least I don't think so), nor contradictory.
Inconsistent is a synonym for random. By saying that the world is inconsistent, are you not also implying that it is unpredictable?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm 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.
You're putting words in my mouth. First, I never used (and would never use) the term, "perfect" as such a thing is only an imaginary concept and not applicable to the real world. And you can't help but be consistent being a part of a deterministic universe (free will is also another illusion or a misconception) in which all events are determined yet at the same time unique. Every one of your experiences is unique, including all the mundane ones like taking the same route to work every day. The route remains similar enough that you can get to work each day using the same route, but when there is an accident or construction then you might need to take a different route.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm And that using intuition for gliding between models and heuristics may well be the best approach for me.
Are you saying that one day you might treat other people as if they have minds and another day as if they don't for no particular reason (inconsistently)? Some elections you vote Democrat, others Republican, and even others for Mickey Mouse, for no apparent reason (inconsistently)?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm Who is this little voice in the brain demanding consistency? Why do I assume that it's models and heuristics are perfect?
I would hope that any voices we are hearing in our heads are our own. It wouldn't be my voice saying that anything is perfect as it's a term that I don't find any use for.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm 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.
But they aren't being inconsistent. Like I said, every event is unique, so in acting differently in any instance could never be inconsistent. It may appear to be inconsistent to others (they may appear to be a hypocrite) but they are actually responding to their own circumstances which includes their life history and position in space-time. What I'm talking about is more in the realm of philosophy where many people simply don't know what they are talking about because they are simply regurgitating their favorite philosopher's quotes and ideas without taking into account that that philosopher wouldn't say the same thing if they were alive to day and knew what we know now (this is just one example).

I'm going to stop here as most of the rest of the post can be addressed by what I have written above, but if there was anything in particular that you wanted me to respond to and I didn't, then please let me know. Thanks for an interesting conversation so far. :)
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:27 pm Then I was right, you are confusing the map (YOUR experience) with the territory (OUR universe).
Nope.
If you're comparing both of our experiences of the same world, then they are consistent with our location in space time relative to each other. You may see one side of road, while I am standing on the opposite side of the road and see another side of the road. This does not mean that the universe is inconsistent.
I don't know if it is inconsistant. I did say I am not ruling it out.
The universe, if rewound and run again, would be exactly the same
That doesn't mean it's consistant except in that way. And then, I am skeptical you can know this. Certainly a fair number of physicists think there are probabilities not domino like determinism. But then this also has little to do with my points.
. Again, it is the individual events in the world that are not the same. They are similar or different than other events with those being more similar leading us to be able to make more accurate predictions about future events depending on our goal at the moment (sometimes you don't need exact measurements all the way down to an infinite number of decimal places (significant figures)).
And again, I don't know if it is. I black box that. My point was that regardless, any consistant adherence to heuristic A, ontology B, epistemology C, can lead to me having problems. So, to be clear. It doesn't matter whether it is consistant or not.
When you say that your experience is inconsistent, can you give an example? When you say things like that, I'm expecting something like 5 times out of ten your home is in a different place when you arrive home each day from work, or that the size of your glass changes shape when you pour water in to it.
I originally went into this and yes, your examples here and elided certainly would have counted. I have experienced other things related to models and paradigms from physics, the human sciences and other fields that go against or seem to go against current consensus models in science and with regularity.

I black box, generally, the is reality really X and I have to have a consistant view, a consistant ontology. You are convinced you know we experience the same world. Fine.

