Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
More Epistemology (for the hardcore)
    #1536933 - 05/10/03 12:18 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In academic philosophy circles, knowledge is defined to be "justified, true belief".
I don't like it and I'll tell you why.

If you've known me long enough on this board, you'll have heard me say that I don't have beliefs... all I have are quasi-, working beliefs.  These practical shortcuts are everchanging (read:  not static).

According to the definition of knowledge above, would I be inherently less knowledgeable?

{MODS: please keep the riff raff to a minimum... I want to have a good discussion. :wink:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1536988 - 05/10/03 12:48 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

What are you doing here if you have no beliefs?


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRevelation

 User Gallery

Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 6,135
Loc: heart cave
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537019 - 05/10/03 01:02 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I'm not really sure if there are Truths which are "ultimate". I guess all we have are things which are True Enough.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537024 - 05/10/03 01:05 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I'm not sure if I understand the question. If your quasi-beliefs are not included in the concept of "beliefs in general", and if non-quasi beliefs are prerequisites for "knowledge" according to the definition that you quoted, then the answer is obvious if you apply some trivial logic. But if the term "justified, true belief" includes your working quasi-beliefs as a special case, then the answer is equally obvious but opposite. You have non-static knowledge in that case.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1537047 - 05/10/03 01:21 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Rhizoid: You have non-static knowledge in that case.

You are correct, contestant number three... would you like to cash out now or go for more?
You'll go for more? Great! *audience cheers*

Alright... the next issue is justification...
How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537056 - 05/10/03 01:26 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?

By finding facts that conclude to truth.

The facts are subjective thow.  :blush:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Edited by Murex (05/10/03 01:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537072 - 05/10/03 01:38 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I am relaxing the Be Nice policy just a tad at your request. I don't want members to feel too constricted. I can't do both. This doesn't mean out and out flames might not be issued a warning but that is at my sole discretion.

As to your question or rather comment, I think the trouble starts with our understanding of the word 'belief'. In the context of philosophical argmentation it is improper to speak in terms of 'belief'. One should really frame their premises etc in terms of I think.

Try substituting that word into any phrase you have difficulty with and see how it works.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537109 - 05/10/03 02:02 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?




OK, that's the tough question. The big one.

My answer is that the justification is 99% trust in what others say, and maybe 1% personal experience. OK, I just invented those numbers in order to make a point, I don't actually have a measure for "percentage of justification". But my point is that most of our beliefs come from hearsay or authority. We can check some of it to verify its truth through personal experience, but it's impossible to check it all. So we begin to differentiate between various potential sources of knowledge depending on which methodology they claim to be using to find their truths. It's still prone to failure sometimes, but at least it's better than putting all your faith in a single authority.

In the end there is no way to dodge the fact that every human being is conditioned by their surroundings and their origins to accept certain beliefs. You can question these beliefs and modify some of them, but being human means that you always have a certain perspective on reality that won't go away until you stop being a human being.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineatomikfunksoldier
T'was born oftrue in the yearof the cock!

Registered: 04/07/03
Posts: 1,500
Loc: a human-infested anthill
Last seen: 20 years, 9 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1537246 - 05/10/03 03:27 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

there is a difference between belief and ideology, beliefs can be seen as the thought molecules that construct an ideology, but once a person adopts an ideology, his/her viewpoint becomes distorted, and the ideology can act as a thought filter-which arranges sensory input so that it is integrated into the ideology.

a number of cohesive beliefs produce an ideology.

but, beliefs can also be adopted, integrated information. i dont find that academic definition problematic because, it depends on what kind of issues we are talking about.

if someone has knowledge of genetics, then they must believe that their knowledge is true, which means they must believe in the information they have regarding genetics.

having no beliefs does not make you less knowledgeable, but you would have a hard time being a geneticist if you didnt believe in genetics. correct?

but, if you were a geneticist whose mind was engrained in one static ideology, it would be very difficult for you to discover anything new or interesting.

in order to advance ones thought, you must have beliefs, but you dont need an ideology. beliefs can interchange and give way to new beliefs over time, but you need belief to function.



