Failure of "I".

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:02 pmThat's fine and dandy, but how strong is the evidence and arguments that one can argue, for the non-god hypothesis?
uwot wrote:Ask someone who has a non-god hypothesis.
Fine, fine, fine. But surely you knew what I meant, i.e., your reasoning that no creator's possible.
I really can't make it any plainer than I already have:
Yours truly wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, Spheres, but I don't have any argument nor evidence that god does not exist.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:16 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:02 pmThat's fine and dandy, but how strong is the evidence and arguments that one can argue, for the non-god hypothesis?
uwot wrote:Ask someone who has a non-god hypothesis.
Fine, fine, fine. But surely you knew what I meant, i.e., your reasoning that no creator's possible.
I really can't make it any plainer than I already have:
Yours truly wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, Spheres, but I don't have any argument nor evidence that god does not exist.
OK, we seem to see the evidence or lack thereof, the same. I just don't understand why you then take a stand either way, while I take no stand either way. Clearly the universe contains beings capable of creating things. We can clone and are currently experimenting with creating life simply from naturally occurring elements and conditions currently found on our planet, which of course says nothing of those things that may have been the case, back when life began on planet earth, that we are currently unable to account for.

Still I say that no human in their right mind can claim any view on a creator of life/universe with any amount of certainty. Currently either view is certainly a guessing/wanting/fearing game.
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:27 pmOK, we seem to see the evidence or lack thereof, the same. I just don't understand why you then take a stand either way, while I take no stand either way.
It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by TimeSeeker »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:41 pm It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
Translation: either you accept some axiomatic/self-evident/a-priori truths (by equivocation: Gods!) on faith or you don't.

And since you are making assertions - that's a performative contradiction ;)

You accept SOMETHING on faith. And you don't know what it is. It's usually a good idea to find it and acknowledge it.

I accept entropy and Physical information on faith ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information )
Colloquially: order and chaos
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:41 pm It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
Translation: either you accept some axiomatic/self-evident/a-priori truths (by equivocation: Gods!) on faith or you don't.
Well, god is not self-evident and we don't know what the truth is.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pmAnd since you are making assertions - that's a performative contradiction ;)
How is 'I don't believe in god' a performative contradiction?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pmYou accept SOMETHING on faith. And you don't know what it is. It's usually a good idea to find it and acknowledge it.
I can only tell you that I don't. You are not obliged to believe that, so feel free to challenge it.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pmI accept entropy and Physical information on faith ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information )
Colloquially: order and chaos
The evidence for entropy is overwhelming. I accept it for that reason, but if it can be shown to be false, I will stop accepting it.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by TimeSeeker »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:33 pm How is 'I don't believe in god' a performative contradiction?
1. You acknowledged that you don't know what truth is.
2. You fail to acknowledge that you don't know what "god" is either.

I highly doubt that your conception of God is any more (or any less) detailed than your conception of Truth.
They are both meaningless. They convey zero bits of information which makes them mathematically isomorphic.

Observe that at this point I am making an assertion that the words "god" and "truth" contain zero bits of information.
This is deduction.

I cannot perform any deductive reasoning without an axiom. That axiom being "information". Which (as I have already pointed out) I accept on faith.
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:33 pm I can only tell you that I don't. You are not obliged to believe that, so feel free to challenge it.
If you are making any assertions (deductions!) - you have some axiomatic beliefs. Go ahead and try reasoning without any pre-suppositions and see how far you get.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm The evidence for entropy is overwhelming. I accept it for that reason, but if it can be shown to be false, I will stop accepting it.
This is circular reasoning.

In this book ( https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712 ) ET Jaynes shows how all evidence-based reasoning (also called Bayesian Inference) is grounded in Information Theory because of the natural correspondence (isomorphism) between Statistical Mechanics and Information Theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History ).

Entropy IS axiomatic as Claude E. Shannon himself admits (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon):
My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.'
Evidence is a function of entropy. There can be no evidence for entropy because entropy is the axiom against which evidence is interpreted.

Of course - all of this is true only IF you accept my axiom; and "word salad" if you don't.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:41 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:27 pmOK, we seem to see the evidence or lack thereof, the same. I just don't understand why you then take a stand either way, while I take no stand either way.
It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
And as you say, it's really not complicated at all, "I 'know,' that neither decision, can be informed with any amount of certainty!"

It's just everyone's guessing/wanting/fearing, of any particular internal unfounded reasoning, due to not fully understood sequences of environmental programming. If only humans could trace back every single chain of events to fully understand themselves. Now that would be something really useful, as it would certainly clear up the muddy waters of human reasoning. Memory often suits one's needs at any particular moment, on any particular topic, for any variety of reasons. Fear, the mind/reason killer!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:41 pm It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
Translation: either you accept some axiomatic/self-evident/a-priori truths (by equivocation: Gods!) on faith or you don't.
There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge, thus truths!


