Okay, let's just accept that we are unwilling to reconcile, then.
Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
I officially represent 50% of the membership of "we".
-
- Posts: 6591
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
It seems like this statement...Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:02 amIt doesn't matter if they do or don't. Assume you disagree about your priors and recursively iterate to reconcile those.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:56 amDoes this mean that PH and VA share common priors?Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am
There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
If we are in a game of ease then it's alway easiest to be uncompromising.
(and I'm a little hazy on what priors are, so if you could expand on that. But reading the description of the theorum it seemed like certain core beliefs have to be or come into line and it seems like they disagree on a core belief or two)
There are a number of strategies. Easiest one is to simply start with the principle of maximum entropy: Zero a priori knowledge/belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
When done reconciling priors. Re-focus on reconciling views.
Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.
Or we'll abandon both our views and synthesise a new one we both land at.
But, of course - it's much easier to be uncompromising than it is to reconcile views.
should be something likeThere are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.
There's no such thing as two people who cannot reconcile.
I say this becuase if the process of reconciiation requires changing your views, in some cases not simply on the bone on contention but also including priors which it seems are also views, then the views did not reconcile, the people in question changed their minds about a bunch of stuff.
Or?
So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.
I think this can be true, but I think it can also be false. I think it depends, for example, on your personality. Further I think sometimes it has been better, for me for example, to be uncompromising. If that's your one tool, well, that'll probably limit you ability to do many things. If you lack that tool, there are certain things you won't be able to accomplish and you are likely to get used by other people.But, of course - it's much easier to be uncompromising than it is to reconcile views.
Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
-
- Posts: 6591
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.
Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
That needs not be true. Unwillingness is sufficient to prevent reconciliation. So in principle it's possible to reconcile, but not in practice.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It seems like this statement...should be something likeThere are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.
There's no such thing as two people who cannot reconcile.
You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I say this becuase if the process of reconciiation requires changing your views, in some cases not simply on the bone on contention but also including priors which it seems are also views, then the views did not reconcile, the people in question changed their minds about a bunch of stuff.
Or?
Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.
If it's not possible then our views are of equal quality, so why are we disagreeing?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?
Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.
That's just a form of incompetence. Incompetence to agree.
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
If that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:31 am If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.
Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.
If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.
If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".
Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
How does Iron Man fly?
-
- Posts: 12247
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
Semantics is one thing but what is more critical is the psychological and ideological impulses within the contenders.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 am If that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.
If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.
If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".
Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.
Take for example the typical theists who are gripped by the terrible fears and pains arising from the cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis. They have to cling to illusions, fictions and magical beliefs [a God-in-itself] as consonances to soothe their dissonances.
To give up their present 'delusional' beliefs will immediately allow the terrible fears and pains to surface.
Similarly, as with theists clinging to a God-in-itself, PH and gang are clinging to facts-in-themselves based on faith to soothe their terrible subliminal fears and pains arising from the cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
To PH, what is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is [no need to justify with evidences] thus creating a reality-Gap [despite denial] which must be reconciled with correspondence theory, representational perception and the likes.
Thus for PH and Gang to give up their belief and ideology will immediately trigger terrible fears and pains to surface, thus the instant reaction of their defense mechanisms.
On the other hand, I have managed my existential crisis to a sufficient degree of efficiency that I do not have to rely on faith to believe in illusory facts-in-themselves.
Whatever I believe as objective moral facts are driven by empirical evidences verified and justified empirically via the scientific FSK tru' the moral FSK.
There is no question of reconciliation.
I believe what is needed is a change in the psychological states of moral-fact-deniers to remove the default blinkers and find alternative means to soothe the inherent existential crisis.
-
- Posts: 6591
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
Agreed. My point was also that views can be incompatible, since in your model people need to move from them, some part of them, to achieve agreement. Unless the idea is that really all views are the same, that it's merely a language issue. Or some other possibility I can't think of.
OK, here we don't have reconciliation yet.You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.
Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.[/quote]And here we have the potential for reconciliation, but once you choose the other person's view, you've changed your view. Or if you decide to keep yours, you've not reconciled unless the other person moved to yours.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?