--------------------
enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoylent_green
The greatEnitsuj
Female

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 765
Loc: Ontario
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: atomikfunksoldier]
    #1537627 - 05/10/03 06:45 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

i believe what i feel like believing...i can't "justify" it in any way...and i like it like that.


--------------------
What fun is it in Nirvana while other beings are suffering?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebert
bodhi

Registered: 10/14/02
Posts: 2,819
Loc: state
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537764 - 05/10/03 07:56 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I actually think I might have a similar 'belief' system to what Sclorch mentioned. I don't really believe in any absolute truths because everything I experience is filtered through my perception. I don't have 100% faith in my perception, so I'm not even sure if I am here typing this right now. I could be totally insane, in a corner somewhere drooling on myself in a straight jacket imagining my whole life and there would be no way for me to know. It's good not to buy into anything to wholeheartedly. If you distance yourself from your beliefs, I think you maintain a healthy level of thought while keeping you on your toes. This is also one of the reasons I don't believe in God.


--------------------
Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.

Edited by bert (05/10/03 07:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSole_Worthy
Stranger

Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 463
Loc: over here
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537822 - 05/10/03 08:41 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

you say to yourself you have no beliefs but im sure you have

i think maybe you don't quite understand their definition of knoledge, believe me


--------------------
get it all together get like birds of a feather

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sole_Worthy]
    #1540610 - 05/12/03 12:45 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I guess there just aren't enough hardcore mofos in here.
I was going to go off on coherence theory and it's ultimate derivative... but I think it would go over too many heads and I'd be seen as even more pretentious than some currently think of me. If anyone has a good background in this subject matter, I'd be more than happy to continue. Any takers?


Whatever happened to pinkysharkmark?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540695 - 05/12/03 01:17 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

well, you can find justification empirically or rationally. and what makes you "hardcore"? so far you've asked rather straightforward questions.... your dynamic pseudo beliefs don't conflict with the commonly held requirements of a belief, and justification can easily be found for belief as long as you're willing to actually look at and ameliorate the inconsistencies in your thought.

now, all that you're really saying is that you'd like to apply a disclaimer to your thought. all beliefs really ought to (or can) do is satisfy your reason or your senses, whichever you want to trust. you're saying you don't want to trust either, which seems like a cop out to me. The pofundity of a trip or love or a puppy is enough to get me to have a simple belief. no prefix. things get more complicated, but I think that it's not unreasonable to hold onto moral absolutes.

"I'm not really sure if there are Truths which are "ultimate". I guess all we have are things which are True Enough."

that seems to be how alot of people feel, but I don't except this kind of moral relevatism. why should I? cause it's convenient.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Malachi]
    #1540709 - 05/12/03 01:20 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Relativism is made less relative with consistent application and systemic coherence checks.

Heteroabsolute.
That's my point.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540767 - 05/12/03 01:40 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

oh, your point is to intentionally try to make your argument ambiguous instead of trying to communicate? real "hardcore", it's hard to believe that people find you pretentious.

anyway, relevatism certainly doesn't lend itself to a consistent application, at least not in this world or country. if it did, I don't really see why relevatism would be necessary.

perhaps you could explain how you go about conducting systemic coherence checks on beliefs that are dynamic? cause that's what I was suggesting would lead to one being satisfied with reason/evidence.

Or maybe you could explain "heteroabsolute".


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540989 - 05/12/03 04:22 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Being a softcore squishy type of person I had to look up "coherence theory". It seems to be about trying to define truths without having to base them on a special set of truths called "objective facts". In formal logic this would be expressed as a situation where the only truths are tautologies, no axiomatic truths are allowed. So instead of saying:

X is an objective fact.
Y is true because it can be derived from X.

We express this as a tautology:

if X is true then Y is true because it can be derived from X.

(For the softcores a tautology is any logical statement that is true regardless of the values of the X's and Y's, the constituent propositions)

All human knowledge could be expressed like this if we replace X with all the conditions for our current existance. To me this sounds analogous to the buddhist idea of the dependent origination of the world of phenomena. Anyone agree?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1541094 - 05/12/03 07:06 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Sclorch, don't ever let someone's opinion of you dissuade you from explaining a concept or speaking your mind, pretentiousness included. I think it would be great for the readers if you would explain the 'coherence theory' and the flaws thereof.


