Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Christians who like RUSH

1 view
Skip to first unread message

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 1:53:16 AM8/12/02
to
"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020809221255...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> >From: "John Shafto" moc....@nhoj.rev
>
> >I don't claim to know for sure what Neil thinks, but I do think that
> >the song "Freewill" is a strong statement that freewill exists.
>
> Of course it exists. The question is whether or not it *ultimately* exists.

Actually Ellen, that was my bad. Freedom is the lack of something,
namely determinism (a kind of force....if you will :) in this case.
Free will can't really exist as a thing we can point to, it's a negative.

The question raised by hard determinists is whether total
determinism in the realm of human behavior *ultimately* exists.
Amazingly, many people strongly believe in it, without proof.
Anyone can assert hard determinsim, but it remains for them
to prove it. Until then, I think there is plenty of evidence that
points to humans as a first cause in many areas of our endeavor.
Every time I forget to tie my shoes, and fall down a little later,
I caused something to happen.... :)


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 11:16:10 AM8/12/02
to

"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020809220828...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> >From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Yeah, I was having lucid dreams without knowing the terminology for most
of my
> life. The Internet helped me research what was going on and I found some
great
> tips on how to become lucid more regularly (keeping a dream journal, doing
> realty checks, etc.). When I keep a dream journal, I can become lucid
several
> times a week, but I've gotten lazy with my journal in recent months
(having
> kids wake you up in the morning does not help).

Sometimes I tell myself that getting too caught up in routines to not take
the time to think about these things is like losing lucidity in a dream. It
makes me think we also need to be lucid in real life, recognize that we are
creating our world, and not just passively go along without recognizing our
power. It may not be the same kind of power as in a lucid dream, but...

-snip old bits-

> Yes, great episode.
>
> > Then I thought...hmmm,
> >maybe its my doubts about my ability to fly that get in the way.
>
> That's exactly it. In dreams, we create our own realities but we are still
> weighted down by what we believe our limitations to be. This is why it is
> important to acknowledge that you are dreaming and that anything is
possible in
> dreams. I've never had trouble flying (which is always the first thing I
do
> when I become lucid), but I do have trouble realizing that the people in
my
> dream are not real and that I can't hurt their feelings or make them feel
>good.

Yeah...one of the things I tried early when I was doing what I considered at
the time 'my experiments' was to see if the people in my dreams could give
me any insight. I'd ask someone, "what is the meaning of life," or "what is
the purpose." They could never give me an answer. I wanted to think that
this was a key to answering all the secrets of the universe, I guess. But
once I realized that my head started to spin with another theory. Maybe
waking reality is just a different kind of dream, and we're all characters
in that dream, but aspects of some 'dreamer' that gives this reality its
shape....if that's the case, then we have access to that greater dreamer,
and therefore via our minds the people in my dream might actually be able to
tell me something. But, over time, I figured that was too pat a theory --
obviously, waking reality is different than a dream -- or, if it is
analogous to adream its one where we've all agreed upon certain ground rules
before coming here and live within those constraints (laws of nature).

> In a lucid dream a few months ago, I floated around the dinner table and
kissed
> my grandparents, who are still alive, and told them that I love them. Why
did I
> choose to do that? I was moving in and out of lucidity and I think that I
was
> reminding myself to let them know my feelings for them in a reality where
> they'll understand me.

> > That
> >reminded me of the bit about flying in the Douglas Adams "Hitchhikers
> >guide," so I decided to try "falling" into flight, even backwards, to
just
> >minimize the thought and doubt. It worked. Soon I was able to just fall
> >backwards and zip up, and ultimately take off from a standing position.
>
> I always fly like a slow superman :)
>
> One thing that is cool to try in dreams is walking through (or flying
through)
> mirrors. I won't tell you what I found on the other side so as not to
cloud
> your own future experience (if you have not done this already).

I don't think I have. I've gone through windows and doors, but not
mirrors...hmmm, I'll have to try that.

-snip-

> I had a dream last year where I was being attacked by a creature that was
half
> scorpion, half lobster, and HUGE. I was pushing it away from me with my
hand
> and I could feel its segmented body squirming on my palm as it tried to
wiggle
> free and lunge at my face (I knew what he was planning). Then I said to
myself,
> "this has got to be a dream" and I did a realty check by counting the
fingers
> on my free hand (I had more than five fingers so I knew I was dreaming).
Once
> lucid, I smiled, made a magic "abracadabra" motion toward the lobster
creature,
> and turned him into a bouquet of flowers. I then swooshed up in flight and
went
> on my way to explore my dream territory.

Cool. It's a great feeling, isn't it, to suddenly realize 'it's a dream'
and have that thrill of being able to go out explore and play. I also find
that I have more lucid dreams if I start wondering during the day if I'm
dreaming, and get used to reflecting on that question. That reflection
continues into the dreams (though sometimes in a dream I'll decide its real,
and then wake up wondering how I could have thought I was really having
dinner with Laura Ingalls Wilder or the President, or someone...) My test
is to try to life off the ground. If I can hoover a few feet off the
ground, or jump and hold it, then I *usually* figure out I'm dreaming.
(Once when I was lucid dreaming a lot I would try to lift off the ground off
and on during the day -- when no one was watching, of course -- just to get
into that habit. It worked, a few times I'd be dreaming, and then just
decide to try to fly and when I did think, 'wow, this is a dream!')

> The problem with reality checks is that sometimes they don't work. I read
that
> reading text or looking at a clock are excellent ways to find out if
you're
> dreaming, but you don't always have the luxury to find these things when a
> lobster creature is coming at you (and I don't wear a watch in my dreams).
This
> is why I started counting my fingers, but this method has failed me on
several
> occasions. I had a terrible dream experience a few weeks ago where my
daughter
> was abducted at a pool (I had just seen the film "Minority Report") and I,
in
> hopeful denial, did a reality check by counting my fingers and I counted
5! It
> was terrible...I honestly believed that my child had been stolen. I was
very
> happy to wake up and I've decided that I'll never rely on my fingers
>again.

Dreams like that are certainly ones where waking up is a relief!

I think the most vivid and realistic dreams are deeper in sleep -- those are
my favorite, though lucidity can be harder to hang on to. Sometimes I'll
have long epic dramas where I'll drift in and out of lucidity, and then
replay scenes. This weekend we were camping, which means getting to bed at
about 9:30 (though we stayed up to watch the meteor shower Saturday night --
pretty impressive). I thought, 'OK, this would be a good night to lucid
dream.' Unfortunately I'm out of the habit. Maybe this thread will get me
to start trying to get back into it.

-snip-

> My husband and I have been writing a sci fi novel that takes a lot from
the
> phenomenon of lucid dreams (the protagonist is an oneironaut and sometimes
you
> don't know when he's dreaming and when it's "reality"). It's not the focus
of
> the story, but it sure is a major component. One of these days we plan to
> finish it.

I'm working on a "real" book on German foreign policy now that has to get to
the publisher by the end of October. Nothing about dreams in there...but
someday, I keep telling myself, I'll focus on my fiction. I also had this
sci fi series in my head, delving into a mix of sociological, political,
psychological and spiritual issues. But I'm much better at thinking up
broad concepts than actually doing the work to come up with something real.
:-)

> >>We do create our own realities, based on our perceptions.
> >
> >Have you noticed that in "stick it out" when Geddy sings "you get so used
to
> >deception" it will sound like "you get so used to perception" IF you
listen
> >to it expecting to hear perception. Sort of a cool, presumably
unintended
> >bit. You're right -- though when I have said that to people they often
> >misunderstand and think that our perceptions create the physical world
> >around us. There is an objective "reality" out there, but we don't have
> >direct access to it. We only perceive it through senses and
interpretations
> >of those senses which are based on beliefs, assumptions, biases, etc. In
> >that way we create our own personal reality.
> > I think there is also a
> >'social reality' based on shared beliefs and understandings expressed
> >through language and culture.
>
> I could not agree with you more. Sometimes I become so immersed in my own
> perceptions that I forget that other people do not have the same
experiences as
> myself. I assume that they know what I mean when I say that we create our
own
> realities. Perception is responsible for a lot of misconception between
>humans.

Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the first
day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely that
we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot be
detached from our own perspective, it's impossible. That's a limitation we
have to acknowledge if we're going to be honest in trying to understand the
world. The complexity problem is just the multicausality thing -- what
really causes war, oppression, economic success, etc. In foreign policy
there are examples of numerous wars caused by leaders who believed the
otherside knew what they meant to convey, and their interpretation of the
other side was precisely what the other side meant to convey, even though
both were mistaken (what an awkward sentence that was). Or talk with people
ardently for the Israelis or the Palestinians, each has a perspective that
is very compelling on its own...but yet obviously both can't be right
completely. That seems to be the important starting point -- trying to
understand another's perspective, even if you can't eliminate the fact your
own perspective shapes how you experience reality. Maybe lucid dreaming
(like foreign travel) helps in that regard -- it helps show the power of the
mind to shape reality.

> > One thing I like about music, poetry, and
> >anything imaginative is that those endeavors seem the best way to avoid
> >being hypnotised by that social reality to simply think in the manner
> >dictated by society.
>
> I agree. I see music, poetry, and everything creative like that to be the
> thread that connects us human animals with different perceptions. In terms
of
> being a skeptical mystic, I see art (a word I'll use to encompass all
creative
> form) as being true, and quite powerful, magick.

Agreed. Ideas are the building blocks of our reality, but if we limit our
ideas to those which we can express in conventional ways, we won't have the
spark to come up with something new and perhaps much better. That's one
reason my (going back to my social science background) dictatorial regimes
try first and foremost to control art and stifle creativity. And in
societies where that happens, it has a very damaging impact on people's
psyche.

> >I'll have to check that one out, I haven't seen it. I did like "What
Dreams
> >May Come," though the alternate ending is MUCH better than the
original -- a
> >bit too daring, I suspect. If you haven't seen it, rent the DVD (or if
you
> >really don't want to be surprised, I'll tell you what happens.)
>
> I saw this film in the theater and it was quite beautiful. I have mixed,
almost
> jealous, feelings toward it because I saw it after writing 6 chapters of a
> similar novel. Though my story was different in many ways, mine had two
> newlyweds who died (though my characters perished together) and one went
to
> heaven while the other went to hell (which was based purely on their own
> perceptions of where they should end up). The irony was that the woman, a
> devout and guilt ridden Christian, placed herself in hell while her easy
going
> agnostic/atheist husband found himself in paradise. The plot, like in
WDMC, was
> that of the husband trying to rescue his wife from herself. I never
finished
> writing this story and probably never will.

The alternate ending was interesting -- they are told that she has to go
back because suicides don't get to stay in paradise. So they plan their
next life. She will be born in Sri Lanka, and he'll be born in the US.
When he's young, he'll travel to Sri Lanka, meet her, marry her, and then
she'll get an illness and die young. She'll learn to appreciate love and
the beauty of life that way. He'll life on for sixty years, every day
missing her. He says, "sixty years is nothing, I'll do it." So the final
scene is a birth in America, and a birth in Sri Lanka, as they go back... I
liked it, it was much better than just sitting by the lake and meeting as
kids.

As far as your story being taken, well, gee, if a story similar to yours
became a major movie, then you must have major movie material creativity,
you just have to get it out there faster next time :-) Good luck to you
and your husband on your book. I may get inspired to start my fiction
writing again...

-snip-

> Saw it...and pretty much all ST episodes through DS9 (don't like much
after
> that).

I liked the start of DS9, then stopped watching it. But when Voyager came,
I started watching that one, it was pretty good. The only show I refuse to
miss is the Simpsons. I was a "Life in Hell" fan way back.

> From what I've read of your posts, you will love it. Make sure to rent the
DVD
> so you can get all the bells and whistles.

As soon as I post this, I'm heading over to netflix to do just that!


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 11:23:21 AM8/12/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:uleja7...@corp.supernews.com...

Pure determinism is one of those things that one can dismiss because if its
true, nothing matters, and so you may as well assume that choices matter and
aren't determined. If you're wrong, who cares?

Also, I think the more physicists learn about quantum mechanics and the way
reality works, the more likely it seems that deteminist models of the
universe are hard to defend. (At least not of one universe, though some
have hypothesized an infinite myriad of universes to reflect every possible
quantum probability, which is mind boggling...)

And connecting Permanent Waves to Hemispheres, free will exists within our
circumstances. We are free to do whatever we want, constrained only by our
circumstances (abilities, limits, etc.) as well as our consideration of the
consequences of our action. So...to measure how much 'free will' we have
means really to measure how much our circumstances limit or constrain our
possible choices. That means free will is ultimately not purely
individual -- our freedom is individual, but what it means is always in a
social context (or at least a natural context if we're alone in nature).


Ellen

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 3:27:40 PM8/12/02
to
>From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net

>And connecting Permanent Waves to Hemispheres, free will exists within our
>circumstances.

What a cool way of putting it!


Ellen

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme
Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

Ellen

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:36:18 PM8/12/02
to
>From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net

<bits are snipped here and there>

>Sometimes I tell myself that getting too caught up in routines to not take
>the time to think about these things is like losing lucidity in a dream. It
>makes me think we also need to be lucid in real life, recognize that we are
>creating our world, and not just passively go along without recognizing our
>power. It may not be the same kind of power as in a lucid dream, but...

I think that this is what Neil Peart abstractly meant when he wrote that he
chooses Free Will. At least that's how I interpret it.

>Yeah...one of the things I tried early when I was doing what I considered at
>the time 'my experiments' was to see if the people in my dreams could give
>me any insight. I'd ask someone, "what is the meaning of life," or "what is
>the purpose." They could never give me an answer.

I am a firm believer that the only answers you can get from dreams come from
yourself. Our brains, being as complex as they are, tend to mishmash our world.
Dreams and other self reflecting tools have the capacity to sort out our
thoughts and give us an entrance into forgotten parts of the brain.

> I wanted to think that
>this was a key to answering all the secrets of the universe, I guess. But
>once I realized that my head started to spin with another theory. Maybe
>waking reality is just a different kind of dream, and we're all characters
>in that dream, but aspects of some 'dreamer' that gives this reality its
>shape....if that's the case, then we have access to that greater dreamer,
>and therefore via our minds the people in my dream might actually be able to
>tell me something. But, over time, I figured that was too pat a theory --

Yes, but it is a cool myth that makes you think (which is what mythology is
supposed to be).

>obviously, waking reality is different than a dream -- or, if it is
>analogous to adream its one where we've all agreed upon certain ground rules
>before coming here and live within those constraints (laws of nature).

"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch" - Lily Tomlin

I like how you bring this thread back to Rush by bringing up "Circumstances."
To me, reality is a mixture of circumstance and perception, while dreams are
based on pure perception. Non-lucid dreaming, although based on pure
perception, creates it's own circumstances and the dreamer is often hindered by
this. Lucid dreaming allows the dreamer to let go of circumstances and enjoy
pure freewill.

>Cool. It's a great feeling, isn't it, to suddenly realize 'it's a dream'
>and have that thrill of being able to go out explore and play. I also find
>that I have more lucid dreams if I start wondering during the day if I'm
>dreaming, and get used to reflecting on that question.

Yup..."reality checks". If I remember to do these throughout the day, then
chances are I'll remember to do them in my sleep. I'm going to do one now by
checking my clock...it says 2:01. Now I'm going to check it again...2:01. I
guess I'm not dreaming (when dreaming, my clock will usually say something like
4B:0&).

>I think the most vivid and realistic dreams are deeper in sleep -- those are
>my favorite, though lucidity can be harder to hang on to. Sometimes I'll
>have long epic dramas where I'll drift in and out of lucidity, and then
>replay scenes. This weekend we were camping, which means getting to bed at
>about 9:30 (though we stayed up to watch the meteor shower Saturday night --
>pretty impressive).

We watched it from our backyard...beautiful (as was the moon).

> I thought, 'OK, this would be a good night to lucid
>dream.' Unfortunately I'm out of the habit. Maybe this thread will get me
>to start trying to get back into it.

Lets see which one of us can conjure a lucid dream first!

>Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the first
>day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely that
>we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
>unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot be
>detached from our own perspective, it's impossible.

Which is why we have war, take sides, register with political parties, etc. I
suspect that even robots (even once their intelligence level surpasses ours)
will be hampered by perception because there is always something new to
perceive.

> That's a limitation we
>have to acknowledge if we're going to be honest in trying to understand the
>world. The complexity problem is just the multicausality thing -- what
>really causes war, oppression, economic success, etc.

