Silence, Reflection and the Golden Rule

[Walker]

However assumptions are crucial as a tool for intellectual analysis.

They are? You don't need to assume anything if you have data. Even a rough approximation are more useful than a thumbsuck.

And we live in a world where data is a Google away so you have very few excuses to rely on assumptions. Even when errors are inconsequential. It just encourages sloppy thinking.

Should you (plural) care to seriously agree or discuss I'll take the leisurely path, which seems to be working out so far, in general.

I seriously disagree

But, we must be read from the same page if we are to speak of the same topic.

The topic in principle is understanding prior to action.
This is possible.
In fact, the capacity relieves us of the tedium of making mistakes such as crashing cars, ruining lives through stupid actions, etc.

The topic is not action based on understanding.
It’s not even action.
It’s thought, prior to action.

Thus your premise, that assumption is the mother of all f****ps, assumes that there are right thoughts, and there are wrong thoughts.

You are correct.
In fact there are right thoughts, and wrong thoughts.
But, what makes a thought right or wrong?
Action. That’s what.
And thought influences action.

Think bad, and bad is what you get.

But, this topic is not about action.
It’s about thought prior to action.
It’s not about right and wrong.
It’s not about thinking the wrong thought, because a wrong thought has no consequences until it is transferred into the body realm.

This need not happen, btw.
One need not fear wrong thoughts, as with wrong action.

Because action is not involved, in other words, because one is not working with heavy machinery as was initially explained, then the mind is unbound to think, to not think, to enjoy, to travel lightly, to be as free as it was meant to be, to be free of the known and discover.

*

So, what is this thought upon which to agree if advancing to the next logical step is to be possible?

That thought is: assumption is necessary for understanding, and assumption is not action.

Perhaps if you understand the preamble, then the mists have cleared, you see the light, and both the vehemence and the disagreement have disappeared from the eye tic.

If not, make it worth my while.

[TimeSeeker]

However assumptions are crucial as a tool for intellectual analysis.

They are? You don't need to assume anything if you have data. Even a rough approximation are more useful than a thumbsuck.

And we live in a world where data is a Google away so you have very few excuses to rely on assumptions. Even when errors are inconsequential. It just encourages sloppy thinking.

Should you (plural) care to seriously agree or discuss I'll take the leisurely path, which seems to be working out so far, in general.

I seriously disagree

How can you be so ignorant and stupid if you are claiming to be scientific minded?
Science's credibility - other than the essential requirements - has to be grounded on certain basic and relevant assumptions.

Basic assumptions of science
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

How can you be such an arrogant absolutist?

All models are wrong (<--even this one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

I don't claim to be "scientifically minded" - I claim to USE science. Well aware of its limits.

My primary mindset is winning. With no particular ritual (science or otherwise) in mind.

Whatever works! Pragmatism.

[surreptitious57]

You dont need to assume anything if you have data

When the data in question is scientific then it cannot be complete because of induction
Making an assumption based on the existing data is therefore the most logical next step
Any assumption can then be subject to potential falsification with a testable hypothesis
Here the word assumption means something which may be true not something which is true
All hyptheses are based on assumptions else there would be no reason for them to be tested

[TimeSeeker]

You dont need to assume anything if you have data

When the data in question is scientific then it cannot be complete because of induction
Making an assumption based on the existing data is therefore the most logical next step
Any assumption can then be subject to potential falsification with a testable hypothesis
Here the word assumption means something which may be true not something which is true
All hyptheses are based on assumptions else there would be no reason for them to be tested

If completeness you are after - I have bad news for you. Human knowledge is incomplete.
But analytics/decision-making is an iterative process. And so you can test/falsify early and often at every step of the way.

Don't think "experiment" - think fetching data from reality. You need to perform the experiment because nobody else has collected the data before.

[TimeSeeker]

However assumptions are crucial as a tool for intellectual analysis.

They are? You don't need to assume anything if you have data. Even a rough approximation are more useful than a thumbsuck.

And we live in a world where data is a Google away so you have very few excuses to rely on assumptions. Even when errors are inconsequential. It just encourages sloppy thinking.

Should you (plural) care to seriously agree or discuss I'll take the leisurely path, which seems to be working out so far, in general.

I seriously disagree

But, we must be read from the same page if we are to speak of the same topic.

The topic in principle is understanding prior to action.
This is possible.
In fact, the capacity relieves us of the tedium of making mistakes such as crashing cars, ruining lives through stupid actions, etc.

The topic is not action based on understanding.
It’s not even action.
It’s thought, prior to action.

Thus your premise, that assumption is the mother of all f****ps, assumes that there are right thoughts, and there are wrong thoughts.

You are correct.
In fact there are right thoughts, and wrong thoughts.
But, what makes a thought right or wrong?
Action. That’s what.
And thought influences action.

Think bad, and bad is what you get.

But, this topic is not about action.
It’s about thought prior to action.
It’s not about right and wrong.
It’s not about thinking the wrong thought, because a wrong thought has no consequences until it is transferred into the body realm.

This need not happen, btw.
One need not fear wrong thoughts, as with wrong action.

Because action is not involved, in other words, because one is not working with heavy machinery as was initially explained, then the mind is unbound to think, to not think, to enjoy, to travel lightly, to be as free as it was meant to be, to be free of the known and discover.

*

So, what is this thought upon which to agree if advancing to the next logical step is to be possible?

That thought is: assumption is necessary for understanding, and assumption is not action.

Perhaps if you understand the preamble, then the mists have cleared, you see the light, and both the vehemence and the disagreement have disappeared from the eye tic.

If not, make it worth my while.

Decision theory.