[goes to make popcorn]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Malachi]
    #1541621 - 05/12/03 12:06 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

me: Relativism is made less relative with consistent application and systemic coherence checks. Heteroabsolute.
Malachi: oh, your point is to intentionally try to make your argument ambiguous instead of trying to communicate?

I don't think that was ambiguous at all.
<-Relativism---------------Heteroabsolutism-------------------Absolutism->
No coherence=....................w/ Coherence=......................an impossible goal,
...ideas.................................ideas.................................there is no
not applicable to many...........applicable to many.................ultimate moral map.

Malachi: perhaps you could explain how you go about conducting systemic coherence checks on beliefs that are dynamic? cause that's what I was suggesting would lead to one being satisfied with reason/evidence.

Coherence checks are not just reason or evidence. They're more like scheduled maintenance for your personal philosophy. It can start out with a complete self-examination every so often (think Descartes' Meditations). As the system is fine-tuned and reliable patterns are recognized (though not carved from an eternal stone), the method of doubt can be applied in a more focused manner, like say, that new book that you've been reading and really like (a little doubt keeps the mind from blindly accepting any idea). Non-static beliefs are not necessarily dynamic... it just means that they can CHANGE in light of new evidence OR their failure. Maybe I should have said non-rigid.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAislingGheal
A wave on the ocean
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/22/03
Posts: 988
Loc: Northern Ohio
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1541878 - 05/12/03 01:39 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)


I'm the squishy type as well, I'm wondering if the following is the model you're driving at;

To understand the principle of Dependent Origination is said to be Right View (sammaditthi). This Right View is a very balanced kind of view, one which does not tend to extremes. Thus the principle of Dependent Origination is a law which teaches the truth in a median and unbiased way, known as the Middle Teaching. The 'median-ness' of this truth is more clearly understood when it is compared with other teachings. In order to show how the principle of Dependent Origination differs from these extreme views, I will now present some of them, arranged in pairs, using the Buddha's words as explanation and keeping further commentary to a minimum. ?

First Pair:?

??? 1. Atthikavada: The school which upholds that all things really exist (extreme realism).

??? 2. Natthikavada: The school which upholds that all things do not exist (nihilism).

"Venerable Sir, it is said 'Right View, Right View.' To what extent is view said to be right?"

"Herein, Venerable Kaccana, this world generally tends towards two extreme views -- atthita (being) and natthita (not being). Seeing the cause of the world as it is, with right understanding, there is no 'not being' therein. Seeing the cessation of this world as it is with right understanding, there is no 'being' therein. The world clings to systems and is bound by dogmas, but the noble disciple does not search for, delight in or attach to systems, dogmas or the conceit 'I am.' He doubts not that it is only suffering that arises, and only suffering that ceases. When that noble disciple clearly perceives this independently of others, this is called Right View.

"Kaccana! To say 'all things exist' is one extreme. To say 'all things do not exist' is another. The Tathagata proclaims a teaching that is balanced, avoiding these extremes, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...'" [S.II.16-17, 76; S.III.134]

One of these sequences finishes up with 'liberation and destruction of the outflows,' while the other finishes up with 'knowledge of liberation.' They are both the same, except that the latter sequence includes liberation and the destruction of the outflows under the one heading of 'knowledge of liberation.'

??? Another illustration of the process of liberation proceeds like this:

??? Intelligent reflection (yoniso-manasikara) => gladness => rapture => calmness => happiness => concentration => knowledge and insight into things as they are => disenchantment => dispassion => liberation.[D.III.288]

??? This sequence differs only in that it begins with intelligent reflection, or knowing how to think and reason for oneself, instead of faith, which relies on outside influences for instruction. When one thinks properly and in accordance with reality, one sees the way things really are, and the result is gladness. From there, the factors of the progression are the same as in the previous sequences.
-P. A. Payutto
Translated from the Thai by Bruce Evans

My current epistemological view is decidedly objectivist, as follows;

Epistemology
?Man?s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man?s senses. Reason is man?s only means of acquiring knowledge.? Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
?
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man?s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual?s choice. ?Man is a being of volitional consciousness.? ?That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.?Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
- Ayn Rand

I'm open to other views, I haven't viewed all existent models and I'm still forming so to speak, if this comes off as lightweight or pretentious or whatever let me shield myself now, I'm still searching. Coherence theory is new to me and I look forward to it being explained, this has been an interesting thread.