Heh...I need to read your entire post before responding to bits of it :)

> In foreign policy
>there are examples of numerous wars caused by leaders who believed the
>otherside knew what they meant to convey, and their interpretation of the
>other side was precisely what the other side meant to convey, even though
>both were mistaken (what an awkward sentence that was). Or talk with people
>ardently for the Israelis or the Palestinians, each has a perspective that
>is very compelling on its own...but yet obviously both can't be right
>completely. That seems to be the important starting point -- trying to
>understand another's perspective, even if you can't eliminate the fact your
>own perspective shapes how you experience reality. Maybe lucid dreaming
>(like foreign travel) helps in that regard -- it helps show the power of the
>mind to shape reality.

Indeed.

>Agreed. Ideas are the building blocks of our reality, but if we limit our
>ideas to those which we can express in conventional ways, we won't have the
>spark to come up with something new and perhaps much better. That's one
>reason my (going back to my social science background) dictatorial regimes
>try first and foremost to control art and stifle creativity. And in
>societies where that happens, it has a very damaging impact on people's
>psyche.

Yup. We know this, it makes sense, and it still happens. Have to get this
particular perception around the world and fast!

>The alternate ending was interesting -- they are told that she has to go
>back because suicides don't get to stay in paradise. So they plan their
>next life. She will be born in Sri Lanka, and he'll be born in the US.
>When he's young, he'll travel to Sri Lanka, meet her, marry her, and then
>she'll get an illness and die young. She'll learn to appreciate love and
>the beauty of life that way. He'll life on for sixty years, every day
>missing her. He says, "sixty years is nothing, I'll do it." So the final
>scene is a birth in America, and a birth in Sri Lanka, as they go back... I
>liked it, it was much better than just sitting by the lake and meeting as
>kids.

That's a more eastern ending and, I agree, a better one.

The ending to my story was that the woman in hell had to save herself...she
could not rely upon her husband to do the saving. There was no reincarnation in
my story as I do not believe in that, per se. Our energy goes back into the
universe when we die...that's enough for me. I sometimes imagine that there is
some sort of microsubatomicittybittynoseeum particle that holds our
consciousness, but that takes me into the fantasy realm (which is not enough
for me to form a belief upon).


>> Saw it...and pretty much all ST episodes through DS9 (don't like much
>after
>> that).
>
>I liked the start of DS9, then stopped watching it. But when Voyager came,
>I started watching that one, it was pretty good. The only show I refuse to
>miss is the Simpsons. I was a "Life in Hell" fan way back.

I never got into Voyager and the new one is not even worth mentioning beyond
this sentence. I LOVE The Simpsons...have all the first season episodes on DVD
and can't wait till they release more (though maybe they have and I don't know
it...I should check again).

Let me know how you enjoy "Waking Life." I'm sure that you will find it to be
on topic! :)

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 9:03:47 PM8/12/02
to
"Scott Erb" <> wrote
>

> Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the first
> day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely that
> we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
> unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot be
> detached from our own perspective, it's impossible. That's a limitation we
> have to acknowledge if we're going to be honest in trying to understand the
> world.

<shiver>

Context does matter a lot in human decisions, but....

This kind of Kantian/Hegelian epistemology (mysticism) gives me
the creeps, it's very dangerous and Orwellian, and often nihilistic.
You suggest that in order to be honest (obviously a moral proposition,
but what it's based on is not clear), we must believe that we can't really
know anything for sure. And worse, that we have no basis for
commonality between people of different cultures.

I recently saw the expression, "Culture is overrated.", I think it was
in Neil's new book. Man, truer words have seldom been spoken,
I am finding many many places where that expression applies.
"Culture" is an emotional thing, and a useful tool for those who
would like to rule (whether they be individuals, religions, or majorities).

The trick is for each and all of us to keep our perceptions consistent
with reality, which most all of us have significant means to know,
regardless of any 'culture' that surrounds us.

(Lucent dreaming sounds like a fun pastime, but reality really matters)


"You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge."

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 2:55:56 PM8/13/02
to

Its such a horrid philosophical entanglement. For those who see the
universe as a deterministic system, that is, if we were able to know the
current position and motion of each bit of matter in the universe, we
could predict the future by merely mapping out the sequence of collisions,
hard determinism remains an attractive thought. And also, for those who
reject dualism and believe that the human mind (consciousness) is a
product of neurology and neurochemistry (IOW a product of phyical things,
governed by the laws of physics), then one must also accept that
the human mind is not immune to the deterministic forces of the universe
as described above...but then throw in Einstein...sheesh, like I said, its
an entanglement.


Ellen

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 3:49:06 PM8/13/02
to
>From: "John Shafto" moc....@nhoj.rev

>> Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the first
>> day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely
>that
>> we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
>> unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot be
>> detached from our own perspective, it's impossible. That's a limitation we
>> have to acknowledge if we're going to be honest in trying to understand the
>> world.
>
><shiver>
>
>Context does matter a lot in human decisions, but....
>
>This kind of Kantian/Hegelian epistemology (mysticism) gives me
>the creeps, it's very dangerous and Orwellian, and often nihilistic.
>You suggest that in order to be honest (obviously a moral proposition,
>but what it's based on is not clear), we must believe that we can't really
>know anything for sure. And worse, that we have no basis for
>commonality between people of different cultures.

You're completely ignoring most of what was written here and focusing on one
part of a post out of context. Realizing that different people have different
perspectives based on different experiences is not mysticism or nihilism.
You're reading way too much into what "Scott Erb" wrote, drawing conclusions
based on other set philosophies, and making rash judgments. In other words,
you're putting words into other peoples' mouths.

>I recently saw the expression, "Culture is overrated.", I think it was
>in Neil's new book.

I'll have to read his book to see the context of this statement.

<snip tangental part of post that "Scott Erb" can deal with if he is so
inclined>

>(Lucent dreaming sounds like a fun pastime, but reality really matters)

That's like saying that "music is a fun pastime, but the sounds of nature is
what really matters." Lucid dreaming occurs *within* reality, not outside of
it....and yes, it is a lot of fun.

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:57:08 PM8/13/02
to

"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020812193618...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> >From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net

> I am a firm believer that the only answers you can get from dreams come
from
> yourself. Our brains, being as complex as they are, tend to mishmash our
world.
> Dreams and other self reflecting tools have the capacity to sort out our
> thoughts and give us an entrance into forgotten parts of the brain.

Journies of self-discovery!

-snip-

> "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch" - Lily Tomlin
>
> I like how you bring this thread back to Rush by bringing up
"Circumstances."
> To me, reality is a mixture of circumstance and perception, while dreams
are
> based on pure perception. Non-lucid dreaming, although based on pure
> perception, creates it's own circumstances and the dreamer is often
hindered by
> this. Lucid dreaming allows the dreamer to let go of circumstances and
enjoy
> pure freewill.

Except, of course, for the undesired 'waking up' that occurs sometimes.

> >Cool. It's a great feeling, isn't it, to suddenly realize 'it's a dream'
> >and have that thrill of being able to go out explore and play. I also
find
> >that I have more lucid dreams if I start wondering during the day if I'm
> >dreaming, and get used to reflecting on that question.
>
> Yup..."reality checks". If I remember to do these throughout the day, then
> chances are I'll remember to do them in my sleep. I'm going to do one now
by
> checking my clock...it says 2:01. Now I'm going to check it again...2:01.

OK, that's what you meant by that term. Yeah, I have to start doing that
more often to get back in the lucid dreaming habit.

> guess I'm not dreaming (when dreaming, my clock will usually say something
like
> 4B:0&).

I've found it very difficult to read things in lucid dreams. I can read
things in non-lucid dreams, but when I try to read something in a lucid
dream I often find I just can't do it. Nothing is there, or I can't focus.
Perhaps that goes back to the free will thing -- my mind is expecting to see
something it hasn't created, something new -- but that's impossible in a
dream, so it just doesn't read. In a non-lucid dream, the mind does it and
the dreamer just thinks its unexpected. Or maybe that's just a quirk of my
dreams. Maybe next time I'll try to read something I know will be there,
create the text before trying to read it, and see if that works.

> >I think the most vivid and realistic dreams are deeper in sleep -- those
are
> >my favorite, though lucidity can be harder to hang on to. Sometimes I'll
> >have long epic dramas where I'll drift in and out of lucidity, and then
> >replay scenes. This weekend we were camping, which means getting to bed
at
> >about 9:30 (though we stayed up to watch the meteor shower Saturday
night --
> >pretty impressive).
>
> We watched it from our backyard...beautiful (as was the moon).
>
> > I thought, 'OK, this would be a good night to lucid
> >dream.' Unfortunately I'm out of the habit. Maybe this thread will get
me
> >to start trying to get back into it.
>
> Lets see which one of us can conjure a lucid dream first!

Nothing last night.

> >Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the
first
> >day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely
that
> >we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
> >unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot
be
> >detached from our own perspective, it's impossible.
>
> Which is why we have war, take sides, register with political parties,
etc. I
> suspect that even robots (even once their intelligence level surpasses
ours)
> will be hampered by perception because there is always something new to
> perceive.

True -- our perspective is shaped by our beliefs and understandings, the way
we were programmed by our experiences. Robots will have their perspectives
shaped by their programming. But...we (I believe) have the reflective power
to assess how we were programmed and 'reprogram' ourselves. That is where
creativity comes in, I think -- the reflective ability to re-assess beliefs
and actually come up with thoughts from outside, at least a bit, past
programming. Will robots ever develop that capacity? Can it be programmed
in (some have complex learning programs -- artificial intelligence and all),
or is this something that will always differentiate life from machine? And
if robots are programmed really well, will we be able to tell?

"Trying to change the program, trying to change the mode
Crack the code
Images conflicting into data overload...1001001...."

(Again, I'll bring in some Rush content here!)

-snip-

For all that the movie had, I found the most emotional part the moment he
realized he was with his daughter.

> The ending to my story was that the woman in hell had to save
herself...she
> could not rely upon her husband to do the saving. There was no
reincarnation in
> my story as I do not believe in that, per se. Our energy goes back into
the
> universe when we die...that's enough for me. I sometimes imagine that
there is
> some sort of microsubatomicittybittynoseeum particle that holds our
> consciousness, but that takes me into the fantasy realm (which is not
enough
> for me to form a belief upon).

I guess I believe identity persists, but probably in a much different
form -- identity as part of a larger identity that we don't perceive. But
that's all speculation, which is the fun part of life. I think back in
college I decided that these questions of spirit, life, meaning, etc., can
never be answered. You can either "bet your life" and pick an "ism" to
follow, or you can be playful, think about things, fantasize a bit, and stay
open, realizing that we can't really know. So have fun with it -- why not?
That makes dogma (another good movie -- Alanis Morrisette as God, who'd have
thunk it?) something to avoid.

I like your ending idea, since I think philosophically I agree that the
individual is the one who has to make the choices. But in the movie, the
idea that love means helping others and helping individuals make the tough
choices (he was falling into hell when she finally pulled herself out) had
an interesting take on what love is and what relationships are about. It's
that old 'individual/group' thing, I guess.

> >> Saw it...and pretty much all ST episodes through DS9 (don't like much
> >after
> >> that).
> >
> >I liked the start of DS9, then stopped watching it. But when Voyager
came,
> >I started watching that one, it was pretty good. The only show I refuse
to
> >miss is the Simpsons. I was a "Life in Hell" fan way back.
>
> I never got into Voyager and the new one is not even worth mentioning
beyond
> this sentence. I LOVE The Simpsons...have all the first season episodes on
DVD
> and can't wait till they release more (though maybe they have and I don't
know
> it...I should check again).

I think its coming out next month, or later this month (I have the first
season DVD too -- the 'old Homer voice.' I love the commentary). When I
was at the airport in London last month I saw the Season II DVD. I don't
know why they got it there before we get it here -- that seems backwards! I
would have picked it up, but it was expensive and in the PAL system that our
DVD players can't read.

I'm known where I teach for being a fan of the Simpsons. I always bring up
examples from different episodes -- talk about the Iraq-Kuwait war, talk
about sideways drilling the Kuwaitis used...just like Monty Burns! It
amazes me how often there are parallels, and usually they only occur to me
while I'm standing there so I just say them, even if some students find that
rather eccentric. I'll be talking about the start of WWI and how the crime
of regicide was considered worse than murder, and then remember the 911 call
Bart made when Sideshow Bob was after him, and the recording said, "If you
know the crime you are reporting, please push the corresponding number. One
for regicide..." Little things like that. I got a teaching award last year
and one of things the presenter said was that I could bring in the Simpsons
to compare to almost every aspect of politics. A few people gave me an odd
look. I also played "Territories" once when discussing war and nationalism.
I think that caused a couple students to go out and buy "Power Windows." I
don't think that improves my teaching, but little self-indulgences to pop
culture I enjoy makes it at least more fun for me, and presumably that keeps
me energized :-)

> Let me know how you enjoy "Waking Life." I'm sure that you will find it to
be
> on topic! :)
> Ellen

Will do. We don't have very good DVD rental places here, so we use netflix,
so it may take awhile (we gotta find time to watch the movies we have, send
them back, etc.) But I'm looking forward to it!


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:51:25 PM8/13/02
to
"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020813154906...@mb-mj.aol.com...

> >From: "John Shafto" moc....@nhoj.rev
>
> >> Exactly! When I teach intro courses on international relations, the first
> >> day's lecture is the "problems of perspective and complexity" -- namely
> >that
> >> we all interpret reality through our perspectives that no one gets an
> >> unbiased look, and that is something we can never eliminate. We cannot be
> >> detached from our own perspective, it's impossible. That's a limitation we
> >> have to acknowledge if we're going to be honest in trying to understand the
> >> world.
> >
> ><shiver>
> >
> >Context does matter a lot in human decisions, but....
> >
> >This kind of Kantian/Hegelian epistemology (mysticism) gives me
> >the creeps, it's very dangerous and Orwellian, and often nihilistic.
> >You suggest that in order to be honest (obviously a moral proposition,
> >but what it's based on is not clear), we must believe that we can't really
> >know anything for sure. And worse, that we have no basis for
> >commonality between people of different cultures.
>
> You're completely ignoring most of what was written here and focusing
> on one part of a post out of context.

That's true, but you haven't said how the context of his post matters.
I was responding to a set of specific statements about how our
minds work.

> Realizing that different people have different perspectives based on
> different experiences is not mysticism or nihilism.

No, but in my view, saying, "We cannot be detached from our own
perspective, it's impossible." is. It is essentially saying that we have
no means to be objective about anything, that causal reasoning and
empathy do not exist. It is a positive philosophical assertion that there
is some unamed limitation (culture I think) we all have which necessarily
always clouds our minds.

> You're reading way too much into what "Scott Erb" wrote, drawing conclusions
> based on other set philosophies, and making rash judgments. In other words,
> you're putting words into other peoples' mouths.

I was responding only to what was stated, and which I quoted.
I don't disagree with Scott about the complexity part, complexity does
often lead different people to have different views (more places to err),
or with your statement that perspectives are often formed by one's
circumstances, but I disagree that these things necessarily cause
people to be in mental places so different that they can never reason
their way to truth. Reason is so valuable and important to me that I
get jumpy when I see things that suggest it is useless, even if that was
not the person's intent, but rather just a logical conclusion that follows.

> >I recently saw the expression, "Culture is overrated.", I think it was
> >in Neil's new book.
>
> I'll have to read his book to see the context of this statement.
>
> <snip tangental part of post that "Scott Erb" can deal with if he is so
> inclined>
>
> >(Lucent dreaming sounds like a fun pastime, but reality really matters)
>
> That's like saying that "music is a fun pastime, but the sounds of nature is
> what really matters."

No, not really. Music is quite real. Most musicians can tell you
about the difference between their mental vision of some piece
and what comes out at the end though.

> Lucid dreaming occurs *within* reality, not outside of
> it....and yes, it is a lot of fun.

I agree that our thoughts (and dreams) are a part of reality, but because
we have the ability to imagine/create data points from nothing, use them
in our mental processing, it is possible to think about things quite outside
the realm of reality. It is a very useful ability, giving us reasonable ways to
somewhat predict the future, but it's only viable when our created data
points are induced based on real prior experiences, or reality. IOW,
inductions based on facts. In dreams, many of the data points are created
from past real experiences, but many are way off base obviously.
That's what makes dreams much less than rational, in my view.

My son was telling me about a dream he had the other day, and he thought
it was weird how his brain could come up with such wild things. I told him
it was only because his brain was basically in neutral. :)


Ellen

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:27:48 PM8/13/02
to
>From: "John Shafto" gro.o...@nhoj.rev

>> You're completely ignoring most of what was written here and focusing
>> on one part of a post out of context.
>
>That's true, but you haven't said how the context of his post matters.

Because right before, "Scott Erb" was saying how dream reality is not the same
thing as the collective reality that we all agree upon. You make it seem like
he feels otherwise.

>I was responding to a set of specific statements about how our
>minds work.

