On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Little Idiot]

I agree that they are restrictive definitions, but lets see what SoS has in mind for them. After all he's defining them in this way for a purpose, I assume.

The idea is to identify a clear subset of knowledge that is common amongst us all. Things we can know with some great certainty yet without complete certainty. These are things that are empirically verifiable. Science or R2 is a rigorous and formal extension of R1.

An example might help. In R1 I declare the wall solid stuff because I can't pass though it. R2 takes a look and says that the wall is mostly empty space but you still can't pass through it. So in R1 you had a slightly wrong idea about solids. So you may have to modify how you think about it by R2.

We still talk about solid walls and we are warranted to do so. Yet R2 has told us something new about solids.

This is a very rich example that shows something very interesting about beliefs and I would like to get back to it a little later.

It is indeed a good example.
I understand what you are saying, in a broad sense that our scientific understanding improves the understanding of our ordinary experience.
What I would suggest is that R3 would be an interpretation of our understanding by R1 and R2, this would be our metaphysical understanding. Maybe you dont like R3

R2 however certainally will change dependent on the metaphysical position; the observed data will be the same, but the conclusion drawn from the data may be different. And since R2 consists of conclusions supported by data, R2 is different.

Science can't change because of your beliefs. The body of knowledge and the evidence are not changed. The conclusions drawn from science are of a different nature than what you are talking about. I think you are talking about a hypothesis and I hardly see why we would call one of those things metaphysics.

Science can change because of the beliefs of the scientist. Einstein was convinced that his general theory of relativity demonstrated a finite time, a creation and therefore a creator.

You can call it R3. Even though we have left the reality life raft at that point.

What's this shit about Einstein being a theist? Got proof?

I thought it was a 'well known fact' that he was a theist. But I can check for evidence if you like; there was a book about it if I recall - probably some Christian nutters tho, so not sure if you'd count that...let me get back to you with quotes and references after I catch up on the posts....

EDIT to add;
I note that you didnt touch my point about a lot of science being done prior to any emperical measurement, I doubt that fits your model very well.

[SpeedOfSound]

Here is why I brought up treeness and R1/R2. It is a consistent wibble point of philosophers to talk about the reliability of our brain representations and the senses. From a simple statement about how science has found that our sense can be wrong the leap is made to doubting all of R1/R2.

Yet, even idealists put on their pants and walk around trees using R1 knowledge and they microwave their food with the fruits of R2.

So I want to establish a level of agreed upon validity of this physical world that we have knowledge of.

Do You understand that?

I understand you want to establish a level of agreement, and I am OK with that. I am a bit unsure about why we need call it R1 and R2 to do so...but I will go with it if your leading me somewhere.

I have never denied the experience of the physical. As an idealist, I do indeed prefer to wear pants.

I just say my metaphysical position is that the experience of pants is a mental experience, and as a sceptic we have no way to know for sure there is anything non-mental causing the experience - this is how I first entered idealism - to jump in saying the physical is not mental is NOT a proper sceptical position, it is actually a dogma, or at best an assumption. I have argued this point since my first posts in RDF in the matter thread (if you recall).

Do you understand that; to assert the existence of a world independent of mind is unestablished, an assumption.
Do you understand why I say its a sceptical position to question the posibility and factuality of such a world.

Yes I do and you are correct that we cannot be sure. I assume that the things I sense are outside of my mind and that includes you.

Nevertheless, I can put on my pants with or without the assumption.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I don't, and I think building arguments upon it as you guys are doing is going to go nowhere fast.

R1 is very problematic. We could have a thread on what common sense is and you haven't really even bothered to define it. You have muddled both conscious and subconscious forms of heuristic and intuitive decisioning with both innate and learned pattern recognition into it.

Yes. we could break this up until we had an entire encyclopaedia on epistemology. How long would it take me to get LI to agree with all of that? Another 2000 fucking years? Want to have a crack at it?