And since you are making assertions - that's a performative contradiction ;)

You accept SOMETHING on faith. And you don't know what it is. It's usually a good idea to find it and acknowledge it.

I accept entropy and Physical information on faith ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information )
Colloquially: order and chaos
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by TimeSeeker »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:08 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:41 pm It's really not complicated. Either you believe in some god, or you don't. I don't.
Translation: either you accept some axiomatic/self-evident/a-priori truths (by equivocation: Gods!) on faith or you don't.
There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge, thus truths!


And since you are making assertions - that's a performative contradiction ;)

You accept SOMETHING on faith. And you don't know what it is. It's usually a good idea to find it and acknowledge it.

I accept entropy and Physical information on faith ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information )
Colloquially: order and chaos
Call it what you will. In my language it is a transfer characteristics. Given some Input it produces output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

In order to produce “a-posterior knowledge m” you still need to input SOMETHING.

What do you call that input?
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:33 pm How is 'I don't believe in god' a performative contradiction?
1. You acknowledged that you don't know what truth is.
No, I acknowledged that I don't know what the truth about gods is.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pm2. You fail to acknowledge that you don't know what "god" is either.
I acknowledge that I don't know what you mean by "god".
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmI highly doubt that your conception of God is any more (or any less) detailed than your conception of Truth.
They are both meaningless. They convey zero bits of information which makes them mathematically isomorphic.
Which means what, ontologically?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmObserve that at this point I am making an assertion that the words "god" and "truth" contain zero bits of information.
This is deduction.
Noted.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmI cannot perform any deductive reasoning without an axiom. That axiom being "information". Which (as I have already pointed out) I accept on faith.
That is your prerogative and (as I have already pointed out) I don't accept anything on faith.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:33 pm I can only tell you that I don't. You are not obliged to believe that, so feel free to challenge it.
If you are making any assertions (deductions!) - you have some axiomatic beliefs. Go ahead and try reasoning without any pre-suppositions and see how far you get.
Well, that is the rationalist programme. The thing is, I'm an empiricist. I accept that any 'axiom' that I include in an argument is underdetermined. I know perfectly well that all axioms are theory-laden. The only exceptions being Parmenides' 'Being is' and a slightly strangled version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am', which reduces to 'there is experience'.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:33 pmThe evidence for entropy is overwhelming. I accept it for that reason, but if it can be shown to be false, I will stop accepting it.
This is circular reasoning.
No it isn't.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmIn this book ( https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712 ) ET Jaynes shows how all evidence-based reasoning (also called Bayesian Inference) is grounded in Information Theory because of the natural correspondence (isomorphism) between Statistical Mechanics and Information Theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History ).
Fine, so your reference is mathematics. If you want the philosophical take on this, check out Bas Van Fraasen and Peter Lipton.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmEntropy IS axiomatic as Claude E. Shannon himself admits (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon):
My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.'
Evidence is a function of entropy. There can be no evidence for entropy because entropy is the axiom.
If you have milk with your tea, you can easily see the evidence for entropy.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pmOf course - all of this is true only IF you accept my axiom; and "word salad" if you don't.
Word salad it is then.
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:05 pmAnd as you say, it's really not complicated at all, "I 'know,' that neither decision, can be informed with any amount of certainty!"
Spheres, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I don't believe in god.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by TimeSeeker »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm I'm an empiricist. I accept that any 'axiom' that I include in an argument is underdetermined. I know perfectly well that all axioms are theory-laden. The only exceptions being Parmenides' 'Being is' and a slightly strangled version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am', which reduces to 'there is experience'.
Descartes was wrong. Do you have an ontological model for "thinking"? I do - computer science and information theory. My metaphysics is grounded in it. I can measure my own uncertainty like I can measure my own weight. My unit for uncertainty is the qubit.
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm If you have milk with your tea, you can easily see the evidence for entropy.
Thus you ignore all the INFORMATION PROCESSING which takes place between your eyes observing the milk/tea, your retinas parsing the photons and converting the analog signal into digital impulses which are transmitted via your optical nerve into your brain which then interprets those signals into something meaningful which you call "evidence for entropy". You are parsing the coffee-milk interaction using the laws of thermodynamics (axioms!) Which are isomorphic to Information Theory.