Because the views are not the same.If it's not possible then our views are of equal quality, so why are we disagreeing?
I'm not sure we can always demonstrate to others why something is better, given different experiences and abilities, for example. Possibly this can be found by both parties and explained. I can see, at that point, if one can make clear how different abilities and experiences might mean that my model is as good, though different from the other person, to come to a place where the other person says 'OK, yours might be better, but since I haven't had those experiences, there is no reason for me to shift off mine yet.' With an emphasis on 'might'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.
How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.
I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.That's just a form of incompetence. Incompetence to agree.
It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child. You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus. There are simply some things the child cannot understand (hopefully yet). I think this is true between adults also. We just aren't the same, deep down really. I used to think we were. Not much anymore. Though I try to leave the door open in most situations.
-
- Posts: 6591
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
I think the concern of the moral anti-realist is that if person X thinks morals are objective and demonstrated - which VA does - he cannot view his position as preference and so cannot negotiate.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 amIf that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:31 am If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.
Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.
If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.
If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".
Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.
I think the concern of the realist is how can I possibily get people to stop doing things I hate.
I think there is some truth to both concerns. That there is a tendency for moral realists to want to force others to do what they consider right. That there is a tendency to overaccept toxic behavior by moral anti-realists.
It need not be that way, but I think they are both on to something.
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
Language is part of the issue. Know-how is another part.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pm Agreed. My point was also that views can be incompatible, since in your model people need to move from them, some part of them, to achieve agreement. Unless the idea is that really all views are the same, that it's merely a language issue. Or some other possibility I can't think of.
Synchronizing knowledge/information/language is a just a skill. But if you don't apply it it's the same as not having it.
And here we have the potential for reconciliation, but once you choose the other person's view, you've changed your view. Or if you decide to keep yours, you've not reconciled unless the other person moved to yours.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pmOK, here we don't have reconciliation yet.You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.
Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.
[/quote]
Consensus/Reconciliation. Potato/potatoh.
"The same" in what respect?
If we agree THAT murder is wrong; but disagree WHY murder is wrong - are our views "the same"? To me they are.
This is the sort of discussion that leads back to Kantian noumena. Your mind is a noumenon to me - a thing in itself. I don't care about much about its inner workings if we agree on the conclusions.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.
How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.
[/quote]
It's doesn't work when only one side knows how to do it. That's why it's called "distributed" consensus.
Sameness and difference is a continuum.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.
Any two views are the same. Except for their differences.
Any two views are different. Except for their similarities.
Either way they intersect.
If you want to agree - you'll focus on the similarities and iron out the differences.
If you want to disagree - you'll ignore the similarities and blow the differences out proportion.
Well if you declare it "impossible" then it must be true.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child.
The child doesn't have to like the consensus, they just have to agree.
Which consensus do you think matters more? The practical or psychological one?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus.
I can agree that murder is wrong and still murder you.
Consensus under protest is still consensus in practice. That's the consensus that matters.
We don't need to be the same "deep down.". But we often want very similar things.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am There are simply some things the child cannot understand (hopefully yet). I think this is true between adults also. We just aren't the same, deep down really. I used to think we were. Not much anymore. Though I try to leave the door open in most situations.
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
This is first order thinking. Everything is preference.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think the concern of the moral anti-realist is that if person X thinks morals are objective and demonstrated - which VA does - he cannot view his position as preference and so cannot negotiate.
Then there is preference about preference (when preferences conflict)
Then there is preference about preference about preference (when second order thinking conflicts).
Being an anti-realist instead of a quasi-realist is preference.
Choosing one philosophy over another is preference.
No preference - no choice.
That's why in scientific research revealed preferences are more effective/trustworthy measure of people's preferences than people's own words about what they prefer.
I think that's the concern of every human who hates being murdered, raped, robbed, beaten, invaded, enslaved or otherwise abused.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think the concern of the realist is how can I possibily get people to stop doing things I hate.
Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying. You haven't pushed them far enough to find their breaking point; or given them enough power to see how they use it.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think there is some truth to both concerns. That there is a tendency for moral realists to want to force others to do what they consider right.