Not really, but it might be most of your argument. You can't expect to reach sound conclusions if your premises aren't sound.

In another post ID, you said "treeness" was a property of trees. I think I could argue that treeness is really a property of our minds to categorize things. The trees couldn't care less.

No. Minds would not have developed the neural nets to recognize any category if that category did not have some substance outside of the mind. Are you telling me that trees don't have trunks and branches until I classify them?

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm not arguing that trees have no existence outside the mind. But its the mind that classifies treeness.
Even your retort makes my point. Trunks and branches are words our mind has invented in "correspondence" to something it has perceived, perception being a function of the senses and cognition. You're are also taking a very classical take on "reality" where we experience "things" as observable objects, either directly or via detectors whereby we infer existence (e.g., neutrinos). It is quite possible that that form of classical realism does not govern all of reality, perhaps at its deepest essence. I think it's worth quoting Wittgenstein here:

"[W]e cannot think of any object apart from the possibility of its connection
with other things. Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 2.0121

If everything that we call “being” and “non-being” consists in the existence
and non-existence of connections between elements, it makes
no sense to speak of an element’s being (non-being). . . . Wittgenstein,
Philosophical Investigations, 50."

This isn't just metaphysical bullshit either. It may be physical. This is a fundamental principle of relational interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, David Mermin (an old professor of mine BTW) has a relational interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with a conclusion that is consistent with most other QM interpretations which I will highlight in bold below:

I. What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us

I would like to describe an attitude toward quantum mechanics which, whether or not it clarifies the interpretational problems that continue to plague the subject, at least sets them in a rather different perspective. This point of view alters somewhat the language used to address these issues — a glossary is provided in Appendix C — and it may offer
a less perplexing basis for teaching quantum mechanics or explaining it to non-specialists. It is based on one fundamental insight, perhaps best introduced by an analogy.

My complete answer to the late 19th century question “what is electrodynamics trying to tell us” would simply be this:

Fields in empty space have physical reality; the medium that supports
them does not.

Having thus removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics:

Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not.

The first proposition probably sounded as bizarre to most late 19th century physicists as the second sounds to us today; I expect that the second will sound as boringly obvious to late 21st century physicists as the first sounds to us today.

And that’s all there is to it. The rest is commentary.

You can find the rest of his paper here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../9801057v2.pdf

[SpeedOfSound]

I thought it was a 'well known fact' that he was a theist. But I can check for evidence if you like; there was a book about it if I recall - probably some Christian nutters tho, so not sure if you'd count that...let me get back to you with quotes and references after I catch up on the posts....

EDIT to add;
I note that you didnt touch my point about a lot of science being done prior to any emperical measurement, I doubt that fits your model very well.

I read somewhere that he regretted ever uttering that statement.

I did miss that. Where is the post?

[Kenny Login]

R1 is very problematic. We could have a thread on what common sense is and you haven't really even bothered to define it. You have muddled both conscious and subconscious forms of heuristic and intuitive decisioning with both innate and learned pattern recognition into it.

R1 is a melange that should be separated out into the conscious vs. subconscious and innate vs. learned forms of pattern recognition and heuristic or Bayesian reasoning (and possibly many other forms).

R2 is fairly sound but perhaps it should be broken up too.

Exactly. The really interesting stuff is when there's sufficient dissonance between R1 and R2 (and their respective extended sets) to create real havoc. That's the birth of the impulse for metaphysical speculation.

You fail to understand that what I am trying to do for the moment is to leave the mind out of it.

There's the problem.

[SpeedOfSound]

I don't, and I think building arguments upon it as you guys are doing is going to go nowhere fast.

R1 is very problematic. We could have a thread on what common sense is and you haven't really even bothered to define it. You have muddled both conscious and subconscious forms of heuristic and intuitive decisioning with both innate and learned pattern recognition into it.

Yes. we could break this up until we had an entire encyclopaedia on epistemology. How long would it take me to get LI to agree with all of that? Another 2000 fucking years? Want to have a crack at it?