No, you responded to the part where "Scott Erb" was explaining how he brings up
perception in an international relations class. It is indeed true that people
from different cultures have different perspectives and that they see "reality"
as being different from the "reality" that you and I see (not that you and I
even see the same reality...we don't). The real reality is out there, but I
don't know it in full. I try to know as much as I can by reading and exploring,
but I am limited by my senses...and so are you. I will never know everything
there is to know...and neither will you. Our perceptions (which are our filters
of what reality is) lead you and I to disagree, and this happens a lot on an
international scale when people from different places have extremely different
experiences.

>> Realizing that different people have different perspectives based on
>> different experiences is not mysticism or nihilism.
>
>No, but in my view, saying, "We cannot be detached from our own
>perspective, it's impossible." is.

Q: Is it possible to know everything?
A: No.

Q: Why can't we know everything?
A: Because we are just silly little animals who rely on our eyes, ears, noses,
hands, tongues, and intuition to understand the world. We are limited due to
our perceptions (based on our senses). If we were not, then we would be
omniscient beings. Therefor,

Q: Can we be detached from our own perspective (AKA become omniscient)?
A: No.

> It is essentially saying that we have
>no means to be objective about anything, that causal reasoning and
>empathy do not exist.

No, it's not. We have the means to gather info and learn. We have the means to
reason and be empathetic within the realm of not being omniscient. Basically,
we do what we can to get by. We just have to be careful to take strides to
learn as much as we can before spouting off our ideas and/or hurt others. We
have to be cognizant of what our abilities are, and this is hard for people to
do (which is why we have so much war).

> It is a positive philosophical assertion that there
>is some unamed limitation (culture I think) we all have which necessarily
>always clouds our minds.
>
>> You're reading way too much into what "Scott Erb" wrote, drawing
>conclusions
>> based on other set philosophies, and making rash judgments. In other words,
>> you're putting words into other peoples' mouths.
>
>I was responding only to what was stated, and which I quoted.
>I don't disagree with Scott about the complexity part, complexity does
>often lead different people to have different views (more places to err),
>or with your statement that perspectives are often formed by one's
>circumstances, but I disagree that these things necessarily cause
>people to be in mental places so different that they can never reason
>their way to truth.
> Reason is so valuable and important to me that I
>get jumpy when I see things that suggest it is useless, even if that was
>not the person's intent, but rather just a logical conclusion that follows.

Reason is a corner stone of my own belief system and I hold it extremely dear
so I understand why you might have gotten jumpy over what you thought was being
implied. Nobody here said it was "useless." Reason is not useless. Reason is an
important tool for humans and it is how we make progress. However, as
reasonable as I try to be, I do understand that it is impossible for me to know
all. My reason is based on educated guesses that work well within my world. How
is it that what I see as truth is not the same as what you see as truth? It's
because we have had different life experiences, read different books, seen
different movies, loved different people, had different parents, went to
different schools, etc. We can get around this through massive communication
with each other and, probably, even come to agreement on something (and as soon
as this happens a new scientific discovery *could* be announced that proves us
wrong).

>> >(Lucent dreaming sounds like a fun pastime, but reality really matters)
>>
>> That's like saying that "music is a fun pastime, but the sounds of nature
>is
>> what really matters."
>
>No, not really. Music is quite real. Most musicians can tell you
>about the difference between their mental vision of some piece
>and what comes out at the end though.

Lucid dreaming is completely real. Like music, it is an art form that helps
with self expression and leads to many positive experiences. It is an exercise,
not a substitute for reality.

>> Lucid dreaming occurs *within* reality, not outside of
>> it....and yes, it is a lot of fun.
>
>I agree that our thoughts (and dreams) are a part of reality, but because
>we have the ability to imagine/create data points from nothing, use them
>in our mental processing, it is possible to think about things quite outside
>the realm of reality. It is a very useful ability, giving us reasonable ways
to
>somewhat predict the future, but it's only viable when our created data
>points are induced based on real prior experiences, or reality. IOW,
>inductions based on facts. In dreams, many of the data points are created
>from past real experiences, but many are way off base obviously.
>That's what makes dreams much less than rational, in my view.

I think that you need to research the phenomenon of the *lucid* dream if you
wish to discuss this with me further. Here is a good place to start:
http://www.lucidity.com/

zach

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:57:50 PM8/13/02
to
Daniel McConnell <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.44.020813...@linc.cis.upenn.edu>...

I've always had a problem with pure deterministic thought, not only
from a philosophical perspective, but from a scientific one. The
problem is not so much the application, but rather what it means. I
was once working with a lady who had done two post-docs in physics, so
she eat, breathed, and lived it for many years. She once made a
comment about something we were working on, saying, "It's just like a
butterfly's wings beating in Paris" (we were in Portland, OR), or
something similar. I paused for a minute, since I'd never heard that
phrase, but then realized that she was saying even the most
insignificant event has a causal relationship on something on the
other side of the world. I don't know if this is some kind of physics
insider saying (I think she said it was), or if she picked it up from
someone quipping philosophical. I didn't think much of it at the time.

Later, however, I realized that this observation, while interesting
from a pure deterministic standpoint, and perhaps accurate if it were
possbible to follow every single possible time line from that event,
totally ignores signal to noise ratio. That is to say, the causal
effect of such a minute event has no realistic, or measureable effect
much outside its small area. There comes a point when measurements are
just not possible, and the effects get lost in the noise of everything
else unrelated to that causal even. Could I even detect a small
nuclear device going off in Paris, if I had my measurement equpiment
set up at the south pole? Probably not since the resultant
radioactive activity would be lost in the noise of normal background
radiation that is present in the environment due to many other
factors. Even so, could I isolate the location or event, or know there
was some radiactive release somewhere in the world, whether
man-caused, geologic, or extra-terrestrial. Isn't this why weather is
so hard to predict? Isn't this what Chaos Theory (of which I know
little) tries to address?

Not only in the newspaper quoting so-called scientific "studies" (of
which the papers are only taking what serves their preconceptions),
but also in engineering and manufacturing do we see people totally
misinterpreting data because they only look at a small set of possible
causal events, mistakenly assuming that there are no extrinsic
factors, or that such factors aren't meaningful in scope. So what if
you have a minor problem here, it's only contributing to 1% of the
overall problem, so ignore it and identify something else (Pareto
Principle). Proper methodology is an analysis philosophy, and is 90%
of the battle in problem solving. If you don't learn correctly from
the beginning, you keep making the same mistakes because your view of
"reality" is incomplete. I see this a lot when I come across people
with twice my education and half again as many years of experience,
arriving at wrong conclusions from data because they either concern
themselves with one thing with which they are familiar, or they ignore
things to which they should be paying attention. The difference was
that I was taught (thankfully) correctly from the beginning by
competent mentors who practiced proper analytical methodology, or so I
like to think.

In a similar manner, this relates to philosophical thinking, as
demonstrated by the "butterfly beating its wings in Paris" comment.
Is it measureable? Yes, within a very limited area. Outside of that,
the effects get lost in the noise of an infinite amount of other
effects of both lesser and greater magnitude. Can it be measured on a
quantum level somehow? Perhaps, but one can only know the effects one
measures within the context of the experiment, and I firmly believe
that extrinsic events will cause a "causal canceling out" of events of
smaller magnitude, even if followed at the quantum level--- but I
don't now QT, so I could be wrong there. In the end, the question
becomes, "does a butterfly beating its wings in Paris matter to me
here in North America?"

No, nor should it.

IMO.

Ellen

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:55:47 PM8/13/02
to
>From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net

:::lots of snippage throughout:::

>I've found it very difficult to read things in lucid dreams. I can read
>things in non-lucid dreams, but when I try to read something in a lucid
>dream I often find I just can't do it. Nothing is there, or I can't focus.
>Perhaps that goes back to the free will thing -- my mind is expecting to see
>something it hasn't created, something new -- but that's impossible in a
>dream, so it just doesn't read. In a non-lucid dream, the mind does it and
>the dreamer just thinks its unexpected. Or maybe that's just a quirk of my
>dreams.

Nope...you're not alone.

>Maybe next time I'll try to read something I know will be there,
>create the text before trying to read it, and see if that works.

That's an interesting idea...let me know if that works!

>True -- our perspective is shaped by our beliefs and understandings, the way
>we were programmed by our experiences. Robots will have their perspectives
>shaped by their programming. But...we (I believe) have the reflective power
>to assess how we were programmed and 'reprogram' ourselves. That is where
>creativity comes in, I think -- the reflective ability to re-assess beliefs
>and actually come up with thoughts from outside, at least a bit, past
>programming. Will robots ever develop that capacity? Can it be programmed
>in (some have complex learning programs -- artificial intelligence and all),
>or is this something that will always differentiate life from machine? And
>if robots are programmed really well, will we be able to tell?

Lots of excellent questions that nobody has an answer to. There is an awesome
"cyber punk" author named Rudy Rucker who deals with the prospects of A.I. and
robots quite a bit. Many of his intelligent robot characters have evolved there
own intelligence and some have even developed their own physical life form as
well. I'm attracted to Rucker's ideas of intelligent robots because they reach
far beyond the programming....but...I'm digressing again...ACK!

Quick Rucker plug for sci fi fans with a taste for the bizarre:
http://www.mathcs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/
Note: the 'ware' series rocks.

>I guess I believe identity persists, but probably in a much different
>form -- identity as part of a larger identity that we don't perceive. But
>that's all speculation, which is the fun part of life. I think back in
>college I decided that these questions of spirit, life, meaning, etc., can
>never be answered. You can either "bet your life" and pick an "ism" to
>follow, or you can be playful, think about things, fantasize a bit, and stay
>open, realizing that we can't really know. So have fun with it -- why not?

'Tis my mantra :)

>That makes dogma (another good movie -- Alanis Morrisette as God, who'd have
>thunk it?) something to avoid.

But of course Alanis would be God! (heh...I say this because I've been compared
with her even though I would not know a song of hers if I swam though one in a
lucid dream).

It's funny...right after you mentioned Dogma, it aired on Comedy Central and I
watched it again with my son (he loved it). We all discussed it afterwards and
came to the agreement that its silliness was to reflect the silliness of
organized religion, but that the overall message of having faith in *something*
(not necessarily a religion) is a good one.

>I like your ending idea, since I think philosophically I agree that the
>individual is the one who has to make the choices. But in the movie, the
>idea that love means helping others and helping individuals make the tough
>choices (he was falling into hell when she finally pulled herself out) had
>an interesting take on what love is and what relationships are about. It's
>that old 'individual/group' thing, I guess.

Love is what I have faith in.

>I think its coming out next month, or later this month (I have the first
>season DVD too -- the 'old Homer voice.' I love the commentary). When I
>was at the airport in London last month I saw the Season II DVD. I don't
>know why they got it there before we get it here -- that seems backwards! I
>would have picked it up, but it was expensive and in the PAL system that our
>DVD players can't read.

Thanks for the heads up on the DVD. I'll bet Costco will have it for cheap.

>I'm known where I teach for being a fan of the Simpsons. I always bring up
>examples from different episodes -- talk about the Iraq-Kuwait war, talk
>about sideways drilling the Kuwaitis used...just like Monty Burns! It
>amazes me how often there are parallels, and usually they only occur to me
>while I'm standing there so I just say them, even if some students find that
>rather eccentric. I'll be talking about the start of WWI and how the crime
>of regicide was considered worse than murder, and then remember the 911 call
>Bart made when Sideshow Bob was after him, and the recording said, "If you
>know the crime you are reporting, please push the corresponding number. One
>for regicide..." Little things like that. I got a teaching award last year
>and one of things the presenter said was that I could bring in the Simpsons
>to compare to almost every aspect of politics. A few people gave me an odd
>look. I also played "Territories" once when discussing war and nationalism.
>I think that caused a couple students to go out and buy "Power Windows." I
>don't think that improves my teaching, but little self-indulgences to pop
>culture I enjoy makes it at least more fun for me, and presumably that keeps
>me energized :-)

Was that award for "Coolest Teacher on the Planet"?

What you wrote above reminds me of a recent South Park episode I saw.
"Simpson's did it!" (I can explain if you don't know what I'm talking about).
The Simpsons are just so right on...and Lisa is my band nerd, vegetarian, soul
searching, horse loving, mildly arrogant soul sistah!

>> Let me know how you enjoy "Waking Life." I'm sure that you will find it to
>be
>> on topic! :)
>> Ellen
>
>Will do. We don't have very good DVD rental places here, so we use netflix,
>so it may take awhile (we gotta find time to watch the movies we have, send
>them back, etc.) But I'm looking forward to it!

Yikes! What would I do without instant DVD access? I guess that's why I moved
to CA! I've been spoiled the last six months by having cable, but I'm canceling
that at the end of August. I'm a movie renter through and through.

You can get a taste of "Waking Life" here: www.wakinglifemovie.com

Ellen (bets that Scott Erb will eventually buy this DVD)

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 14, 2002, 2:51:30 PM8/14/02
to
i

On 13 Aug 2002, zach wrote:

> problem is not so much the application, but rather what it means. I
> was once working with a lady who had done two post-docs in physics, so
> she eat, breathed, and lived it for many years. She once made a
> comment about something we were working on, saying, "It's just like a
> butterfly's wings beating in Paris" (we were in Portland, OR), or
> something similar. I paused for a minute, since I'd never heard that
> phrase, but then realized that she was saying even the most
> insignificant event has a causal relationship on something on the
> other side of the world. I don't know if this is some kind of physics
> insider saying (I think she said it was), or if she picked it up from
> someone quipping philosophical. I didn't think much of it at the time.
>
> Later, however, I realized that this observation, while interesting
> from a pure deterministic standpoint, and perhaps accurate if it were
> possbible to follow every single possible time line from that event,
> totally ignores signal to noise ratio. That is to say, the causal
> effect of such a minute event has no realistic, or measureable effect
> much outside its small area. There comes a point when measurements are
> just not possible, and the effects get lost in the noise of everything

yes the *measurements* are not possible, but technically speaking, there
is no such thing as noise.
Noise is only a category developed by physicists to lump together
measurements they can't account for - but the Butterfly Effect, a term
from Dynamical Systems Theory and Chaos Theory, is essentially real, and
one of the foundations of Chaos Theory is that there is no such thing as
noise - that there is, when observed at the right level, order in the
apparent noise or randomness.
Any physicist's ability to measure the Butterfly effect has no bearing on
whether, in a deterministic universe, the wind currents from the butterfly
may or may not create a typhoon in Malaysia.


> else unrelated to that causal even. Could I even detect a small
> nuclear device going off in Paris, if I had my measurement equpiment
> set up at the south pole? Probably not since the resultant
> radioactive activity would be lost in the noise of normal background
> radiation that is present in the environment due to many other
> factors. Even so, could I isolate the location or event, or know there
> was some radiactive release somewhere in the world, whether
> man-caused, geologic, or extra-terrestrial. Isn't this why weather is
> so hard to predict? Isn't this what Chaos Theory (of which I know
> little) tries to address?
>

ayup


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 14, 2002, 7:56:15 PM8/14/02
to

"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020813215547...@mb-mw.aol.com...

> >From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net
>
> :::lots of snippage throughout:::

Feel free, otherwise this gets way too long! I'll do the same.

No lucid dreams last night. The heat here is awful. In Maine we're not
supposed to need air conditioning, and our bedroom is in the basement.
Usually that's enough, but the last two summers have had so many 90 degrees
plus days that the house is getting way too hot. I think that has an impact
on my sleep!

>
> Lots of excellent questions that nobody has an answer to. There is an
awesome
> "cyber punk" author named Rudy Rucker who deals with the prospects of A.I.
and
> robots quite a bit. Many of his intelligent robot characters have evolved
there
> own intelligence and some have even developed their own physical life form
as
> well. I'm attracted to Rucker's ideas of intelligent robots because they
reach
> far beyond the programming....but...I'm digressing again...ACK!

Interesting, I'll check it out.

> Quick Rucker plug for sci fi fans with a taste for the bizarre:
> http://www.mathcs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/
> Note: the 'ware' series rocks.
>
> >I guess I believe identity persists, but probably in a much different
> >form -- identity as part of a larger identity that we don't perceive.
But
> >that's all speculation, which is the fun part of life. I think back in
> >college I decided that these questions of spirit, life, meaning, etc.,
can
> >never be answered. You can either "bet your life" and pick an "ism" to
> >follow, or you can be playful, think about things, fantasize a bit, and
stay
> >open, realizing that we can't really know. So have fun with it -- why
not?
>
> 'Tis my mantra :)
>
> >That makes dogma (another good movie -- Alanis Morrisette as God, who'd
have
> >thunk it?) something to avoid.
>
> But of course Alanis would be God! (heh...I say this because I've been
compared
> with her even though I would not know a song of hers if I swam though one
in a
> lucid dream).