--------------------

"I hate having to pick between the lesser of two evils. But I'm glad Obama was elected. McCain was another war monger. I'd rather deal with our country going into debt than trying to take on afghanistan...oh wait FUCK!" - Fungus_tao

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeiymiyan
I AM

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 656
Loc: Within the Realm of Imagi...
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1541881 - 05/12/03 01:42 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Epistemology

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
---------------

I didn't know what that meant, so I found a definition in case anyone else was unaware like me.

I've never seen any of these words before...


So... if a theory or philosophy was like a ship, then a coherence check is like investigation of leaky holes within the ship's hull?

Then, testing, fine tuning and adjusting is termed a coherence check?



--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1541885 - 05/12/03 01:44 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

where you place heteroabsolutism is where I have been taught to place universalism or inclusivism. there is an absolute truth but it can be applied differently.

and yes, its unreasonable to simply state a belief in an argument. how does this fit into your argument against your beliefs being classified as such? there's a reason that philosophers write long books..... it's cause you can't just explain yourself in a sentence.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1542131 - 05/12/03 03:25 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Cool.

That's the best explanation you have given to date.

How would you apply that within a consensus driven reality? Or would each individual have a different 'truth'?

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1543482 - 05/12/03 10:45 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I'm hardcore enuff to say that it's all in the eye of the beholder.


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1543979 - 05/13/03 12:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In academic philosophy circles, knowledge is defined to be "justified, true belief".

justified means that the belief exists... and knowledge*(see below) is "you" identifying with the justification for some reason or another, which makes it a "true belief"... the only problem lies with the reason you make it your own, and that lies in our fallable desire to identify with an ego and sense of "self"... we want to believe in things because it makes us who we are. its that warm feeling that goes along with a certain justifcation which makes us say "yep thats me"....but there is no justification in the emotion we feel.

If you've known me long enough on this board, you'll have heard me say that I don't have beliefs... all I have are quasi-, working beliefs. These practical shortcuts are everchanging (read: not static).

i don't choose to adopt a set of beliefs either, because i can understand a point of view, and the logic behind its derivation, but the acceptence into my "beliefs" takes me to feel something from that justification, and since i can't rationalize my emotions, there is no reason to call it "knowledge"..*(knowledge in the skewed sense as the academic philosophies say, not my take on it)

i choose to be a cosmic fool. three cheers for relativism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: ]
    #1544064 - 05/13/03 01:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

It's a waste of time debating this topic, trust me.


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #1544190 - 05/13/03 02:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Deiymiyan: So... if a theory or philosophy was like a ship, then a coherence check is like investigation of leaky holes within the ship's hull?
Almost... I'd use the analogy of a spiderweb.  When strands break due to whatever reason, I fix them or replace them altogether.  And as your web grows, it works better.  The strength of the web lies in the connections.

Deiymiyan: Then, testing, fine tuning and adjusting is termed a coherence check?
Well, that's what I mean by "coherence check".  I think I made it up.

Malachi: there is an absolute truth but it can be applied differently.
No, truth is contingent.

Mr_Mushrooms: How would you apply that within a consensus driven reality?
Practical application.  I hope you're not speaking of utilitarianism... are you?

M_M: Or would each individual have a different 'truth'?
Each individual COULD have a different truth... it would be dependent upon the function of said 'truth'.  If it works for one and doesn't impede on another, there is no problem of having different truths.  When it comes to debate, however, only one can survive... unless it's a rare case of null preference.

Murex: It's a waste of time debating this topic, trust me.
Well, thanks for your five lines of input on this wasteful discussion. :wink: 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1544925 - 05/13/03 11:35 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Null preference. I like that. Could you please elaborate that for the others.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: ]
    #1546284 - 05/13/03 07:15 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Null preference is a largely underrated concept in the field of AI/Philosophy of Mind. The compatibilists really don't like it.
I'll try to explain it...

According to compatibilism, JOE is a machine. His choices are culmination of his experiences, etc.