Thought and action are coupled. And so if you allow yourself to practice sloppy thinking under the excuse that "it's harmless and inconsequential" you are forming habits.

You are ALLOWING sloppy thinking to be inconsequential, when IN PRACTICE sloppy thinking always has consequences.

You are contriving a safe space for your sloppy thinking that is disconnected from reality. It's harmful to you.

To separate thought from action is artificial. This is also why you will never hear me speak of "rational thought" - only rational action. By the principle of equifinality - many different thought-patterns (algorithms?) can produce the exact same decision; and the exact same action.

And even IF the topic was "understanding prior to action" then nothing I would call "understanding" could ever emerge from assumptions that are not in some form calibrated against reality with data.

If action which stems from assumption works in practice - I call that luck. It is my least favorite strategy.

[surreptitious57]

You need to perform the experiment because nobody else has collected the data before

That is true but is not the only reason . The other is to make sure the data is accurate
This is why any experiment in science has to be capable of replication else it is invalid

[TimeSeeker]

You need to perform the experiment because nobody else has collected the data before

That is true but is not the only reason . The other is to make sure the data is accurate
This is why any experiment in science has to be capable of replication else it is invalid

"invalid" in the framework of science. I don't care about the framework when I am making 1st person decisions.

I need to know if horse A is faster than horse B. Google is of no help. The mathematical model is way too complex.

Just race them.

[surreptitious57]

invalid in the framework of science

Just race them

As science deals in observation then racing them would be within the
framework of science [ long as the observation was inter subjective ]

[TimeSeeker]

invalid in the framework of science

Just race them

As science deals in observation then racing them would be within the
framework of science [ long as the observation was inter subjective ]

I care about the scientific method (as beneficial to me - the individual) - it is a useful tool.
I am not all that interested in the rituals (and failings) of the Scientific Institution.

In so far as the output of Science (the Institution) is concerned - I see it as a large-scale 'experiment factory'. But I only care about the data it generates. The conclusions it draws - not so much.

[Veritas Aequitas]

They are? You don't need to assume anything if you have data. Even a rough approximation are more useful than a thumbsuck.

And we live in a world where data is a Google away so you have very few excuses to rely on assumptions. Even when errors are inconsequential. It just encourages sloppy thinking.


I seriously disagree

How can you be so ignorant and stupid if you are claiming to be scientific minded?
Science's credibility - other than the essential requirements - has to be grounded on certain basic and relevant assumptions.

Basic assumptions of science
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

How can you be such an arrogant absolutist?

All models are wrong (<--even this one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

I don't claim to be "scientifically minded" - I claim to USE science. Well aware of its limits.

My primary mindset is winning. With no particular ritual (science or otherwise) in mind.

Whatever works! Pragmatism.

Strawmanning and irrelevant!
It is a fact and understood that all models [maps] are merely approximation of reality [territory].

[TimeSeeker]

How can you be so ignorant and stupid if you are claiming to be scientific minded?
Science's credibility - other than the essential requirements - has to be grounded on certain basic and relevant assumptions.

Basic assumptions of science
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

How can you be such an arrogant absolutist?

All models are wrong (<--even this one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

I don't claim to be "scientifically minded" - I claim to USE science. Well aware of its limits.

My primary mindset is winning. With no particular ritual (science or otherwise) in mind.

Whatever works! Pragmatism.

Strawmanning and irrelevant!
It is a fact and understood that all models [maps] are merely approximation of reality [territory].

Definitely not irrelevant.

You conflate being scientifically minded (using the scientific method) with Science (the social institution).

I have stated over and over that your conception of what "understanding" is - is broken.

I have much higher standards for evidence than you.

[Walker]

Of course thought can be separated from action.

Just sit still, and do not move.

Voilà.

[TimeSeeker]

Of course thought can be separated from action.

Just sit still, and do not move.

Voilà.

And what about habit-formation and procedural memory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory

What about the stress (default!) response the next time you find yourself in the scenario you have "passively contemplated". I am guessing you aren't familiar with the psychology of "default responses".

The things you contemplate tend to (eventually) affect your behavior.

Think further than your nose...

[Walker]

No need to go spinning out of control with personal premises and hare-brained conclusions.


You simply said, "Thought and action are coupled."


Well, that is not always the case, as you can prove to your own self via experience, by sitting still and thinking, without the action of moving anything.


You are correct in this sense:

Some folks lack the ability to uncouple identity and action from thought.

These slaves serve the Master of Thought, worshipped (or resented) as MOT.


It is possible to make thought the servant, and not the master.

And, it is advisable to be the master of thoughts, rather than the slave.

Why?

To be master of another's thoughts is to be enslaved, which goes against the grain since folks have a hankering for freedom.

[TimeSeeker]

Well, that is not always the case, as you can prove to your own self via experience, by sitting still and thinking, without the action of moving anything.

Yes. It's not always the case. And it's not always not the case. Which leaves us in the domain of statistical distributions and probabilities.

You are correct in this sense:

Some folks lack the ability to uncouple identity and action from thought.

These slaves serve the Master of Thought, worshipped (or resented) as MOT.

It is possible to make thought the servant, and not the master.

And, it is advisable to be the master of thoughts, rather than the slave.

I am not one to claim that I am always present and in control. In the language of Kahneman it requires far too much energy to be perpetually driving System II and there's far too much science to demonstrate the subconscious mind's influence on our behavior. And so I pay attention to the kind of things I allow myself to hypothesize about mindful of the fact that it is probably how I will behave on auto-pilot.

Why?

To be master of another's thoughts is to be enslaved, which goes against the grain since folks have a hankering for freedom.

Idealism. In this case I am warning of being a slave to your own thoughts. The thoughts of your past (younger?) self.

My younger self was a fool...