Jagged Little Pill is a pretty good CD. Her last one isn't bad either.

> It's funny...right after you mentioned Dogma, it aired on Comedy Central
and I
> watched it again with my son (he loved it). We all discussed it afterwards
and
> came to the agreement that its silliness was to reflect the silliness of
> organized religion, but that the overall message of having faith in
*something*
> (not necessarily a religion) is a good one.

And also the silliness of following a dogma. The idea that a God
would be limited by specific rules rather than principles creates an
hilarious set of circumstances.

> >I like your ending idea, since I think philosophically I agree that the
> >individual is the one who has to make the choices. But in the movie, the
> >idea that love means helping others and helping individuals make the
tough
> >choices (he was falling into hell when she finally pulled herself out)
had
> >an interesting take on what love is and what relationships are about.
It's
> >that old 'individual/group' thing, I guess.
>
> Love is what I have faith in.

Once a student asked me what I was (when discussing political ideologies).
I said I'm a Lennonist. Of course, that *sounds* like "Leninist," so the
class looked a bit shocked. Then I added, "that's John Lennon, not
Vladimir."

> >I think its coming out next month, or later this month (I have the first
> >season DVD too -- the 'old Homer voice.' I love the commentary). When I
> >was at the airport in London last month I saw the Season II DVD. I don't
> >know why they got it there before we get it here -- that seems backwards!
I
> >would have picked it up, but it was expensive and in the PAL system that
our
> >DVD players can't read.
>
> Thanks for the heads up on the DVD. I'll bet Costco will have it for
>cheap.

I still marvel at the technology we have. DVDs! I remember as a very
young kid putting a little cassette recorder in front of the TV to get the
sound of MASH or Star Trek recorded, even before VCRs came out...or later
hearing from the local stereo guru about this new technology in Japan that
digitalizes music and allows you to play a disc with perfect music every
time, no cartridge, no needle, no having to care for the albums. Wow, maybe
someday I'll be rich enough to have that kind of system! :-)

-snip-

> Was that award for "Coolest Teacher on the Planet"?

*blush*

> What you wrote above reminds me of a recent South Park episode I saw.
> "Simpson's did it!" (I can explain if you don't know what I'm talking
about).
> The Simpsons are just so right on...and Lisa is my band nerd, vegetarian,
soul
> searching, horse loving, mildly arrogant soul sistah!

I haven't seen South Park often -- I enjoy it when I see it, but I never got
in the habit. Perhaps I should. So anyway, I don't know that episode.

The Simpsons not only have kept real quality writing, but they make fun of
*everything* It's also cool that they have so many jokes, puns and
references that always keep it interesting. Speaking of vegetarian Lisa, I
think one of my favorite scenes is when Homer and Bart are chasing the pig
Lisa 'liberates' from the barbeque, and after it gets shot out of the dam
and flying through the air we see Smithers and Burns, with Burns saying, "I
think I'll donate $10 million to the local orphanage....when pigs fly!" And
of course, right then a pig goes flying by the window. I love that little
touch of surreality. I'm trying to remember if they've had a Rush
connection other than Geddy's "take off to the great white north" bit on the
Canada trip. For some reason I think they once had Tom Sawyer in the
background, but I can't recall. I know they've mentioned Styx, Supertramp,
Alan Parsons Project, and a bunch of other early eighties bands from Homers'
past (and of course that sixties hippy protest song, 'Uptown Girl'). Can't
really picture Homer as a Rush fan though :-)

> >> Let me know how you enjoy "Waking Life." I'm sure that you will find it
to
> >be
> >> on topic! :)
> >> Ellen
> >
> >Will do. We don't have very good DVD rental places here, so we use
netflix,
> >so it may take awhile (we gotta find time to watch the movies we have,
send
> >them back, etc.) But I'm looking forward to it!
>
> Yikes! What would I do without instant DVD access? I guess that's why I
moved
> to CA! I've been spoiled the last six months by having cable, but I'm
canceling
> that at the end of August. I'm a movie renter through and through.

Netflix is OK...it's $20 a month, but you can have three movies out at a
time, and they pay postage both ways. At first they mailed them all the way
from San Diego which meant delays of three days, but now they have an east
coast branch. You can keep a movie an unlimited amount of time, but you
won't get a new one until you send the old one back. There is no limit on
how many you can get a month. I really would prefer some place with a huge
selection, but the places we have here in a town of 15,000 are limited, so
this works.

Ellen

unread,
Aug 15, 2002, 4:37:21 PM8/15/02
to
>From: "Scott Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net

>No lucid dreams last night. The heat here is awful. In Maine we're not
>supposed to need air conditioning, and our bedroom is in the basement.
>Usually that's enough, but the last two summers have had so many 90 degrees
>plus days that the house is getting way too hot. I think that has an impact
>on my sleep!

We had a heat wave here a few weeks ago, so I feel your pain.

I tried to get lucid last night, but to no avail. I had some bizarre dreams,
though. Why couldn't I realize that I was dreaming? Humph.

>> came to the agreement that its silliness was to reflect the silliness of
>> organized religion, but that the overall message of having faith in
>*something*
>> (not necessarily a religion) is a good one.
>
>And also the silliness of following a dogma. The idea that a God
>would be limited by specific rules rather than principles creates an
>hilarious set of circumstances.

Agreed.

>> Love is what I have faith in.
>
>Once a student asked me what I was (when discussing political ideologies).
>I said I'm a Lennonist. Of course, that *sounds* like "Leninist," so the
>class looked a bit shocked. Then I added, "that's John Lennon, not
>Vladimir."

Like you, I was disappointed by the "Instant Karma" post on AMR. Though I am
probably a bit partial to Paul (who I see as living love, not just preaching
it), John always ran a close second (though "Imagine" makes the space between
the two almost indistinguishable). The Beatles are my all time favorite band
(Rush and Tool tie for a close second) and I was a discombobulated heaping pile
of tears on December 8, 1980 (even though I was only 10 at the time, I had been
raised with John, Paul, George and Ringo). <Sigh>

Several years ago, my son and I visited a Baptist church in FL so that he could
meet a football star who was speaking there. It as an evil lure. Long story
short, a big mean preacher stood up in front of a everyone and said, "John
Lennon said 'Imagine there's no heaven,' then God said, 'imagine there's no
Lennon!'" Everyone laughed at that point...except my son and me, who sat there
horrified. That night inspired a song from me, that starts off with:

"'Imagine there's no Lennon!'
These words filled the large pompous hall.
Little boy lost in a soul holocaust
has learned what it feels like to fall..."

<More sighs>

>> >I think its coming out next month, or later this month (I have the first
>> >season DVD too -- the 'old Homer voice.' I love the commentary). When I
>> >was at the airport in London last month I saw the Season II DVD. I don't
>> >know why they got it there before we get it here -- that seems backwards!
>I
>> >would have picked it up, but it was expensive and in the PAL system that
>our
>> >DVD players can't read.
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up on the DVD. I'll bet Costco will have it for
>>cheap.
>
>I still marvel at the technology we have. DVDs! I remember as a very
>young kid putting a little cassette recorder in front of the TV to get the
>sound of MASH or Star Trek recorded, even before VCRs came out...or later
>hearing from the local stereo guru about this new technology in Japan that
>digitalizes music and allows you to play a disc with perfect music every
>time, no cartridge, no needle, no having to care for the albums. Wow, maybe
>someday I'll be rich enough to have that kind of system! :-)

I found the Simpson's 2nd Season DVD today at Amazon and purchased it (along
with Ghost Rider and Rudy Rucker's new one). Amazon said I can pass a 10%
savings onto friends for these items, so I passed it along to you. Figured it
couldn't hurt as they already had it for a decent price. Hope I'm not a spammer
now.

>> What you wrote above reminds me of a recent South Park episode I saw.
>> "Simpson's did it!" (I can explain if you don't know what I'm talking
>about).
>> The Simpsons are just so right on...and Lisa is my band nerd, vegetarian,
>soul
>> searching, horse loving, mildly arrogant soul sistah!
>
>I haven't seen South Park often -- I enjoy it when I see it, but I never got
>in the habit. Perhaps I should. So anyway, I don't know that episode.

Oh my gosh...it is a hilarious episode. Cartman mixes brine shrimp with human
semen (it's a long disgusting story how he ended up with so much semen) and
creates a fast evolving humanoid "Sea People" society who end up building and
worshipping statues in Cartman's image. "I'm God of the Sea People," he
proclaims. Meanwhile, one of Cartman's friends, I can't remember his name,
tries his damnedest to get negative attention from the town by pulling stunts
and pranks. The problem is that every prank he pulls, his little friend points
out that the Simpson's already did it. Chop off the head of the town founder's
statue? "Simpson's did it!" All the other pranks he thought of? "Simpson's did
it!" The poor kid ends up going mad and the South Park animations begin to
morph into Simpson-like animation. It was too funny!

>The Simpsons not only have kept real quality writing, but they make fun of
>*everything* It's also cool that they have so many jokes, puns and
>references that always keep it interesting. Speaking of vegetarian Lisa, I
>think one of my favorite scenes is when Homer and Bart are chasing the pig
>Lisa 'liberates' from the barbeque, and after it gets shot out of the dam
>and flying through the air we see Smithers and Burns, with Burns saying, "I
>think I'll donate $10 million to the local orphanage....when pigs fly!" And
>of course, right then a pig goes flying by the window. I love that little
>touch of surreality.

I've seen that episode...love it. Is that the same one where she meets Paul and
Linda, or is that another veggie one?

> I'm trying to remember if they've had a Rush
>connection other than Geddy's "take off to the great white north" bit on the
>Canada trip. For some reason I think they once had Tom Sawyer in the
>background, but I can't recall.

I don't remember that. I wonder how they could fit Rush into a Simson's
episode? Make Lisa a Rush fan (the obvious)? Homer wins Rush concert tix off
the radio and takes Bart to the show? Maybe Rush will want to use their dog for
their next album cover? Hmmmm...

Ellen

"Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above
blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it." -Mark Twain
http://www.homestead.com/emarie2112

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 15, 2002, 4:52:27 PM8/15/02
to
"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020813202748...@mb-mw.aol.com...

> >From: "John Shafto" gro.o...@nhoj.rev
>
> >> You're completely ignoring most of what was written here and focusing
> >> on one part of a post out of context.
> >
> >That's true, but you haven't said how the context of his post matters.
>
> Because right before, "Scott Erb" was saying how dream reality is not the same
> thing as the collective reality that we all agree upon. You make it seem like
> he feels otherwise.

It's not clear to me how this changes anything.
I don't know what you mean by placing the possessive modifier
'collective' before 'reality'. Sounds Hegelian to me.
Reality is the totality of real things and events, basically the facts.
'I' don't have a reality, 'you' don't have a reality, 'we' don't have a
reality. There is only one reality, which would still be here if we
all died tomorrow and only insects small mammals were left to
come to know and deal with it. There would be no one here to identify
it as 'reality', at least for many millions of years, but the thing we
presently identify as 'reality' would still be here without us.

> >I was responding to a set of specific statements about how our
> >minds work.
>
> No, you responded to the part where "Scott Erb" was explaining how
> he brings up perception in an international relations class.

Yes, that is the part where he made the statements I responded to.

> It is indeed true that people
> from different cultures have different perspectives and that they see "reality"
> as being different from the "reality" that you and I see (not that you and I
> even see the same reality...we don't). The real reality is out there, but I
> don't know it in full. I try to know as much as I can by reading and exploring,
> but I am limited by my senses...and so are you. I will never know everything
> there is to know...and neither will you. Our perceptions (which are our filters
> of what reality is) lead you and I to disagree, and this happens a lot on an
> international scale when people from different places have extremely different
> experiences.

I assume by putting "reality" in quotes you are almost suggesting some
kind of subjectivism, but then you seem to be suggest some kind of
intrinsicism by saying that 'real reality' is 'out there'.

There is only one reality, and I agree that any one of us can only know a
subset of it, but our knowledge is not fixed and permanent. We can
learn, daily.

> >> Realizing that different people have different perspectives based on
> >> different experiences is not mysticism or nihilism.
> >
> >No, but in my view, saying, "We cannot be detached from our own
> >perspective, it's impossible." is.
>
> Q: Is it possible to know everything?
> A: No.
>
> Q: Why can't we know everything?
> A: Because we are just silly little animals who rely on our eyes, ears, noses,
> hands, tongues, and intuition to understand the world. We are limited due to
> our perceptions (based on our senses). If we were not, then we would be
> omniscient beings. Therefor,
>
> Q: Can we be detached from our own perspective (AKA become omniscient)?
> A: No.

Your argument here:
1. Humans are not omniscient.
2. Omniscience is required for objectivity.
3. Therefore, humans cannot be objective.

The conclusion is bad because the second premise is false.
Our perspectives are not immutable, they can change based on
new information. The facts relevant to any decision or belief
can be known by people not in the circumstances, if the circumstances
and reasoning of the first party become known to the second.

> > It is essentially saying that we have
> >no means to be objective about anything, that causal reasoning and
> >empathy do not exist.
>
> No, it's not. We have the means to gather info and learn. We have the means to
> reason and be empathetic within the realm of not being omniscient.

Exactly.

> Basically, we do what we can to get by. We just have to be careful to take
> strides to learn as much as we can before spouting off our ideas and/or hurt others.

Sure.

> We have to be cognizant of what our abilities are, and this is hard for people
> to do (which is why we have so much war).

We certainly can come to understand why people think what they do,
even when they speak a different language, eat different foods, or
where different clothes. Hard is not impossible.

[snip]

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 15, 2002, 11:43:12 PM8/15/02
to
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<ulo54g6...@corp.supernews.com>...

> >
> > Q: Can we be detached from our own perspective (AKA become omniscient)?
> > A: No.
>
> Your argument here:
> 1. Humans are not omniscient.
> 2. Omniscience is required for objectivity.
> 3. Therefore, humans cannot be objective.
>
> The conclusion is bad because the second premise is false.

Yes.

> Our perspectives are not immutable, they can change based on
> new information.

Right. Further, it doesn't follow from the fact that we see
something from a *point of view* that the thing is not real or that we
do not have knowledge of the thing.

Ellen

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 4:58:14 PM8/16/02
to
>From: "John Shafto" gro.o...@nhoj.rev

>> Because right before, "Scott Erb" was saying how dream reality is not the
>same
>> thing as the collective reality that we all agree upon. You make it seem
>like
>> he feels otherwise.

>It's not clear to me how this changes anything.
>I don't know what you mean by placing the possessive modifier
>'collective' before 'reality'. Sounds Hegelian to me.

"Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It exists
without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is exclusive
to each individual.

>Reality is the totality of real things and events, basically the facts.

Yes, but not everyone agrees on what the facts are. Scott Erb and I were
talking about *perception* and how it clouds people's views of reality and
you're coming in here acting like we don't believe that reality, in it's pure
form, even exists. I never said that. Scott Erb never said that.

>'I' don't have a reality, 'you' don't have a reality, 'we' don't have a
>reality. There is only one reality, which would still be here if we
>all died tomorrow and only insects small mammals were left to
>come to know and deal with it. There would be no one here to identify
>it as 'reality', at least for many millions of years, but the thing we
>presently identify as 'reality' would still be here without us.

>> >I was responding to a set of specific statements about how our
>> >minds work.
>>
>> No, you responded to the part where "Scott Erb" was explaining how
>> he brings up perception in an international relations class.
>
>Yes, that is the part where he made the statements I responded to

>> It is indeed true that people
>> from different cultures have different perspectives and that they see
>"reality"
>> as being different from the "reality" that you and I see (not that you and
>I
>> even see the same reality...we don't). The real reality is out there, but I
>> don't know it in full. I try to know as much as I can by reading and
>exploring,
>> but I am limited by my senses...and so are you. I will never know
>everything
>> there is to know...and neither will you. Our perceptions (which are our
>filters
>> of what reality is) lead you and I to disagree, and this happens a lot on
>an
>> international scale when people from different places have extremely
>different
>> experiences.
>
>I assume by putting "reality" in quotes you are almost suggesting some
>kind of subjectivism, but then you seem to be suggest some kind of
>intrinsicism by saying that 'real reality' is 'out there'.

I am saying that reality exists, but humans have individual ways of
interpreting it.

>There is only one reality, and I agree that any one of us can only know a
>subset of it

Well then, you agree with me.

>, but our knowledge is not fixed and permanent. We can
>learn, daily.

Of course we can learn and we do learn, but what we learn is often a) not the
truth, and b) not complete. I strive to know reality the best I can and I do
this via learning. I don't believe that I'll ever know all because nobody knows
all.