But, again, if we go back to our original schism, I, yes, no longer hold myself to consistancy. And I don't think I have lost, but in fact have gained from this. What this is due to may be a number of things, some perhaps to do with ontological weirdness. But I have no great stake placed in that possibility. AGain, I do not rule it out. But there are plenty of good reasons why being consistant with ones heuristics and models might be problematic. And I think it somehow demeans the subtle intelligence possible in intuition, that may be picking up factors and patterns the conscious mind does not. So, the conscious mind slaps the intution and says, No, that's not real. Let's be consistant. Or no, that doesn't fit your official position on psychology, gender conception, substance, time, causation, whatever...so don't look at it that way or act in relation to it that way
that voice does not get listened to much at all. I own my eclecticism.
The universe is not inconsistent or random, but our experiences can be because we are not omniscient and every event in the universe is unique.
This seemed to be the conclusion of a paragraph. I said things in my post that are more less exactly this point.
When people say that the appearance of life was random, or that the appearance of humans was random, it makes me crazy. How do they know the probabilities of life evolving in this universe? There are no probabilities. Life evolved in this universe. It's a fact, not a probability or random event. It was a given, given the nature of this universe (and who knows if there are others with different properties). Your experiences at any given moment are a given, given your life's history and your current position in space-time in this universe.
I don't think I asserted that the appearance of life was random. Perhaps something implied it, but I doubt it.
You don't have to try anything. You just go where the evidence leads you.
Sure, I do that. But I also follow intuition in some situations, even when the evidence goes against or seems to this reaction, for example. Also what I consider evidence can vary and not just because of the field of inquiry. The little voice that says that consistency should be followed never demonstrated that this was the best heuristic. That given either the nature of the universe or the fallibility of my/our models and heuristics or both this is the best approach. It never managed to present a good demonstration that sometimes following gut feelings even in the face of evidence countering it (or seeming to) is wrong. It never managed to demonstrate that an eclectic set of ontologies and epistemologies and heuristics was necessarily worse or even worse at all.
Inconsistent is a synonym for random.
By saying that the world is inconsistent, are you not also implying that it is unpredictable?
Random would mean that there is no regularity. There are no patterns. Just an ongoing gibberish/chaos. Inconsistant could mean that there are patterns with exceptions. Or that there are two sets of laws competing. There are likely other possible ontologies there. Perhaps these are merely apparant, given my limited knowledge. Perhaps not. I black box that. Just doing my best with my newer heuristic NOT to try to be consistant all the time. And, again, I only see people claiming to be consistant. I don't meet people with single streamlined ontologies and epistemologies. Not one. I do see people having the official position on themselves.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:54 pm 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.
You're putting words in my mouth. First, I never used (and would never use) the term, "perfect"
I didn't put words in your mouth. 'Perfect' in my quote was part of MY motivation. I was giving the reason I do and think as I do....

YOu know what. Maybe our minds just work too differently, or perhaps I haven't written clearly, but honestly it feels like you're not reading me carefully or charitably.

So, I'm out.

We'll likely meet in some other conversation and I'll just start from noll there and hope it goes well.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:25 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:34 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:40 pm
The mind is working memory - a live map, if you will, of the territory.

If you deny that the mind is shaped by the world, then explain learning.
Learning is achieved with the brain, through, or with, the Mind.
Then you're agreeing with me that the mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as the body is?
NOT AT ALL.
Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:25 pm I could bring up the hard problem and what the relationship between mind and brain actually are but that would steer this conversation off-topic and it isn't even necessary to show that minds have been shaped by natural selection just as our bodies have been.
AND, I could ask you to DEFINE and EXPLAIN what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, and we could ALL then WATCH and OBSERVE what you will SAY and WRITE.

Would you like us to proceed down that line of question, and 'answering'?

Otherwise bring up the so-called 'hard problem' and I COULD SHOW and REVEAL just how 'that' is NO 'hard' AT ALL, let alone even a so-called 'problem' AT ALL.

Either way is PERFECTLY FINE with me.

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:25 pm Even if you claim the mind as a process of the brain, natural selection shapes the brain which would include it's processes.
But I would NEVER even SUGGEST such a 'thing', let alone CLAIM that the mind was a process of the brain.