We all choose which hills we are willing to die on.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm That there is a tendency to overaccept toxic behavior by moral anti-realists.
It need not be that way, but I think they are both on to something.
-
- Posts: 6591
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality
It sounds like you are saying that really, deep down, we have the same beliefs, but we use different words for things and we lack the dialogue/translation skills to figure this out.
Well, in your formulation...one is 'more wrong'."The same" in what respect?
And again, notice that people are moving from one view to another.Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.
and here...
If we abandon a view, we did not reconcile views. We reconciled and now have a different view. Or we reconciled not our views, but by leaving our views.Or we'll abandon both our views and synthesise a new one we both land at.
And it seems, perhaps, then that it wasn't just a language difference. We now see things differently.
And yes, I realize that how we use language affects seeing. But it seems like your description includes something more than...we figured out words for our views that now match.
If we agree THAT murder is wrong; but disagree WHY murder is wrong - are our views "the same"? To me they are.
In instances of choosing legislation or police protocols or how causally you reacted to seeing that person get shot, sure. If we see problems to do with the meta-view, then that's a different thing. I think PH can come out and verbalize that his concern is that moral realists, because they view their morals as objective have a harder time negotiating and arriving at consensus. Also they may be more likely to colonize with their ideas. I believe VA thinks that a moral anti-realist must be accepting of behaviors he doesn't like and even they don't like. I think there is some truth to both their concerns.This is the sort of discussion that leads back to Kantian noumena. Your mind is a noumenon to me - a thing in itself. I don't care about much about its inner workings if we agree on the conclusions.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.
How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.
[/quote]
So, the world is filled with faulty nodes - if I did my homework correctly.It's doesn't work when only one side knows how to do it. That's why it's called "distributed" consensus.
So, the world is filled with faulty nodes. Now what?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.
Agreed. A coyote and a squirrel have many overlaps. And coyotes and badgers can and do collaborate. But it's the difference end of the spectrum I am focused on since reconciliation is the goal. The similarities are already reconciled.Sameness and difference is a continuum.
Any two views are the same. Except for their differences.
Any two views are different. Except for their similarities.
Certainly, good heuristics can come out of this. That said. There's a point where the squirrel and the coyote cannot reconcile.Either way they intersect.
If you want to agree - you'll focus on the similarities and iron out the differences.
If you want to disagree - you'll ignore the similarities and blow the differences out proportion.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child.
well, 1) I have declared things and been rapidly or on a much later date experienced things that changed my mind. So my expectations are not that powerful (for good and for ill). 2) two years simply do not understand what I do - about roads for example. If we mean by consensus that the child heeds me, ok. If we mean they give up the more wrong view, I don't think so. Or to put this another way...I think child safety outlet covers are a good thing. But I don't know where to buy child safety street covers.Well if you declare it "impossible" then it must be true.
The have to agree to the behavior (restriction often) but they don't have to like it, nor do they have to think I am right (in my version of parenting. others want the latter two also)The child doesn't have to like the consensus, they just have to agree.
That's reconciling behavior, not views. Might it make more sense to focus on behavior than views. VA and PH agree on what legislation they would support. (that is a view also, or it has attendant views, but the focus is on behavior).
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus.There the practical. In marriage both are very important. Psychology is in the room.Which consensus do you think matters more? The practical or psychological one?
I can agree that murder is wrong and still murder you.
Consensus under protest is generally not stable. There's a reason to get at psychology in many instances. And priors are often psychological. Values, for example. If you are going to reconcile views and you have to get into priors to do it, you are likely going to have to get into values.Consensus under protest is still consensus in practice. That's the consensus that matters.
I think this is one place where we see things differently. I think there are fundamental differences between people. We are both writing here in broad strokes, so it's hard to know. But I think there are core value differences and fundamental differences in what people want for ecological niches AND fundamental differences in sense of causation. For example, some people believe that what you do over there between consenting adults has causation that other people do not think it has.We don't need to be the same "deep down.". But we often want very similar things.
But of the two the value difference is the larger one, I think. Hence my example with squirrels and coyotes.