>> >> Realizing that different people have different perspectives based on
>> >> different experiences is not mysticism or nihilism.
>> >
>> >No, but in my view, saying, "We cannot be detached from our own
>> >perspective, it's impossible." is.
>>
>> Q: Is it possible to know everything?
>> A: No.
>>
>> Q: Why can't we know everything?
>> A: Because we are just silly little animals who rely on our eyes, ears,
>noses,
>> hands, tongues, and intuition to understand the world. We are limited due
>to
>> our perceptions (based on our senses). If we were not, then we would be
>> omniscient beings. Therefor,
>>
>> Q: Can we be detached from our own perspective (AKA become omniscient)?
>> A: No.
>
>Your argument here:
>1. Humans are not omniscient.
>2. Omniscience is required for objectivity.
>3. Therefore, humans cannot be objective.
>
>The conclusion is bad because the second premise is false.
>Our perspectives are not immutable, they can change based on
>new information.

First of all, you changed the words in my argument. Secondly, although we can
learn, we STILL cannot know all.

> The facts relevant to any decision or belief
>can be known by people not in the circumstances, if the circumstances
>and reasoning of the first party become known to the second.

But what do you know? The interpretation of the first party which may or may
not reflect reality in its pure form.

>> No, it's not. We have the means to gather info and learn. We have the means
>to
>> reason and be empathetic within the realm of not being omniscient.
>
>Exactly.

I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me if you agree to the above.
Answer me this, is it possible for a human being to know everything?

<snipped the rest of post because it is redundant>

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 6:39:28 PM8/16/02
to
"Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020816165814...@mb-fy.aol.com...

> >From: "John Shafto" gro.o...@nhoj.rev
>
> >> Because right before, "Scott Erb" was saying how dream reality is not the
> >same
> >> thing as the collective reality that we all agree upon. You make it seem
> >like
> >> he feels otherwise.
>
> >It's not clear to me how this changes anything.
> >I don't know what you mean by placing the possessive modifier
> >'collective' before 'reality'. Sounds Hegelian to me.
>
> "Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It exists
> without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is exclusive
> to each individual.

Then by "reality" (in quotes) you mean perspective, or point-of-view.
To me reality only means reality, I don't see a subjective
"reality", so I had trouble with what you meant there.

> >Reality is the totality of real things and events, basically the facts.
>
> Yes, but not everyone agrees on what the facts are. Scott Erb and I were
> talking about *perception* and how it clouds people's views of reality and
> you're coming in here acting like we don't believe that reality, in it's pure
> form, even exists. I never said that. Scott Erb never said that.

I'm just going by what I read, you or Scott might mean something
entirely different, but words mean things (so to speak :).

[....]


> I am saying that reality exists, but humans have individual ways of
> interpreting it.

Sure, but the point of my response to Scott was that our
points-of-view (or perspectives) do not relegate us to an
immutable realm of never being able to see other people's/culture's
points-of-view (or judge errors in their reasoning). Remember,
he said, "nobody gets an unbiased view", and "We cannot be


detached from our own perspective, it's impossible."

My argument with those statements is simply that our perspectives
change. My own perspective tomorrow will be different than
my own perspective today, so I will be detached from the first.
We can come to know facts, reasoning, and circumstances,
and thus we change our point-of-view. The idea that no jury can
objectively determine whether someone commited a crime, or that
no person in one culture can come to know the perspective of
someone in another is bogus, in my view. This error in reasoning
is the source of relativism.

> >There is only one reality, and I agree that any one of us can only know a
> >subset of it
>
> Well then, you agree with me.

Perhaps, but you seem to be saying two different things.
1.) that our perspectives can change and...
2.) that they cannot.

> >, but our knowledge is not fixed and permanent. We can
> >learn, daily.
>
> Of course we can learn and we do learn, but what we learn is often a) not the
> truth, and b) not complete. I strive to know reality the best I can and I do
> this via learning. I don't believe that I'll ever know all because nobody knows
> all.

Here you are somewhat defending point 2 above, but you
say 'often' which leaves open the possibility of point 1.
To address your point that errors can happen, yes they can,
but only when we formulate views based on something other
than facts (e.g. imagination or emotions). Also, omniscience
is not required for you to change your "reality" (point-of-view),
so knowing all is not relevant.

[....]


> >Your argument here:
> >1. Humans are not omniscient.
> >2. Omniscience is required for objectivity.
> >3. Therefore, humans cannot be objective.
> >
> >The conclusion is bad because the second premise is false.
> >Our perspectives are not immutable, they can change based on
> >new information.
>
> First of all, you changed the words in my argument.
> Secondly, although we can learn, we STILL cannot know all.

I did boil your argument down, but that is apparently still your
argument, because you have now twice reasserted the second premise.
We don't have to know all (be omniscient) in order to change (detach)
our point-of-view. Objectivity is possible, because we can
learn things.

> > The facts relevant to any decision or belief
> >can be known by people not in the circumstances, if the circumstances
> >and reasoning of the first party become known to the second.
>
> But what do you know? The interpretation of the first party which may or may
> not reflect reality in its pure form.

There are other ways to get the facts, but we can also question
the first party's reasoning, see if they are basing their positions
on facts that can be verified. For instance, a western reporter can
go to Palestine, and after carefully coming to understand the
circumstances and facts, ask a Palestinian why he/she supports
suicide bombers. If they do, the answer they give will very likely
show errors in reasoning (not *entirely* based on facts).
The question then becomes, what facts do they need to eliminate
their errors in reasoning? If other facts are instead used to justify
the errors, we have an infinite loop, with no objective resolution possible.

> >> No, it's not. We have the means to gather info and learn. We have the means
> >to
> >> reason and be empathetic within the realm of not being omniscient.
> >
> >Exactly.
>
> I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me if you agree to the above.
> Answer me this, is it possible for a human being to know everything?

No, but that doesn't matter.


Ellen

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 7:20:47 PM8/16/02
to
>From: "John Shafto" moc....@nhoj.rev

>> "Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It
>exists
>> without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is
>exclusive
>> to each individual.
>
>Then by "reality" (in quotes) you mean perspective, or point-of-view.

Yes.

>To me reality only means reality, I don't see a subjective
>"reality", so I had trouble with what you meant there.

To me, there is a real reality (that we only get glimpses of, but can never
FULLY know) and the "reality" that we use in order to function in our daily
lives.

>> >Reality is the totality of real things and events, basically the facts.
>>
>> Yes, but not everyone agrees on what the facts are. Scott Erb and I were
>> talking about *perception* and how it clouds people's views of reality and
>> you're coming in here acting like we don't believe that reality, in it's
>pure
>> form, even exists. I never said that. Scott Erb never said that.

>I'm just going by what I read, you or Scott might mean something
>entirely different, but words mean things (so to speak :).

I understand...you are going by your perception and I am using somewhat hollow
words to describe my ideas. This is a perfect example of what Scott was talking
about in the paragraph to which you responded.

>[....]
>> I am saying that reality exists, but humans have individual ways of
>> interpreting it.

>Sure, but the point of my response to Scott was that our
>points-of-view (or perspectives) do not relegate us to an
>immutable realm of never being able to see other people's/culture's
>points-of-view (or judge errors in their reasoning). Remember,
>he said, "nobody gets an unbiased view", and "We cannot be
>detached from our own perspective, it's impossible."

I think that you and I are reading different things into (based, again, on our
perceptions) what Scott said here. You are saying that it is possible for a
human to learn about another culture and understand their perspective...and I
agree with you. I'll bet Scott would agree with you too. Where things get murky
is when you consider to what *extent* one can understand another's perceptions.
Though I may understand (or think I understand), due to what I've read, what
life is like for an Afghan woman during Taliban rule, I can't fully drop all of
my biases and truly get where she's coming from. There might be a certain smell
that she associates with Taliban troops approaching...some essential oil used
for religious purposes...who knows? There is no way for me to know, to feel, to
smell, to taste her existence because, even if I chose to live with her there,
I am still the product of my own biases of being raised differently. I am a
person who knows some Afghan people personally and I've read quite a bit about
their culture, but how about someone like, say, Britney Spears (who doesn't
know who the vice president of the US is)? She might think that Afghan women
should just hop on a plane and leave if they don't like it there!

We all have our biases and there is no way to forget all that you have learned
in life and put yourself in someone else's shoes entirely. You can borrow the
shoes and wear them uncomfortably, but it can never be a perfect fit. This is
why there is war, plain and simple. Both sides always feel they are right and
both sides, usually, have some grain of truth that supports their reason for
going to war. I think that this is what Scott is teaching in his class and that
this is what he means by "nobody gets an unbiased view." I could be wrong, but
this is what I perceived him as saying and what I feel the reality to be.

Human beings base much of their "facts" on imagination and emotions. People
construct memories all the time. Look at the psych research on this matter.

> Also, omniscience
>is not required for you to change your "reality" (point-of-view),
>so knowing all is not relevant.

Omniscience is not required to change your point of view, but it *is* required
to fully know the true reality (with no quotes). Thus, we cannot ever know the
true reality...ever. What we do know of reality is based on our perceptions
that come from our, not immune to mistakes, senses.

>[....]
>> >Your argument here:
>> >1. Humans are not omniscient.
>> >2. Omniscience is required for objectivity.
>> >3. Therefore, humans cannot be objective.
>> >
>> >The conclusion is bad because the second premise is false.
>> >Our perspectives are not immutable, they can change based on
>> >new information.
>>
>> First of all, you changed the words in my argument.
>> Secondly, although we can learn, we STILL cannot know all.
>
>I did boil your argument down, but that is apparently still your
>argument, because you have now twice reasserted the second premise.
>We don't have to know all (be omniscient) in order to change (detach)
>our point-of-view.

I never said that we need to know all to change our point of view. If you can
show me where I said that, then I'll give you one of the Rush bootlegs from my
collection. What I said is that in order to know the real reality, then we must
know all. How can you argue with this?

> Objectivity is possible, because we can
>learn things.
>
>> > The facts relevant to any decision or belief
>> >can be known by people not in the circumstances, if the circumstances
>> >and reasoning of the first party become known to the second.
>>
>> But what do you know? The interpretation of the first party which may or
>may
>> not reflect reality in its pure form.
>
>There are other ways to get the facts, but we can also question
>the first party's reasoning, see if they are basing their positions
>on facts that can be verified. For instance, a western reporter can
>go to Palestine, and after carefully coming to understand the
>circumstances and facts, ask a Palestinian why he/she supports
>suicide bombers. If they do, the answer they give will very likely
>show errors in reasoning (not *entirely* based on facts).
>The question then becomes, what facts do they need to eliminate
>their errors in reasoning? If other facts are instead used to justify
>the errors, we have an infinite loop, with no objective resolution possible.

This is just going off in another direction now. I'm not arguing that it is
impossible to reason with people. Heck, that what you and I are trying to do
right now, correct?

>> >> No, it's not. We have the means to gather info and learn. We have the
>means
>> >to
>> >> reason and be empathetic within the realm of not being omniscient.
>> >
>> >Exactly.
>>
>> I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me if you agree to the above.
>> Answer me this, is it possible for a human being to know everything?

>No, but that doesn't matter.

In the context of what I said and to which you argue, of course it matters. By
this time, you've already read my reply, found earlier in this post, to this.

Namaste,

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 16, 2002, 10:36:23 PM8/16/02
to

"John Shafto" <moc....@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:ulqvb7a...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> > "Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It
exists
> > without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is
exclusive
> > to each individual.
>
> Then by "reality" (in quotes) you mean perspective, or point-of-view.
> To me reality only means reality, I don't see a subjective
> "reality", so I had trouble with what you meant there.

Here's how I look at it:

Objective reality: the reality "out there" -- the world as it really is. We
never have unfiltered access to this.
Subjective reality: the reality we experience, our perceptions interpreted
through our mind (beliefs, understandings). How we experience the world.
Social reality: the reality of shared beliefs and understandings about the
world. We may have different subjective experiences of how chocolate tastes
or how "green" looks, but we can agree on what to label these things and how
to use the concepts.

> Sure, but the point of my response to Scott was that our
> points-of-view (or perspectives) do not relegate us to an
> immutable realm of never being able to see other people's/culture's
> points-of-view (or judge errors in their reasoning). Remember,
> he said, "nobody gets an unbiased view", and "We cannot be
> detached from our own perspective, it's impossible."
> My argument with those statements is simply that our perspectives
> change.

I'm sorry, I missed your response, I'll try to find it.

I agree that there are ways to minimize the 'problem of perspective.'
Empathy is one (we can try to understand other perspectives, learning from
how our own perspectives change and 'imagining' other ways to interpret
reality), science is another (trying to test ideas and find ways to verify
tests through particular rules and replication). I'm not saying that we
can't have any sense of how others think, only that our bias and perspective
is always there filtering our perceptions. We have to accept that, and
recognize that.

>My own perspective tomorrow will be different than
> my own perspective today, so I will be detached from the first.
> We can come to know facts, reasoning, and circumstances,
> and thus we change our point-of-view. The idea that no jury can
> objectively determine whether someone commited a crime, or that
> no person in one culture can come to know the perspective of
> someone in another is bogus, in my view. This error in reasoning
> is the source of relativism.

It's really epistemology: you can't be absolutely objectively certain of
anything in science. Science is built on the idea that every scientific
fact is contingent. New evidence and better theories can take what is
'fact' today and replace it. That lack of certainty is just the state we
are in: but within that state, we can make judgements, develop ways to
evaluate data and theories, and make reasonably good calls

> > >There is only one reality, and I agree that any one of us can only know
a
> > >subset of it
> >
> > Well then, you agree with me.
>
> Perhaps, but you seem to be saying two different things.
> 1.) that our perspectives can change and...
> 2.) that they cannot.

They can change, but we always have a perspective, and it always colors our
experience of reality.

(rest snipped)


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 3:07:39 AM8/17/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HEi79.15480$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> "John Shafto" <moc....@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> news:ulqvb7a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> > > "Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It
> exists
> > > without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is
> exclusive
> > > to each individual.
> >
> > Then by "reality" (in quotes) you mean perspective, or point-of-view.
> > To me reality only means reality, I don't see a subjective
> > "reality", so I had trouble with what you meant there.
>
> Here's how I look at it:
>
> Objective reality: the reality "out there" -- the world as it really is. We
> never have unfiltered access to this.

Then you hold a nominalist epistemology, and in order to support it,
you are probably going to use arguments that come from the following
line of philosophers:
Plato ->Descartes->Kant->Hegel->Marx (if you consider him one)
\->Heidigger

I'm more of an Aristotle->Locke->Hume->Rand man myself
(with Epicurean tendencies as well :).

> Subjective reality: the reality we experience, our perceptions interpreted
> through our mind (beliefs, understandings). How we experience the world.
> Social reality: the reality of shared beliefs and understandings about the
> world. We may have different subjective experiences of how chocolate tastes
> or how "green" looks, but we can agree on what to label these things and how
> to use the concepts.

I'd guess you have been trained to be a constructivist, or contextualist
at least. I think it's mostly a bunch of bunk, but let's see if you can
confound me with your rationalism in debate. :)

> > Sure, but the point of my response to Scott was that our
> > points-of-view (or perspectives) do not relegate us to an
> > immutable realm of never being able to see other people's/culture's
> > points-of-view (or judge errors in their reasoning). Remember,
> > he said, "nobody gets an unbiased view", and "We cannot be
> > detached from our own perspective, it's impossible."
> > My argument with those statements is simply that our perspectives
> > change.
>
> I'm sorry, I missed your response, I'll try to find it.
>
> I agree that there are ways to minimize the 'problem of perspective.'
> Empathy is one (we can try to understand other perspectives, learning from
> how our own perspectives change and 'imagining' other ways to interpret
> reality), science is another (trying to test ideas and find ways to verify
> tests through particular rules and replication).

Effective science is objectivity at it's best.

> I'm not saying that we
> can't have any sense of how others think, only that our bias and perspective
> is always there filtering our perceptions. We have to accept that, and
> recognize that.

I don't think we have to accept being helpless floundering idiots,
afraid to feel that we can really know anything. We can know things,
particularly what is in our best interest in reality as we know it.

> >My own perspective tomorrow will be different than
> > my own perspective today, so I will be detached from the first.
> > We can come to know facts, reasoning, and circumstances,
> > and thus we change our point-of-view. The idea that no jury can
> > objectively determine whether someone commited a crime, or that
> > no person in one culture can come to know the perspective of
> > someone in another is bogus, in my view. This error in reasoning
> > is the source of relativism.
>
> It's really epistemology: you can't be absolutely objectively certain of
> anything in science. Science is built on the idea that every scientific
> fact is contingent. New evidence and better theories can take what is
> 'fact' today and replace it. That lack of certainty is just the state we
> are in: but within that state, we can make judgements, develop ways to
> evaluate data and theories, and make reasonably good calls

The so called "problem of induction" (I don't think it's a problem really)
does leave us open to having to change our views as new facts are
learned, but this is a very different issue than saying that we cannot
understand different cultures (or even other individuals) just because
we haven't experienced all of their (mostly irrelevant to any one issue)
experiences. That we are unable to communicate and come to understand
each other within our overall context of human knowledge, apparently
because of this subjectivism you subscribe to. Context does matter,
but I see no reason to take it to radical subjectivism (or Kantian
intrisicism for that matter).