Not really, but it might be most of your argument. You can't expect to reach sound conclusions if your premises aren't sound.

That's where you have me wrong. I have no intention of making sound conclusions. That's for the metaphysics guys.

[SpeedOfSound]

R1 is very problematic. We could have a thread on what common sense is and you haven't really even bothered to define it. You have muddled both conscious and subconscious forms of heuristic and intuitive decisioning with both innate and learned pattern recognition into it.

R1 is a melange that should be separated out into the conscious vs. subconscious and innate vs. learned forms of pattern recognition and heuristic or Bayesian reasoning (and possibly many other forms).

R2 is fairly sound but perhaps it should be broken up too.

Exactly. The really interesting stuff is when there's sufficient dissonance between R1 and R2 (and their respective extended sets) to create real havoc. That's the birth of the impulse for metaphysical speculation.

You fail to understand that what I am trying to do for the moment is to leave the mind out of it.

There's the problem.

And if you get into that right now there will be endless circling and spinning in the discussion about mentalism with LI.

I can't even get physicalists to leave this mind shit outside for a moment. You guys blew my fucking cover and you are showing my cards.

Oh well. Another thread of circles about how all of the data is in the mind and science is just assuming....

[Little Idiot]

There is a massive amount of information in our minds and in our libraries that I separate into R1 and R2.

R1 is the common sense stuff that we all have by the time we reach puberty. It helps us pull up our pants and find our mouths.

R2 is the extension by rigorous science to further clarify this information. We use reason and logic and empirical data to do so. Though you must note that I am making no claim yet as to the what or the where of reason and logic.

Treeness has mappings in both R1 and R2. It gets a little dicey in R2. A botanist will have a far different experience of treeness than us pedestrians.

Why is this important? Well. 1. I am claiming that neither R1 or R2 would be any different with ANY metaphysical position or indeed without one. Idealist or realist or cluelessist, the data is there, we all use it, we all agree on it in general, and it is a reality of it's own. ( I use the word reality in it's barest R1 sense )

2. R2 has shown to us that we can be very wrong in R1.

I agree with your model 'R1 and R2' as you describe.

I don't, and I think building arguments upon it as you guys are doing is going to go nowhere fast.

R1 is very problematic. We could have a thread on what common sense is and you haven't really even bothered to define it. You have muddled both conscious and subconscious forms of heuristic and intuitive decisioning with both innate and learned pattern recognition into it.

R1 is a melange that should be separated out into the conscious vs. subconscious and innate vs. learned forms of pattern recognition and heuristic or Bayesian reasoning (and possibly many other forms).

In another post ID, you said "treeness" was a property of trees. I think I could argue that treeness is really a property of our minds to categorize things. The trees couldn't care less. In fact, much of what enables people from all over the world to recognize trees, though they may have different words for it, is due to subconscioius pattern recognition capabilities we take almost completely for granted.

R2 is fairly sound but perhaps it should be broken up too. Higher-order "conscious" reasoning based on logic and reason can tell us even more about trees if it leads to science. It can also lead to shamanism ascribing to the tree the roots of life etc. Not all of that has to be malarkey. We also have an aesthetic sense about trees. Where does that fit in? But science is an empirical tool that was developed long after mankind recognized treeness and believed many things about trees that turned out to be supported scientifically as well as other conclusions that have not been supported by science. Science can deepen our understanding about the nature of trees. But do you think wer'e any better at recognizing treeness than our ancestors were? I doubt it.

This argument is just like the classic "when is a chair a chair" argument. Let's say you went to another planet and saw something that looked just like a tree. What about it would be essential for you to define it as a real tree? Does it have to have DNA? Does it have to photosynthesize? Does it have to have roots? I think you'll find, at the end of the day, the matter rests on human interpretation alone.