One day JOE finds himself in a tricky situation: he can either have a slice of apple pie OR a chocolate ice cream cone. The trouble is, both choices are equally valid. JOE is caught up in a case of null preference.

Damn.... I hope that's good.
I hope it is clear enough why I used that term above.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1550393 - 05/15/03 07:39 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Good enough for me. I hope the others got it.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1550435 - 05/15/03 08:16 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I know that feeling, I sometimes get caught up in null preferences until I make a random decision...
But I don't see why compatibilists wouldn't like it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeiymiyan
I AM

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 656
Loc: Within the Realm of Imagi...
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1550743 - 05/15/03 11:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

".....until I make a random decision..."
-------------------

That, my friend,  is not possible.  You do not make random decisions.  You make calculated decisions.

:grin:

 


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #1550757 - 05/15/03 11:13 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

"random" decisions...




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeiymiyan
I AM

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 656
Loc: Within the Realm of Imagi...
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1550763 - 05/15/03 11:15 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Lol...  THAT is not random.

:grin:

 


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #1550786 - 05/15/03 11:25 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

random input, "random" output.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #1551100 - 05/15/03 12:48 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I do make random decisions sometimes, or at least they seem random for all practical purposes since no one (including me) can predict their outcome and since I didn't desire any one particular outcome to happen. That's about as random as anything gets in our world. When I'm really stuck I flip a coin or use some other randomizing device, and any artificial intelligence could of course use some similar strategy to handle null preference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeiymiyan
I AM

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 656
Loc: Within the Realm of Imagi...
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1551119 - 05/15/03 12:55 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

That's a 45 degree 2-1-1 alternate colour shift, of the 2 part and 1 part,  type pattern  starting with 1 and ending with 1, but of the other colour, super imposed upon a pattern of alternating squares within a parametre ( The white boarder ).  It creates a nice "effect"...  In ILLUSION if you will. 

It does not create a random output...  rather a very predictable, pre-determined, calculated!  effect.



BTW...  That pic under it is really sweet !!!  Ahhhh... ya gotta love astronomy !



I hope you didn't include that there to further your "random" argument... Cause you'll sink on that too.    :grin:

Around these parts...  you can't make a stone float on regular H2O...  LOL



*//  takes a set of "spare wings",  places them on infidelGOD. ... "Come fly with me for a bit...  I'll take you on a "behind the scenes tour" and then you'll be able to see what I'm talking about with your own eyes in the near future.  [But you can't go right now...  cause IT's currently locked temporarily...  therefore you do not have access at this time] "  //*


:grin:

 


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #1551323 - 05/15/03 02:11 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

No, nothing I do is TRUE randomness...

and what "random" argument are you talking about? did you think I was attempting to "demonstrate" randomness... lol, I don't think that's really possible cuz you know, it's so easy to say "but you were MEANT to post those pics!"... 

I think a definition of randomness is in order.... care to give it a shot?  :wink:

I actually try to stay away from the word because I honestly don't know what it REALLY means... I know the definition and all that but did you ever stop to think about the essence of randomness?... it's quite mind-numbing.

if you want to see a cool pattern, blow smoke into a plane of light, like you get from vertical blinds, and you will see something close to randomess.... it's what I would call it anyway...    oh but THAT's not random either is it? it's all just acting on physical laws and equations...  maybe so, but keep trying to get more precise in your calculations and see where that leads you.

it'll lead you down this path:
pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197 16939937510582097494459230781640628620899862 80348253421170679821480865132823066470938446 09550582231725359408128481117450284102701938 52110555964462294895493038196442881097566593 34461284756482337867831652712019091456485669
.....................................................................

not exactly random, but it's indefinite, irrational, unknowable.
the world isn't made up of pixels and nice whole numbers, think smaller, in the spaces in between the smallest possible measurements, in between those particles of smoke, and when you can see that... go even deeper... if you want precise calculations, you need 100% precise values that are ultimately unattainable... like the Mandelbrot set, you'll see that there is no end, and there is infinite detail and resolution, limited only by our ability to zoom in deeper, just as the number pi only goes as far as we care to calculate...  it never repeats, it never ends...  no, still not true randomness, but it sure is something else.