> > > >There is only one reality, and I agree that any one of us can only know
> a
> > > >subset of it
> > >
> > > Well then, you agree with me.
> >
> > Perhaps, but you seem to be saying two different things.
> > 1.) that our perspectives can change and...
> > 2.) that they cannot.
>
> They can change, but we always have a perspective, and it always colors our
> experience of reality.

What does "colors our experience of reality" really mean?
Can measurement take the color out?

More generally, are you saying that I can never come to
understand why a chinaman eats rice for dinner every night?
Why militant muslims (as well as oppressive regimes)
often use America as a whipping boy for political gain?

It seems to me, that if we can change our perspective,
we can make it know the relevant perspectives of other humans.
Maybe there is a good Kantian argument why I could
never come to fully understand a dog's behavior (filters,
noumena, phenomena, and all that) but I wonder if you
have one for humans. What is your epistemological
argument?


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 8:06:38 AM8/17/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:ulrtim6...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:HEi79.15480$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> > I'm not saying that we


> > can't have any sense of how others think, only that our bias and
perspective
> > is always there filtering our perceptions. We have to accept that, and
> > recognize that.
>
> I don't think we have to accept being helpless floundering idiots,
> afraid to feel that we can really know anything. We can know things,
> particularly what is in our best interest in reality as we know it.

I'm going to respond to your whole post later when I have more time, but
this needs a quick retort:

Accepting the reality of the problem of perspective in no way implies
science is impossible or that we are 'floundering idiots' "afraid" of
anything. That is a totally absurd way to take it. The problem of
perspective in the social sciences is almost universally recognized, and not
even controversial. It only means that we have to recognize that we
interpret data in a biased manner in our personal experience of the world.
The solution to social science is in part designing research trying to
minimize that error, and engaging in the scientific process -- people with
numerous perspectives responding to research and theories, giving different
interpretations, designing new tests or (when experimental testing is
impractical -- as often the case in social science) other analyses. To deny
the problem of perspective just because it makes it harder (even impossible)
to state things with absolute certainty is not rational, it would be denying
reality because it is inconvenient.

Hard science works that way too -- just read "Discover" magazine. Be it
theories on the origin of the universe, fascinating discoveries about the
reasoning abilities of some animals, or other advances in science, it's
clear that science operates from a starting point of recognizing that any
scientific fact -- anything we KNOW -- is a contingent fact. All scientific
knowledge is contingent. New theories and new evidence are always able to
change the current scientific state of affairs. That is what gives science
its power -- unlike religion or closed philosophical systems, it never
claims absolute certainty and is always open to new evidence and theories.
Individual scientists can be closed minded, but the number of scientists
(science as a social enterprise) means replication of experiments and new
tests and different theories always arise.

Again, more later -- but that point seemed a very unfair reaction to
something that really isn't controversial.


The Professor

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 9:37:59 AM8/17/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:i%q79.16065$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Individual scientists can be closed minded, but the number of scientists
> (science as a social enterprise) means replication of experiments and new
> tests and different theories always arise.

And THIS is the key. Each individual human is fallible, full of
partial/incorrect knowledge, and affect by her history. However, when we
put enough of those humans together in *a reliable process for checking
error, bias, etc,* we can be pretty confident in the results. Science is
one such process.

The Professor (and so is the market. ;) )

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 11:10:04 AM8/17/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:ulrtim6...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:HEi79.15480$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> > Here's how I look at it:


> >
> > Objective reality: the reality "out there" -- the world as it really is.
We
> > never have unfiltered access to this.
>
> Then you hold a nominalist epistemology, and in order to support it,
> you are probably going to use arguments that come from the following
> line of philosophers:
> Plato ->Descartes->Kant->Hegel->Marx (if you consider him one)
> \->Heidigger

Also from Hume and of course modern philosophers of science.

> I'm more of an Aristotle->Locke->Hume->Rand man myself
> (with Epicurean tendencies as well :).

There is much good about Locke and Hume (I don't know why you separate Hume
from Kant so here). Rand I don't consider at all up to snuff as a
philosopher, her arguments seem to me really bad. Her appeal is more
emotional in her writing than in her philosophy. She has some gems, but
when she tries to build a philosophical system it rests on assumptions and
definitions one can easily question and reject.

> > Subjective reality: the reality we experience, our perceptions
interpreted
> > through our mind (beliefs, understandings). How we experience the
world.
> > Social reality: the reality of shared beliefs and understandings about
the
> > world. We may have different subjective experiences of how chocolate
tastes
> > or how "green" looks, but we can agree on what to label these things and
how
> > to use the concepts.
>
> I'd guess you have been trained to be a constructivist, or contextualist
> at least. I think it's mostly a bunch of bunk, but let's see if you can
> confound me with your rationalism in debate. :)

I find a kind of constructivism the best approach to social science, but in
grad school we were 'trained' with all sorts of approaches. Some
constructivism is far too much on the 'post-modern' side of philosophy of
science, I prefer a constructivism that complements traditional social
scientific methods by looking at the power of discourse and ideas as a
factor (but not the only factor) in explaining outcomes.

> > I agree that there are ways to minimize the 'problem of perspective.'
> > Empathy is one (we can try to understand other perspectives, learning
from
> > how our own perspectives change and 'imagining' other ways to interpret
> > reality), science is another (trying to test ideas and find ways to
verify
> > tests through particular rules and replication).
>
> Effective science is objectivity at it's best.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Scientists strive to be
objective, but part of that is recognizing the problems of perspective (and
complexity). In the hard sciences the answer to that problem is controlled
replicable experiments, with an openness to new theories, and recognition
that no theory is a perfect final solution to a problem. Objectivity is
achieved (or approached as a goal) via methodologies designed to minimize
bias and error, and the social nature of science to have numerous scientists
with different perspectives analyze, theorize, replicate, etc.

> I don't think we have to accept being helpless floundering idiots,
> afraid to feel that we can really know anything. We can know things,
> particularly what is in our best interest in reality as we know it.

I answered that already. Nothing I'm saying suggests anything like that.
The problem of perspective is just a reality that we have to deal with in
our approach to understanding reality.

> > It's really epistemology: you can't be absolutely objectively certain of
> > anything in science. Science is built on the idea that every scientific
> > fact is contingent. New evidence and better theories can take what is
> > 'fact' today and replace it. That lack of certainty is just the state
we
> > are in: but within that state, we can make judgements, develop ways to
> > evaluate data and theories, and make reasonably good calls
>
> The so called "problem of induction" (I don't think it's a problem really)
> does leave us open to having to change our views as new facts are
> learned, but this is a very different issue than saying that we cannot
> understand different cultures (or even other individuals) just because
> we haven't experienced all of their (mostly irrelevant to any one issue)

I didn't say we couldn't understand them. I said that our understanding is
always biased by our own perspective. Just look at all the debates about
Islamic culture out there, so many people saying they 'understand' it. Of
course, those who have lived there, spent time with people, know the
language, have studied the history, will do a much better job at
understanding Islamic culture than those who are just reading news reports
and watching CNN. But even they will disagree and even participants have
their bias. We can learn a lot, enough to act and make decisions -- but our
knowledge will be better if we recognize that the problem of perspective is
always there.

> experiences. That we are unable to communicate and come to understand
> each other within our overall context of human knowledge, apparently
> because of this subjectivism you subscribe to. Context does matter,
> but I see no reason to take it to radical subjectivism (or Kantian
> intrisicism for that matter).

Go back to my bit on social reality: social reality is how we communicate
our subjective experiences in a manner that creates numerous shared
understandings. That includes language, customs, processes of interaction.
Social reality is what social scientists study. It is not the same as
subjective reality, and it can be objectified in that you can study language
and individual action, even beliefs, as real objective 'things.' But it is
also an experience of the world, mediated by both subjective factors and the
nature of those social constructs. I don't want to go to radical
subjectivism either, I find the post-modernist arguments often
philosophically eloquent, but ultimately of limited value. In Philosophy of
science terms I'm a pragmatist (See: Larry Laudan, "Relativism and Science,"
for a cool 'debate' between a relativist, pragmatist, positivist and realist
on the issue of relativism): we accept theories because they work, they have
use. (Don't confuse that with pragmatism outside philosophy of science,
which is a different kind of philosophy from the 19th century -- James,
etc.)

> What does "colors our experience of reality" really mean?
> Can measurement take the color out?

Sometimes -- we can measure TV screens and that isn't pretty simple and once
we agree on how to measure it (25 inches isn't top to bottom, for instance)
we can have a standard all can use effectively. Dealing with political
philosophy, different cultures, and things that defy such easy measurement
is much more difficult. That's why the methods of natural science are far
better at predicting and developing theories -- they have subjects of study
they can measure, replicate and run controlled experiences upon. Social
scientific endeavors are more complex, and the perspective problem more
pronounced.

> More generally, are you saying that I can never come to
> understand why a chinaman eats rice for dinner every night?

Not at all. Beware of trying to make another person's argument for him.
Usually when people do that they come up with caricatured positions that
aren't accurate, and which they then attack rather than dealing with the
argument of the real person.

> Why militant muslims (as well as oppressive regimes)
> often use America as a whipping boy for political gain?

I teach courses where I explain just that. Recognizing the problem of
perspective only means that I have to also give different opinions on that
issue from various scholars, my own take, and let students know that while I
find a particular answer convincing -- and in line with what most scholars,
historians and mideast analysts claim -- they ultimately have to look at the
evidence and analyze it themselves. Their grade if given an assignment is
not based on their conclusion but the process -- did their consideration of
data, analysis and line of reasoning represent an effort to be as objective
as possible, to minimize the problem of perspective, and not simply impose
their bias? That's how it works.

> It seems to me, that if we can change our perspective,
> we can make it know the relevant perspectives of other humans.
> Maybe there is a good Kantian argument why I could
> never come to fully understand a dog's behavior (filters,
> noumena, phenomena, and all that) but I wonder if you
> have one for humans. What is your epistemological
> argument?

Simple: you can't assume that everyone thinks like you. Cognitive
psychology is also the field to look for answers here (not philosophy):
humans interpret reality through their beliefs and experiences. They have
done experiments on this, and in social science scholars like Robert Jervis
(check: "Perception and Misperception in International Politics") have
applied this to various social interactions. Answers to some of these
things don't come from philosophy alone.

Max C. Webster III

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 1:03:54 PM8/17/02
to
The Professor done said:

>And THIS is the key. Each individual human is fallible, full of
>partial/incorrect knowledge, and affect by her history.

Ooooooh, minus two points for missing an obvious ORQ opportunity!

- Max -
=======
Each of us-
A cell of awareness-
Imperfect and incomplete.

The Professor

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 1:21:38 PM8/17/02
to
"Max C. Webster III" <maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov> wrote in message
news:20020817130354...@mb-dh.aol.com...

I thought it was obvious! :) That song and Natural Science really do
capture a lot of the way I view the world, esp. that verse in FW.

The Professor (NP was reading the good stuff in 79 :) )

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 5:31:08 PM8/17/02
to
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<ulrtim6...@corp.supernews.com>...

> >


> > They can change, but we always have a perspective, and it always colors our
> > experience of reality.
>
> What does "colors our experience of reality" really mean?

That's precisely the question that I'd ask.

The proposition that "We see things from a perspective" is one
thing (and an utterly trivial & uninteresting thing, in my view; it's
just the nature of most objects that they look different from
different points of view). Anyone who purports to infer from that
proposition a further claim such as "Reality is subjective" or
"Reality is unknowable" or "All we see is our own perspective" merely
commits the fallacy of the non sequitur.

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 17, 2002, 5:53:00 PM8/17/02
to

"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.02081...@posting.google.com...

I think you miss the point.

Cognitive psychology has made very clear that we do not simply perceive
reality unfiltered. We interpret our perceptions through a prism of
beliefs, expectations, and experience. That is true with even basic
perceptions, as well as intellectual issues. Blind people who have never
seen, but then somehow are able to be given sight, have a hard time
distinguishing what they are seeing -- they haven't learn to form
interpretations that "work" because they haven't had experience. The
perception along is incomprehensible without the interpretation.

To say we only experience reality limited by our perceptive abilities (there
is more in reality we do not perceive than do perceive, and our eyes and
ears often are not perfect) and our cognitive ability to interpret it in no
way says 'reality is unknowable.' Rather, any subjective beliefs about
reality are fallible and skewed by the persons perspective. That is why
science has the rules it does (replicable experiments, etc.), and why there
are so many different beliefs about the world. In general, when people
have very similar interpretation of experience, we can be reasonably certain
that the views about reality held are close enough to knowledge of reality
to work in the world. And that's what matters. If someone is hallocinating
and having subjective experiences different than others around them, we can
be reasonably sure that they are making major perceptual or interpretive
errors, perhaps due to a mental defect. A lot of people try to make a big
deal of the lack of "certainty." The reason science works is because it
avoids saying that facts and knowledge is certain -- it is always open to
new ideas and better evidence. Science succeeds by rejecting absolute
certainty about reality. And saying we don't have absolute certainty
doesn't mean we don't know anything about reality.

You bet your life.


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 5:04:19 PM8/18/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<0Bz79.16807$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> "Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ae12f5f3.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> news:<ulrtim6...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > > >
> > > > They can change, but we always have a perspective, and it always
> colors our
> > > > experience of reality.
> > >
> > > What does "colors our experience of reality" really mean?
> >
> > That's precisely the question that I'd ask.
> >
> > The proposition that "We see things from a perspective" is one
> > thing (and an utterly trivial & uninteresting thing, in my view; it's
> > just the nature of most objects that they look different from
> > different points of view). Anyone who purports to infer from that
> > proposition a further claim such as "Reality is subjective" or
> > "Reality is unknowable" or "All we see is our own perspective" merely
> > commits the fallacy of the non sequitur.
>
> I think you miss the point.
>
> Cognitive psychology has made very clear that we do not simply perceive
> reality unfiltered. We interpret our perceptions through a prism of
> beliefs, expectations, and experience. That is true with even basic
> perceptions, as well as intellectual issues. Blind people who have never
> seen, but then somehow are able to be given sight, have a hard time
> distinguishing what they are seeing -- they haven't learn to form
> interpretations that "work" because they haven't had experience.

Of course formerly blind people who have just been rendered
capable of sight will need some time in order to figure out how sight
works. What I find suspect is your statement that "we always have a

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 5:23:11 PM8/18/02
to
"Nyarlathotep" <> wrote
>

> Of course formerly blind people who have just been rendered
> capable of sight will need some time in order to figure out how sight
> works. What I find suspect is your statement that "we always have a
> perspective, and it always colors our experience of reality."

I don't think you will get an answer Nyarl. When I asked him for
his epistemological argument he said, "Simple: you can't assume
that everyone thinks like you.", and then proceeded to obfuscate
with some rambling about psychology.

I don't think he knows what he thinks, but then how could he? :)


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 6:21:38 PM8/18/02
to

Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive, direct
and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one has
unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.

Take, for instance, health care. Give two equally intelligent and honest
people with different belief systems (one a free market capitalist, the
other a Social Democrat) the exact same information and data, and due to
their perspective they'll see it having a different MEANING (meaning comes
from your interpretation) and have different policy recommendations. Each
might think they have the "right way" to understand things, but humans like
to believe that about themselves.

Meaning does not come directly from reality, meaning relates to how we
understand and interpret our perceptions of reality. "I believe that how
I'm feeling changes how the world appears..."


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 6:22:45 PM8/18/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:um043i1...@corp.supernews.com...

I assume from your comment that you are willfully ignorant. You simply
dismiss basic cognitive psychology by ridiculing it, and then insult.

Oh well, you can go through life that way if you want. To each his own.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 8:02:15 PM8/18/02
to
"Scott Erb" <> wrote

> To each his own.

Indeed.

That's a much better political philosophy than:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." :)

(you could prove me wrong by whipping out that epistemological
argument whenever you're ready)


The Professor

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 8:57:40 PM8/18/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Yes it is. Scott's right on this one, as far as cognitive psych goes.

> Take, for instance, health care. Give two equally intelligent and honest
> people with different belief systems (one a free market capitalist, the
> other a Social Democrat) the exact same information and data, and due to
> their perspective they'll see it having a different MEANING (meaning comes
> from your interpretation) and have different policy recommendations. Each
> might think they have the "right way" to understand things, but humans
like
> to believe that about themselves.
>
> Meaning does not come directly from reality, meaning relates to how we
> understand and interpret our perceptions of reality. "I believe that how
> I'm feeling changes how the world appears..."