Nice work :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oZEkH2yM4
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm Word salad it is then.
Performative contradiction. Since you are (after all) using this thing called The Internet. Which is grounded in Information Theory ;)

And so if I were you I could think of at least another way to equivocate "word salad" and that would be "My knowledge is too limited to understand you".
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by uwot »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm I'm an empiricist. I accept that any 'axiom' that I include in an argument is underdetermined. I know perfectly well that all axioms are theory-laden. The only exceptions being Parmenides' 'Being is' and a slightly strangled version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am', which reduces to 'there is experience'.
Descartes was wrong.
Well, as I said, you have to strangle him a bit. Do you think 'there is experience' is wrong?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pmDo you have an ontological model for "thinking"?
Other than that thinking ontologically obtains, no.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pmI do - computer science and information theory. My metaphysics is grounded in it. I can measure my own uncertainty like I can measure my own weight. My unit for uncertainty is the qubit.
Fair enough, we have already established that you accept things on faith.

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm If you have milk with your tea, you can easily see the evidence for entropy.
Thus you ignore all the INFORMATION PROCESSING which takes place between your eyes observing the milk/tea, your retinas parsing the photons and converting the analog signal into digital impulses which are transmitted via your optical nerve into your brain which then interprets those signals into something meaningful which you call "evidence for entropy". You are parsing the coffee-milk interaction using the laws of thermodynamics (axioms!) Which are isomorphic to Information Theory.
I was talking about tea, but yes, for the purpose of argument I am ignoring all that, but as I said I accept that all axioms are theory laden.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pmNice work :)
I have my moments.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oZEkH2yM4
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm Word salad it is then.
Performative contradiction. Since you are (after all) using this thing called The Internet. Which is grounded in Information Theory ;)

And so if I were you I could think of at least another way to equivocate "word salad" and that would be "My knowledge is too limited to understand you".
I am pleased to report that you are not me.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by TimeSeeker »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:11 pm Well, as I said, you have to strangle him a bit. Do you think 'there is experience' is wrong?
What procedure would I use to tell the difference between right and wrong?
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:11 pm Fair enough, we have already established that you accept things on faith.
Indeed. As do all humans. Whether they are in denial bout it or not ;)
uwot wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:11 pm I was talking about tea, but yes, for the purpose of argument I am ignoring all that, but as I said I accept that all axioms are theory laden.
And since you have multiple theories dealing with the same problem, surely you have a mechanism to select one theory over another?
For example - we have very many theories of "truth" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ).

Surely you've chosen at least one of those when going about living in the world? What criteria did you use to CHOOSE your "truth" (religion)?

How would you know if the other truths (religions) aren't better if you haven't tested them for yourself? You know - empirically?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of comprehension.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:18 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:08 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:45 pm
Translation: either you accept some axiomatic/self-evident/a-priori truths (by equivocation: Gods!) on faith or you don't.
There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge, thus truths!


And since you are making assertions - that's a performative contradiction ;)

You accept SOMETHING on faith. And you don't know what it is. It's usually a good idea to find it and acknowledge it.

I accept entropy and Physical information on faith ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information )
Colloquially: order and chaos
Call it what you will. In my language it is a transfer characteristics. Given some Input it produces output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

In order to produce “a-posterior knowledge m” you still need to input SOMETHING.

What do you call that input?
Go back to the beginning of life. Though if you're a theist, that believes in the ridiculous story of Adam and Eve as human origin, and ignore all archeological evidence. Then there's no use talking to you, because I really don't know how to speak "grabbing crap right out of thin air," then believing even for a second that any sense can be made of it.

Though I could ask you to go back to your first breath. But I know you can't, unless of course you have children and were there in that moment, and can understand that image was in fact what you were in that same moment of your life. Though it would still be impossible for you to crawl into their mind as if it were yours in that same instant. But then if you could actually do that, you'd also have to understand the horrible stories of children kept in closets, boxes, or basements, to only be supplied food and water, no social interactions, understanding what they were when it was found to be the case, so as to understand the fallacy of a-priori knowledge. You know what the letter A is because you were programmed as to what it was, otherwise we'd just sit and stare at it with a dumbfounded look on our faces.

Since the beginning of our time we have, very slowly indeed, added to that which we have created in our minds, concepts, largely due to our fear of death and then wonder in it's face so as to evade it. In all cases the external environment was that which lent to our eventual understanding, and that understanding, however it's relationship to the actual truth of things, was always a-posteriori of the external events, such that we eventually rationalized conceptual framing. It was a slow process indeed filled with all kinds of gods, due to our intellectual ignorance. Anyway, each new concept was born a-posteriori of the previous that it was built upon, thus there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. Knowledge can only ever come after an event. For instance, certainly ancient man had dealings with lightening from the sky (much later to be called the heavens), while he initially attributed it to gods, he wouldn't understand it's true essence until thousands of years of watching it went by, as he slowly came to terms with it as one a-posteriori understanding led to another, a cascade effect.

There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. Everything was learned after the fact!

No one can prove that they knew of anything before they were taught it.
Post Reply