As to do so would just be TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:54 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:27 pm When you say that your experience is inconsistent, can you give an example? When you say things like that, I'm expecting something like 5 times out of ten your home is in a different place when you arrive home each day from work, or that the size of your glass changes shape when you pour water in to it.
I originally went into this and yes, your examples here and elided certainly would have counted. I have experienced other things related to models and paradigms from physics, the human sciences and other fields that go against or seem to go against current consensus models in science and with regularity.
What are you, an internet bot that doesn't know how to provide real examples of real experiences related to what you're talking about? I have to come up with examples for you and the examples that I provided, which you say "would have counted", indicate that you have a delusional or psychotic disorder if you're saying that you've experienced things like your house being in a different place when you get home from work?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:54 pm I black box, generally, the is reality really X and I have to have a consistant view, a consistant ontology.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you black box.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:54 pm But, again, if we go back to our original schism, I, yes, no longer hold myself to consistancy. And I don't think I have lost, but in fact have gained from this. What this is due to may be a number of things, some perhaps to do with ontological weirdness. But I have no great stake placed in that possibility. AGain, I do not rule it out. But there are plenty of good reasons why being consistant with ones heuristics and models might be problematic.
And yet you don't provide any reasons, good or bad, why being consistent might be problematic. You don't show what you've gained, nor examples of experiences that you can share that I might relate to better understand what it is that you're talking about, as I mentioned above.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:54 pm I also follow intuition in some situations, even when the evidence goes against or seems to this reaction, for example.
I have no idea what this means.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:54 pm YOu know what. Maybe our minds just work too differently, or perhaps I haven't written clearly, but honestly it feels like you're not reading me carefully or charitably.

So, I'm out.

We'll likely meet in some other conversation and I'll just start from noll there and hope it goes well.
But of course our minds work differently. You value inconsistency. I value consistency. I wouldn't (and so far haven't) be able to find anything meaningful in anything that you've said. You need to write more clearly and be more charitable with actual real experiences and the reasons you've had that I might try to relate to, but so far I don't have any experiences like the ones I provided to you that you then claimed to "count ".
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Agent Smith »

My definition of justification is it's a SAT question. :)
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
The definition of justification varies across analytic versus empirical truth.

That {Cats} <are> {Animals} is justified on the basis that it is stipulated to be true.
The body of analytic truth is merely a connected set of stipulated truths.

That there is a TV in my living room right now is justified by the sensory input from
my eyes corresponding to the notion of a TV in my living room.

The body of empirical truths are expressions of language that require sensory input
to be validated.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by promethean75 »

some philosopher said that u don't have to get off your couch to know that analytical truths are true. the former is one of those, true by definition (so long as we agree that the category 'animals' includes 'cats') things. and I'm on a couch, incidentally.

but that TV in that living room is inductive and requires some kind of verification on our part.

it's a little ironic tho becuz your example, inductive as it is, doesn't require u to get off your couch. in fact, it demands that u are on it.

therefore 'the TV is in the room' is an analytical truth but only for those lying on their couches looking at the TV.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Agent Smith »

"This star, AR832, is in the wrong place," announced Tom. Dick had a puzzled look on his face to which Harry responded by saying, "ever heard of Ramachandran?" "No, who's he/she?" asked Dick. "Ramachandran, Indian, astrophysicist?" said Tom. Dick's mind drew a blank. Harry took a book, balanced it on his head, rolled a piece of paper and held it betwen his upper lip and nose, raised the free arm, fingers spread, and lifted his left leg, the knees bent at 90 degrees. He said "kula, kula, mohor, mohor." "Aah! Jagdish Ramachandran, 2039 - 2099, from Pune, Hindoostan. Now I remember. Oh! That means ..." Before Dick could finish, Tom, "funny how memory works ... anyhow ... that means we have at least 10 years worth of work to do. The anomaly has disrupted the star systems within its gravitational field. Have you seen the Destan formation? It would belong in an art gallery, it's that beautiful, if it wasn't so deadly."
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by PeteOlcott »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 5:34 pm
Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
No, justification is something that makes a belief true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott
Post Reply