Indeed. But the fact that we all understand the world as subjects does not
mean reality doesn't exist or is completely malleable. Rather it means we
have to rely on inter-subjective processes mediated by social institutions
to get beyond our own "takes" on things to points of common,
inter-subjective understanding.

The Professor (that we all perceive differently does not mean there is
nothing out there to be perceived)

Mike Smith

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 10:07:50 PM8/18/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> Take, for instance, health care. Give two equally intelligent and honest
> people with different belief systems (one a free market capitalist, the
> other a Social Democrat) the exact same information and data, and due to
> their perspective they'll see it having a different MEANING

But what does that have to do with their *perception* of the data? How one
*interprets* what one perceives may be subject to a variety of factors, but
surely you're not suggesting that the two people will look at the same page
and read the *numbers* differently? The numbers are the reality (or in this
case a compiled summary of reality), the recommended policy is the result of
applying an intellectual process to that information.

--
Mike Smith

There are perhaps 5% of the population that simply *can't* think.
There are another 5% who *can*, and *do*.
The remaining 90% *can* think, but *don't*.
-- R. A. Heinlein

Scott D. Erb

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 10:21:46 PM8/18/02
to

The Professor wrote:

>
> Indeed. But the fact that we all understand the world as subjects does not
> mean reality doesn't exist or is completely malleable. Rather it means we
> have to rely on inter-subjective processes mediated by social institutions
> to get beyond our own "takes" on things to points of common,
> inter-subjective understanding.

You put it better than I did.

Scott D. Erb

unread,
Aug 18, 2002, 10:26:58 PM8/18/02
to

John Shafto wrote:

As a "left-libertarian" I may disagree with your take on capitalism, but I
don't trust big government any more than big business or pure markets, and
in general lean towards the first statement and not Marx. Marx did a
fantastic job of 19th century social science, but made all the errors of the
time, and ended up with a theory that was wrong, and which when applied to
politics created problems worse than the ones meant to solve.


Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 10:17:58 AM8/19/02
to

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:HEi79.15480$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "John Shafto" <moc....@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> > news:ulqvb7a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Ellen" <emari...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> > > > "Reality" is a word that describes a concept that people agree upon. It
> > exists
> > > > without humans to interpret it, but the way in which we reckon it is
> > exclusive
> > > > to each individual.
> > >
> > > Then by "reality" (in quotes) you mean perspective, or point-of-view.
> > > To me reality only means reality, I don't see a subjective
> > > "reality", so I had trouble with what you meant there.
> >
> > Here's how I look at it:
> >
> > Objective reality: the reality "out there" -- the world as it really is. We
> > never have unfiltered access to this.
>
> Then you hold a nominalist epistemology, and in order to support it,
> you are probably going to use arguments that come from the following
> line of philosophers:
> Plato ->Descartes->Kant->Hegel->Marx (if you consider him one)
> \->Heidigger
>
> I'm more of an Aristotle->Locke->Hume->Rand man myself
> (with Epicurean tendencies as well :).
>

Oh, but HUme's epistemology is just as bad as Descartes.
Hume wanted to be an empiricist, but he failed.
Ultimately, both reduce to solipsism, both posit that sensory information
is ambiguous, insufficient, and must be elaborated on by cognitive
processing, and in the end our knowledge is not based on reality, but on
"habit of the mind".
Hume, for example, flat out argued that we cannot *know* causality, we
just infer it. In the classic billiard ball example, he argued that we
cannot kow that one ball caused another one to move after a collision, but
that we only know the motions of those balls and infer the causal force.
This knowledge of causality, then, is the product of "habit of mind", is
an inference, and is not based on information from observation - thus its
a rationalist position ultimately, and all rationalist positions are
solipsistic.
I haven't studied Rand's epistemology in detail, but she seems to endorse
the idea of "direct perception/direct knowledge" which sounds good, but
she spends alot of text on concept formation and cognitive structures like
meaning and abstraction, which worries me becuase it sounds like the
subject matter of a rationalist (but she could just be an ambitious
empiricist).
This is not really relevant to your discussion, but I thought you might be
interested. If you want to read some true empiricism, try James Gibson (a
psychologist) or some of the papers from his proponents.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 10:32:51 AM8/19/02
to

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

> > Subjective reality: the reality we experience, our perceptions interpreted
> > through our mind (beliefs, understandings). How we experience the world.
> > Social reality: the reality of shared beliefs and understandings about the
> > world. We may have different subjective experiences of how chocolate tastes
> > or how "green" looks, but we can agree on what to label these things and how
> > to use the concepts.
>
> I'd guess you have been trained to be a constructivist, or contextualist
> at least. I think it's mostly a bunch of bunk, but let's see if you can
> confound me with your rationalism in debate. :)
>

Go John. (its bunk)
Sound *is* pressure waves in air, not a subjective psychological response
to pressure waves. Thus, ifa tree falls in the forest, it does make a
sound, even if no one is there to hear it.
Any other response is dualism and I won't have any truck with it.


> > I agree that there are ways to minimize the 'problem of perspective.'
> > Empathy is one (we can try to understand other perspectives, learning from
> > how our own perspectives change and 'imagining' other ways to interpret
> > reality), science is another (trying to test ideas and find ways to verify
> > tests through particular rules and replication).
>
> Effective science is objectivity at it's best.
>

I would just add that ability to empathize (or lack thereof) isn't a
problem of knowledge in the epistemological sense, but just a problem of
knowledge content.
As Buddhists would contend, we don't need to know everything someone else
knows, and be able to see from someone else's perspective. We only need
to realize that we are all humans, we are all the same in an inner way,
and we all want essentially the same things in life, to be happy and avoid
suffering, and to also realize that to live as a human necessarily entails
suffering. Deep realization of this leads to compassion. Empathy is
irrelevant and unnecessary. Compassion is the key.


> > I'm not saying that we
> > can't have any sense of how others think, only that our bias and perspective
> > is always there filtering our perceptions. We have to accept that, and
> > recognize that.
>
> I don't think we have to accept being helpless floundering idiots,
> afraid to feel that we can really know anything. We can know things,
> particularly what is in our best interest in reality as we know it.
>

This is why we don't need empathy. Our own perspective serves us for our
own needs. The existence of compassion is sufficient for helping others
in need. The ability to strip away one's own perspective is perhaps only
important if you're an anthropologist.

> What does "colors our experience of reality" really mean?
> Can measurement take the color out?
>

This sounds like Rand.
heh.
Is our perceptual system a measurement system?

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 10:54:52 AM8/19/02
to

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Scott Erb wrote:

>
> Simple: you can't assume that everyone thinks like you. Cognitive
> psychology is also the field to look for answers here (not philosophy):
> humans interpret reality through their beliefs and experiences. They have
> done experiments on this, and in social science scholars like Robert Jervis
> (check: "Perception and Misperception in International Politics") have
> applied this to various social interactions. Answers to some of these
> things don't come from philosophy alone.
>

Mainstream cognitive psychology generally has it wrong regarding the
influence of top down processes on perception, and understanding
perception in general (you can't build a theory on the functioning of a
system by detailing instances where it breaks down - instead, start by
trying to understand succesful perceptual function and account for
misperception once you've got perception down).


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 3:17:18 PM8/19/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...

In my view, psychology is (or should be anyway), the hard science
of concrete human behavior. The studies and what-not are the facts.
From the facts, one (often even a psychologist) would induce an
epistemology, or theory of how our minds know things. Scott has the
good sense here to (loosely) appeal to objective facts to support his induction
(this method seems contrary to his as yet loosely stated subjectivism though),
but he will not say in any significant way what his induction (held epistemology)
really is. He won't define it. "You can't assume everyone thinks like you"
is not epistemology, so we are at an impasse here. We don't know
exactly what it is that he his defending with any facts. They would
probably support *something*, we just don't know what. All the
psychology in the world cannot support (or refute) a vague undefined
induction.

A scientist must state clearly what his theory is, before it can be proved
or disproved with facts. Certainly new facts may always come that refute
many theories that aren't already based on all the relevant facts, but we
still must develop theories (inductions), and often they are proven
objectively correct.

For instance, I have a theory that Scott is alive. It's only a theory,
until I (or others) look at Scott, take his pulse, or whatever,
and then the theory becomes objective fact. There are no new
facts that can ever come to prove that Scott was really dead at
the time when my induction matched objective reality. One can
equivocate endlessly on the meanings of 'dead' or 'alive', but once
those terms are defined and accepted, that's it.

There are many such simple examples one can think up to show
that we can, really know objective facts (subsets of reality). We
don't have to know all of reality to verify the objectivity of our
individual abstractions (with facts) either.


Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 3:49:26 PM8/19/02
to

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Scott Erb wrote:

>
> Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive, direct
> and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one has
> unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.
>

Actually, see my other post - mainstream cognitive psych is wrong in this
regard.

> Meaning does not come directly from reality, meaning relates to how we
> understand and interpret our perceptions of reality. "I believe that how
> I'm feeling changes how the world appears..."
>

!!!
Pure rationalism, dualism, and solipsism!
Meaning exists *in the world*. We directly perceive meaning.
Our conceptual problems (our fallibility) arise in the abtraction process
from perception to cognition. This is where top-down processes come to
play.
Perception is connected to the real.


Scott D. Erb

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 3:52:16 PM8/19/02
to

Daniel McConnell wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Scott Erb wrote:
>
> >
> > Simple: you can't assume that everyone thinks like you. Cognitive
> > psychology is also the field to look for answers here (not philosophy):
> > humans interpret reality through their beliefs and experiences. They have
> > done experiments on this, and in social science scholars like Robert Jervis
> > (check: "Perception and Misperception in International Politics") have
> > applied this to various social interactions. Answers to some of these
> > things don't come from philosophy alone.
> >
>
> Mainstream cognitive psychology generally has it wrong regarding the
> influence of top down processes on perception,

And your evidence for that? I mean, calling an entire field "wrong" has to rely
on more than an opinion.

> and understanding
> perception in general (you can't build a theory on the functioning of a
> system by detailing instances where it breaks down - instead, start by
> trying to understand succesful perceptual function and account for
> misperception once you've got perception down).

On basic material endeavors that works for most people, hence we tend to share
beliefs about basic everyday experiences with reality. When it comes to
philosophy, politics, ethics, and issues like that, our beliefs (what things
mean) are constructed by interpretations that have no clear "check" and no
obvious definition of "sucessful perceptual function." Social psychology builds
on cognitive psychology on that regard.

And the key phrase is that IT WORKS. We can never have absolute certainty about
the nature of objective reality because we only see a tiny portion of it, and we
interpret that which we perceive through a prism of beliefs and understandings
partially generated by experience directly with the world, partially taught by
society and family. But we can find beliefs that work in the world, and go with
them. That's the essence of pragmatism as a philosophy of science.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 4:01:47 PM8/19/02
to

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, The Professor wrote:

> > Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive,
> direct
> > and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one has
> > unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.
>
> Yes it is. Scott's right on this one, as far as cognitive psych goes.
>

Except there is by no means an agreement among cog psychologists on this
matter.
Its basically a holdover from Helmholtzian theory.

> > Meaning does not come directly from reality, meaning relates to how we
> > understand and interpret our perceptions of reality. "I believe that how
> > I'm feeling changes how the world appears..."
>
> Indeed. But the fact that we all understand the world as subjects does not
> mean reality doesn't exist or is completely malleable. Rather it means we
> have to rely on inter-subjective processes mediated by social institutions
> to get beyond our own "takes" on things to points of common,
> inter-subjective understanding.
>
> The Professor (that we all perceive differently does not mean there is
> nothing out there to be perceived)
>

Careful not to confuse perception with cognition.
(its happening all over the place in this thread)

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 4:02:15 PM8/19/02
to

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Mike Smith wrote:

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Take, for instance, health care. Give two equally intelligent and honest
> > people with different belief systems (one a free market capitalist, the
> > other a Social Democrat) the exact same information and data, and due to
> > their perspective they'll see it having a different MEANING
>
> But what does that have to do with their *perception* of the data? How one
> *interprets* what one perceives may be subject to a variety of factors, but
> surely you're not suggesting that the two people will look at the same page
> and read the *numbers* differently? The numbers are the reality (or in this
> case a compiled summary of reality), the recommended policy is the result of
> applying an intellectual process to that information.
>

Thank you

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 4:06:51 PM8/19/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
> > I'm more of an Aristotle->Locke->Hume->Rand man myself
> > (with Epicurean tendencies as well :).
> >
>
> Oh, but HUme's epistemology is just as bad as Descartes.
> Hume wanted to be an empiricist, but he failed.

I agree, but Hume was an important step in a process. Like Aristotle
and Locke before him, he was incomplete or simply wrong in many places,
but he took philosophy forward some. What I like the most about Hume
was that, unlike Kant, he wasn't prone to dreaming things up to get the
answers he didn't have. He also seemed to contradict himself from time
to time, I think because he knew he needed more information than he had
at the time. Philosophy advances with new facts, old inductions are chucked,
and new ones are formed. I think philosophy desperately needs
more 'scientific method', and lot less of the diddling that it has been
plagued with these last couple hundred years.

> Ultimately, both reduce to solipsism, both posit that sensory information
> is ambiguous, insufficient, and must be elaborated on by cognitive
> processing,

I agree with this. Sensory info is ambigious, we have to make distinctions
and put meaning to it in order to come to know what is out there in reality.

> and in the end our knowledge is not based on reality, but on
> "habit of the mind".

I disagree with this. The truth is not "out there", and it's not "in here",
it's right smack in between. It takes a mind AND reality to make
knowledge (truth). Seems obvious to me.

> Hume, for example, flat out argued that we cannot *know* causality, we
> just infer it. In the classic billiard ball example, he argued that we
> cannot kow that one ball caused another one to move after a collision, but
> that we only know the motions of those balls and infer the causal force.
> This knowledge of causality, then, is the product of "habit of mind", is
> an inference, and is not based on information from observation - thus its
> a rationalist position ultimately, and all rationalist positions are
> solipsistic.

I agree with what you say here.

> I haven't studied Rand's epistemology in detail, but she seems to endorse
> the idea of "direct perception/direct knowledge" which sounds good, but
> she spends alot of text on concept formation and cognitive structures like
> meaning and abstraction, which worries me becuase it sounds like the
> subject matter of a rationalist (but she could just be an ambitious
> empiricist).

I think she was an ambitious empiricist, but she was also saying that
rationalism needs to be there too. It takes a mind AND facts to make
knowledge (truth). I don't know if Rand's epistemology ultimately is the
correct way that we know things, it seems like it could be incomplete
(or under articulated at least), but I think it comes much closer to facts
than any other I have ever read.

> This is not really relevant to your discussion, but I thought you might be
> interested. If you want to read some true empiricism, try James Gibson (a
> psychologist) or some of the papers from his proponents.

I should read that and some others, I really like epistemology.
Pure psych is often boring, leading into the hinterlands of data, but
when using the data to put the big picture together with facts, I really
enjoy reading about cognitive things.

I disagree with Hume's ethics, I think they were rationalistic just like
Kant's (trying to justify the prevaling Christian ethics), but I think he
was on the right track with his empiricism. I like the following quote,
I see it as rudimentary conceptualism (like Rand's, even though she
didn't call her epistemology 'conceptualism', I think because she
didn't want to be associated with Abelard's simplistic conceptualism,
as in, 'concepts are things in themselves'). Most people see this quote
as simply a statement of Hume's empiricism (really against rationalism),
but I think the words "if we proceed" are key, we have to do some
rationalizing to get anywhere:

"In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory
or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however
the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain
of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its
means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. If I ask why you
believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me
some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected, with it.
But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at
last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses;
or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation."
--David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 4:19:29 PM8/19/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>

> I would just add that ability to empathize (or lack thereof) isn't a


> problem of knowledge in the epistemological sense, but just a problem of
> knowledge content.
> As Buddhists would contend, we don't need to know everything someone else
> knows, and be able to see from someone else's perspective. We only need
> to realize that we are all humans, we are all the same in an inner way,
> and we all want essentially the same things in life, to be happy and avoid
> suffering, and to also realize that to live as a human necessarily entails
> suffering. Deep realization of this leads to compassion. Empathy is
> irrelevant and unnecessary. Compassion is the key.

I see empathy as a form of objectivity. We may not need it, but I think it
is important in many ways (not just beneficial compassion). We have this
ability to imagine things, and by using that ability to "place ourselves in
another's shoes" we can get useful insights on how other people will
respond to our behavior, and just generally understand the behavior of
others. This can be very beneficial to social creatures such as ourselves.

[....]


> Is our perceptual system a measurement system?