 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1551370 - 05/15/03 02:24 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

oh yeah and no ROUNDING either!...

that's what I would call REALLY REALLY SOFT determinism  :wink:

If we are to actually determine anything, we must be precise to the nth degree, infinitely precise, actually, so no rounding please.

and if you REALLY want a behind the scenes look, do not look to spirituality, do not look to science... most are just self-contained, self-affirming beliefs that reveal momentary truths. In my experience I have found bits of truth in the friction between great schools of thought. if you think about it, the membrane defines the field. the edges, zoom in on the edges...

 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeiymiyan
I AM

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 656
Loc: Within the Realm of Imagi...
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1551969 - 05/15/03 05:00 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

it'll lead you down this path:
pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197 16939937510582097494459230781640628620899862 80348253421170679821480865132823066470938446 09550582231725359408128481117450284102701938 52110555964462294895493038196442881097566593 34461284756482337867831652712019091456485669
.....................................................................
-----------------------

Sweet !!!  I recognise the first part of it...  it the rest true as well ?  That's a great number.. Pi ....  Thanx for posting it !!!!  :laugh:

I have an answer ready for you...I actually typed it, took care of some erands, came back here and saw this reply you made...

Do you play chess?

That was a nice move...  When you see my reply, you'll see that I anticipated it....lol

But I'm not going to post it here...  And don't worry, I'm not gonna cheat and say to round off or anything... lol.... 

I like your post ..

I'll give you my point of view as soon as it becomes possible....  I'm not backing out...  I just have to wait a second...

In the mean time...  enjoy the flight!  :grin:

I'll be taking those wings back later... you'll have to grow your own...lol 


   


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1552746 - 05/15/03 10:07 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I did an experiment one day where I did everything randomly or 'off' my normal way of doing things. I started by putting my left shoe on first. Sometimes I would change the increments in steps I took or wait 2 more seconds before talking. I also interupted my thought process a couple of times just to not be able to make a conclusion on something.

What I learned- Doing this makes you feel like shit for some reason, you feel not you or something. It lets you appreaciate your ways.


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 5 months, 22 hours
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Murex]
    #1553569 - 05/16/03 08:19 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

That's very interesting, Murex! I never tried that experiment, but it sounds very reasonable to me that it fucks with your sense of self. I have been entertaining the idea lately that the type or level of consciousness I experience depends on which causal agents are involved in determining my actions. I might try obeying a pair of dice just to test this, but it sounds a little dangerous :smile:
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineatomikfunksoldier
T'was born oftrue in the yearof the cock!

Registered: 04/07/03
Posts: 1,500
Loc: a human-infested anthill
Last seen: 20 years, 9 months
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1554282 - 05/16/03 02:09 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

wow, you guys have daily processes? i have no idea what shoe I put on first.....nor do I have any sort of organized daily pattern...shit...maybe im fucked up.


--------------------
enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can.

Edited by atomikfunksoldier (05/16/03 02:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Murex]
    #1554311 - 05/16/03 02:26 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Cool stuff Murex. I have been doing that kind of thing ever since I was about 15 and still do it somewhat today. When I was a teenager I spent a year writing with my left hand every Wednesday. I spent some time doing the shoe thing. Two years ago I focused on my hearing and as much as I was able consciously listened hard to background noises forcing them into the front of my consciousness. I also spent a year eating things off menus in restaurants that I had never eaten before.

It never made me feel bad though. I felt free from something.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Verifying epistemology Silversoul 3,087 19 11/04/10 12:37 PM
by johnm214
* Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 3,339 48 01/30/06 07:55 PM
by blaze2
* Trying "quantify" Epistemology TaoinShrrom 2,242 14 09/16/03 02:17 PM
by Rhizoid
* Epistemology: How do you validate your beliefs? buttonion 1,572 9 07/27/02 08:44 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Coherence Theory.... Sclorch 1,146 4 02/02/06 07:22 AM
by Sclorch
* How to Hide Anger, Hate and Resentment in Ideology *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 all )
Lakefingers 4,298 55 12/28/09 02:02 PM
by xFrockx
* Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
johnm214 6,053 113 10/28/12 05:54 PM
by johnm214
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,216 17 01/16/03 11:23 AM
by Axiom420

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,353 topic views. 2 members, 3 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 14 queries.