Your point is good, common sense is not that common, and not easy to define. But 'they' only expect us idealists to define every word we use, 'they' dont need to do it

I agree with you on treeness, I did raise the exact point that treeness depends on the human mind's need to categorize

Then clarify the question on treeness; If 'does the word express a property of trees' then yes.
Or do you ask; Is it a property independent of our observations, or is it a label we use to describe and classify trees, does it actually exist as a property of trees or is it a label we create to describe trees, then thats a different thing. What is the actual question?

We should work tag-team together and bash SoS silly on this treeness thing

[FedUpWithFaith]

You guys blew my fucking cover and you are showing my cards.

Your aces were already showing in your Lifegazer sig. ;-)

[FedUpWithFaith]

We should work tag-team together and bash SoS silly on this treeness thing

Funny, but when we were at RD.net together I recall SoS being my ally most of the time. Especially with Lifegazer. But that's OK. I'm the type of prick willing to turn on old friends. I have no loyalty but to the truth, whatever the fuck that is.

[SpeedOfSound]

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm not arguing that trees have no existence outside the mind. But its the mind that classifies treeness.
Even your retort makes my point. Trunks and branches are words our mind has invented in "correspondence" to something it has perceived, perception being a function of the senses and cognition. You're are also taking a very classical take on "reality" where we experience "things" as observable objects, either directly or via detectors whereby we infer existence (e.g., neutrinos). It is quite possible that that form of classical realism does not govern all of reality, perhaps at its deepest essence. I think it's worth quoting Wittgenstein here:

Oh Fuck All! No I don't have a very classical take on reality. Moistly because I haven't gotten to that stage of my thinking yet. My take on treeness has to do with thalamo-cortical loops and the construction of neural nets. Nothing more and nothing less. These things aren't constructed by genes. They are constructed by experience of real patterns. No patterns, no classification. I don't give a flying fuck what some philosopher said prior to 1970 and I care not so much after that.

Your link to the PDF is most welcome. This is exactly where I am at in my middle stages of my thinking on reality.

[SpeedOfSound]

You guys blew my fucking cover and you are showing my cards.

Your aces were already showing in your Lifegazer sig. ;-)

I have my sigs turned off. What does it say?

[SpeedOfSound]

We should work tag-team together and bash SoS silly on this treeness thing

Funny, but when we were at RD.net together I recall SoS being my ally most of the time. Especially with Lifegazer. But that's OK. I'm the type of prick willing to turn on old friends. I have no loyalty but to the truth, whatever the fuck that is.

:twisted:

[SpeedOfSound]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../9801057v2.pdf

Link doesn't work.

[FedUpWithFaith]

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm not arguing that trees have no existence outside the mind. But its the mind that classifies treeness.
Even your retort makes my point. Trunks and branches are words our mind has invented in "correspondence" to something it has perceived, perception being a function of the senses and cognition. You're are also taking a very classical take on "reality" where we experience "things" as observable objects, either directly or via detectors whereby we infer existence (e.g., neutrinos). It is quite possible that that form of classical realism does not govern all of reality, perhaps at its deepest essence. I think it's worth quoting Wittgenstein here:

Oh Fuck All! No I don't have a very classical take on reality. Moistly because I haven't gotten to that stage of my thinking yet. My take on treeness has to do with thalamo-cortical loops and the construction of neural nets. Nothing more and nothing less. These things aren't constructed by genes. They are constructed by experience of real patterns. No patterns, no classification. I don't give a flying fuck what some philosopher said prior to 1970 and I care not so much after that.

Your link to the PDF is most welcome. This is exactly where I am at in my middle stages of my thinking on reality.

Hehehe, welcome back old friend.

Did you ever look into digital physic/philosophys? That's where I was headed just before leaving RD and I did bring it up before i left. I'm a pretty firm believer now after exploring Gregory Chaitin's work and lots of other stuff. If you haven't checked it out you should. You might think it's bullshit, but you'll still find it fascinating I'm sure..