I think measurement is a very important part of it.
They just did some studies, widely reported, that
babies only a few months old can count in significant
ways, more than anyone ever thought they could.

It's not surprising to me that they can, there were studies
done in the 1960s (and mentioned in Rand's ITOE) that showed
crows can count up to 5 or so. I think that just as soon as our
brains get sensory data the measurements begin, that's how we
sort things out, and as Rand suggests, is probably integral to
our conceptual facility.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 4:36:18 PM8/19/02
to

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> Daniel McConnell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Scott Erb wrote:
> > >
> > > Simple: you can't assume that everyone thinks like you. Cognitive
> > > psychology is also the field to look for answers here (not philosophy):
> > > humans interpret reality through their beliefs and experiences. They have
> > > done experiments on this, and in social science scholars like Robert Jervis
> > > (check: "Perception and Misperception in International Politics") have
> > > applied this to various social interactions. Answers to some of these
> > > things don't come from philosophy alone.
> > >
> >
> > Mainstream cognitive psychology generally has it wrong regarding the
> > influence of top down processes on perception,
>
> And your evidence for that? I mean, calling an entire field "wrong"
> has to rely on more than an opinion.
>

I guess my PhD in that field isn't evidence but do you want an entirely
new thread? I'm prepping my Perception class, which starts on Thursday,
so I'm all ready for it. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right, but it
means that amongst cognitive psychologists, there is no agreement on this.
This idea is as much "basic cog psych" as the solar system model of the
atom is "basic physics". A rough approximation that many theorists reject
entirely.

> > and understanding
> > perception in general (you can't build a theory on the functioning of a
> > system by detailing instances where it breaks down - instead, start by
> > trying to understand succesful perceptual function and account for
> > misperception once you've got perception down).
>
> On basic material endeavors that works for most people, hence we tend to share
> beliefs about basic everyday experiences with reality. When it comes to
> philosophy, politics, ethics, and issues like that, our beliefs (what things
> mean) are constructed by interpretations that have no clear "check" and no
> obvious definition of "sucessful perceptual function." Social psychology builds
> on cognitive psychology on that regard.
>

Ability to live and function in the real world is the definition of
successful perceptual function. If I (or any animal) can find food, avoid
predation, locate a mate, and support daily life (run, stand, climb, avoid
obstacles), then that is successful perceptual function.
Successful perception underlies all these behaviors. This is Reid's (?)
common sense empiricim: if my perceptual system is not reliable, then I'm
going to break my nose walking into a fencepost.
Beliefs are not the same as perceptions, btw. You're actually referring
to beliefs in the majority of your comments. The process of perceiving
meaning in the world is not the same as forming abstract concepts based on
perceptual data. Our fallibility in conceptual reasoning does not
indicate that the perceptual information that feeds it is flawed.

> And the key phrase is that IT WORKS. We can never have absolute certainty about
> the nature of objective reality because we only see a tiny portion of it, and we
> interpret that which we perceive through a prism of beliefs and understandings
> partially generated by experience directly with the world, partially taught by
> society and family. But we can find beliefs that work in the world, and go with
> them. That's the essence of pragmatism as a philosophy of science.
>

Its true that our sensory organs evolved to sample the energy array of the
real world in a selective fashion - sampling only the relevant arrays
necessary to provide information we need to survive (things like finding
food, avoiding predation, finding a mate, and the basic behaviors that
subserve all that like reaching, walking, standing, climbing, eating,
etc.).
I still disagree with your assertion that "we perceive through a prism of
beliefs"
With regard to cognition, those beliefs may color how we process new
facts, but that is cognition, not perception.
Perception is the process of obtaining knowledge about the world through
the senses. Arguing that perception is flawed is the same as saying that
our knowledge has no relationship to the real world. The fact that we are
able to successfully live in that world seems a mystery if you accept that
as true. How lucky we are to have no knowledge of the real world yet
still be able function within it...unless of course there is no real world
and our successful function within it is just as much an illusion as our
perception of it (welcome to The Matrix...we may just as well be brains in
a vat - this is why I keep saying solipsism).
I prefer direct realism as an epistemology.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 5:11:52 PM8/19/02
to

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> "Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...

> > Ultimately, both reduce to solipsism, both posit that sensory information
> > is ambiguous, insufficient, and must be elaborated on by cognitive
> > processing,
>
> I agree with this. Sensory info is ambigious, we have to make distinctions
> and put meaning to it in order to come to know what is out there in reality.
>

No, I think you misunderstand me - sensory information is *not* ambiguous.
If it were, then how can perception make sense of it without relying on
what Scott Erb is calling "a prism of beliefs and past experience".
The alternative is to hypothesize that meaning exists in the world, and
our perceptual systems evolved to detect it and make use of it.
Page down for further elaboration:

> > and in the end our knowledge is not based on reality, but on
> > "habit of the mind".
>
> I disagree with this. The truth is not "out there", and it's not "in here",
> it's right smack in between. It takes a mind AND reality to make
> knowledge (truth). Seems obvious to me.
>

Meaning is relational in nature yes, but is not *independent* of the
perceiver.
Here's the elaboration promised above:
Meaning is nothing more than what is out there. (its not truth, nothing
flaky like the X-Files). I am referring to things like causality,
perceiving forces (what Hume said could not be perceived). Hume said we
can only see the motions of things, but not what causes those motions.
What he missed (and you got this right in your critique of Hume above) is
that those motions are in fact meaningful. The motions of things in the
world are not arbitrary; they are governed by the laws of physics, of
which causation is a part. There is a 1:1 relationship between the
motions (kinematics) and the forces (causality/dynamics) that caused them.
Thus, by seeing the motions, we get the causality for free. Its not an
inference, because the relationship between the motions and their causes
is necessarily 1:1, its natural law. Thus, meaning is "out there" because
the motions themselves are *meaningful*, they inform about their own
causes. We need not apply our own meanings from inside the mind (and
indeed, if we need not, why then should we at all? This is the key to my
assertion that mainstream cog sci and Scott Erb has it wrong wrt
perception being a product of our beliefs/perspective.)
The relational part comes in here: how is this meaning transmitted to an
observer? Through an energy array. One such, for vision, is the optic
array, and optic flow in particular (the optic array set into motion).
These energy arrays are defined in a relational manner, in particular for
the optic array: a geometric mapping (a projection actually) from the
objects in the world to a point of observation.
There is a particular geometric mapping that occurs between the 3D world
and the optic array, but particular quantities are preserved, particularly
those that we use to perceive whats out there (such as meaningful
motions).

> > Hume, for example, flat out argued that we cannot *know* causality, we
> > just infer it. In the classic billiard ball example, he argued that we
> > cannot kow that one ball caused another one to move after a collision, but
> > that we only know the motions of those balls and infer the causal force.
> > This knowledge of causality, then, is the product of "habit of mind", is
> > an inference, and is not based on information from observation - thus its
> > a rationalist position ultimately, and all rationalist positions are
> > solipsistic.
>
> I agree with what you say here.
>
> > I haven't studied Rand's epistemology in detail, but she seems to endorse
> > the idea of "direct perception/direct knowledge" which sounds good, but
> > she spends alot of text on concept formation and cognitive structures like
> > meaning and abstraction, which worries me becuase it sounds like the
> > subject matter of a rationalist (but she could just be an ambitious
> > empiricist).
>
> I think she was an ambitious empiricist, but she was also saying that
> rationalism needs to be there too. It takes a mind AND facts to make
> knowledge (truth). I don't know if Rand's epistemology ultimately is the
> correct way that we know things, it seems like it could be incomplete
> (or under articulated at least), but I think it comes much closer to facts
> than any other I have ever read.
>

This is where I want to know more about Rand. I have one book of her
philosophy, which I've only skimmed (Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology). In it, she asserts that perception is valid, and she seems
to endorse a direct realist view, but she then goes on to elaborate on the
abstraction process from concrete perceptions to abstract concepts. I can
allow room for rationalist ideas in this step of the game.
However, I do have some reservations about her ideas, because even though
she skips over the perceptual side of her argument, she does describe
perception as the extraction of information from a set of meaningless
sensations. How does one get meaning (perception) from something that is
meaningless (sensations)? This is a major epistemological problem, and is
why I favor the direct realist position I layed out above: meaning resides
in the world, and our perceptual systems evolved to detect it.

> > This is not really relevant to your discussion, but I thought you might be
> > interested. If you want to read some true empiricism, try James Gibson (a
> > psychologist) or some of the papers from his proponents.
>
> I should read that and some others, I really like epistemology.
> Pure psych is often boring, leading into the hinterlands of data, but
> when using the data to put the big picture together with facts, I really
> enjoy reading about cognitive things.
>

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Erlbaum.
See also (and in some ways, this is a better intro to direct realism and
epistemology):
Reed, E.S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the Psychology of Perception.
Yale University Press.
Check Reed's biblio for other good stuff like a book he (Reed) edited
called Reasons for Realism. There's also a good book edited by Shaw and
Bransford called "Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing".

> I disagree with Hume's ethics, I think they were rationalistic just like
> Kant's (trying to justify the prevaling Christian ethics), but I think he
> was on the right track with his empiricism. I like the following quote,
> I see it as rudimentary conceptualism (like Rand's, even though she
> didn't call her epistemology 'conceptualism', I think because she
> didn't want to be associated with Abelard's simplistic conceptualism,
> as in, 'concepts are things in themselves'). Most people see this quote
> as simply a statement of Hume's empiricism (really against rationalism),
> but I think the words "if we proceed" are key, we have to do some
> rationalizing to get anywhere:
>
> "In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory
> or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however
> the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain
> of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its
> means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. If I ask why you
> believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me
> some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected, with it.
> But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at
> last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses;
> or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation."
> --David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)
>

ayup - thats straightforward empiricism.


The Professor

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 5:35:58 PM8/19/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...

> This is where I want to know more about Rand. I have one book of her


> philosophy, which I've only skimmed (Introduction to Objectivist
> Epistemology). In it, she asserts that perception is valid, and she seems
> to endorse a direct realist view, but she then goes on to elaborate on the
> abstraction process from concrete perceptions to abstract concepts. I can
> allow room for rationalist ideas in this step of the game.
> However, I do have some reservations about her ideas, because even though
> she skips over the perceptual side of her argument, she does describe
> perception as the extraction of information from a set of meaningless
> sensations. How does one get meaning (perception) from something that is
> meaningless (sensations)? This is a major epistemological problem, and is
> why I favor the direct realist position I layed out above: meaning resides
> in the world, and our perceptual systems evolved to detect it.

I do think we've got some language problems here. Let me try this:

Yes, our sensory organs evolved to perceive a physical reality that really
exists. Light waves and sound waves are there. Our perception of them on
the purely physical level is the same. However...

The mind (as opposed to the eyes or ears) "pre-classifies" that information.
That is, what we pay attention to, what we see as having meaning, is not in
the "things themselves" but in the structure that our mind imposes on that
data. The sensory data does not come into *the mind* raw. It comes in
already "filtered." There is a difference between the physical order of the
world and the sensory order of our minds. The problem of the mind is
explaining how the first gets "translated" into the second. And yes,
mental/sensory orders have to be accurate in order to promote survival, from
an evolutionary perspective, but that doesn't mean we perceive the world in
its raw form.

Dan - Have you ever read Hebb, or even Hayek's *The Sensory Order*? I'd be
interested in your reaction to them.

The Professor (yes, perception and cognition are different, but I'd argue we
don't perceive anything without an element of the mental already classifying
it)


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 5:57:50 PM8/19/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...


> > What I find suspect is your statement that "we always have a
> > perspective, and it always colors our experience of reality."
>
> Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive, direct
> and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one has
> unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.

It seems to me that you're trotting out mushy -- and untrue --
platitudes. It might be best to deal with a specific example,
however. E.g., I see a desk in front of me. Precisely what
"coloring," "filtering" or "interpretation" do you contend is
presently in effect?



> Take, for instance, health care. Give two equally intelligent and honest
> people with different belief systems (one a free market capitalist, the
> other a Social Democrat) the exact same information and data, and due to
> their perspective they'll see it having a different MEANING (meaning comes

> from your interpretation) <snip>

Your conclusion about meaning is a non sequitur with absurd
consequences (we can get into that if you want). It's true that
people with different political values might dispute the merits of a
particular policy, but that's trivial. You haven't supported your
claim that "we always have a perspective and it always colors our
experience of reality."

The Professor

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 6:03:29 PM8/19/02
to
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.0208...@posting.google.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
> > > What I find suspect is your statement that "we always have a
> > > perspective, and it always colors our experience of reality."
> >
> > Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive,
direct
> > and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one
has
> > unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.
>
> It seems to me that you're trotting out mushy -- and untrue --
> platitudes. It might be best to deal with a specific example,
> however. E.g., I see a desk in front of me. Precisely what
> "coloring," "filtering" or "interpretation" do you contend is
> presently in effect?

The fact that you "pick out" as part of the very act of perception that
collection of atoms that you identify as a desk means that your perception
of the world is not "raw" - it's filtered by your mind having evolved, over
time, a particular model of the world that enables it to "pre-classify"
sensory data in ways the mind can recognize as meaningful.

"Pure" perception would not be able to identify that as a desk, or as
anything meaningful.

The Professor (again, that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist)

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 6:25:25 PM8/19/02
to
Daniel McConnell <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu>...

> Oh, but HUme's epistemology is just as bad as Descartes.
> Hume wanted to be an empiricist, but he failed.
> Ultimately, both reduce to solipsism, both posit that sensory information
> is ambiguous, insufficient, and must be elaborated on by cognitive
> processing, and in the end our knowledge is not based on reality, but on
> "habit of the mind".
> Hume, for example, flat out argued that we cannot *know* causality, we
> just infer it. In the classic billiard ball example, he argued that we
> cannot kow that one ball caused another one to move after a collision, but
> that we only know the motions of those balls and infer the causal force.
> This knowledge of causality, then, is the product of "habit of mind", is
> an inference, and is not based on information from observation - thus its
> a rationalist position ultimately, and all rationalist positions are
> solipsistic.

Yeah. Great as Hume is, he was obviously mistaken (also
inconsistent) on cause & effect.

In general, Hume was much more effective in his negative
projects, e.g., his attacks on superstition.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 7:46:56 PM8/19/02
to

On 19 Aug 2002, Nyarlathotep wrote:

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<S5V79.18843$Ep6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
> > > What I find suspect is your statement that "we always have a
> > > perspective, and it always colors our experience of reality."
> >
> > Again, basic cognitive psych -- you interpret all data you perceive, direct
> > and abstract, through a prism of your beliefs and experiences. No one has
> > unfiltered access to reality. This is really basic.
>
> It seems to me that you're trotting out mushy -- and untrue --
> platitudes. It might be best to deal with a specific example,
> however. E.g., I see a desk in front of me. Precisely what
> "coloring," "filtering" or "interpretation" do you contend is
> presently in effect?
>

Exactly.
For instance, many mainstream cog psychologists will argue that when you
are looking at a desk, but can't see the other side of it, you only
"infer" that its there, but you don't perceive it (and from an empiricist
pov, to perceive means to know). Similarly, if part of the desk was
occluded, you infer the existence of the occluded surface, but you don't
perceive (know) it.
The basis for this inference is apparently your knowledge about the
nature of existence (that things don't go in and out of existence). This
kind of epistemology is essentially called indirect realism - it implies
that yes, we know about the real world, but no we don't. (I assert that
the viewpoint is self-contradictory).
It says we have knowledge of the real world, but since sensations are
meaningless and perception is a constructive process (I disagree about
that), gaps must be filled. We use top-down knowledge (past experience,
assumptions, etc) to fill in the gaps. Thus our perception (knowledge) of
the desk is only in part determined by sensory information, and the rest
is essentially imagination. I once again call this solipsism.

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 8:27:20 PM8/19/02
to

"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...

-snip-

> I still disagree with your assertion that "we perceive through a prism of
> beliefs"
> With regard to cognition, those beliefs may color how we process new
> facts, but that is cognition, not perception.
> Perception is the process of obtaining knowledge about the world through
> the senses. Arguing that perception is flawed is the same as saying that
> our knowledge has no relationship to the real world. The fact that we are
> able to successfully live in that world seems a mystery if you accept that
> as true. How lucky we are to have no knowledge of the real world yet
> still be able function within it...unless of course there is no real world
> and our successful function within it is just as much an illusion as our
> perception of it (welcome to The Matrix...we may just as well be brains in
> a vat - this is why I keep saying solipsism).
> I prefer direct realism as an epistemology.

The long version of what I said (and I did say the long version earlier in
the thread, but may have unfairly shortened it) was that we interpret our
perceptions through a prism of beliefs and understandings. That is our
subjective experience of reality, an experience that is only subjective
because we don't have unfiltered access to reality. The perceptions are
imperfect (we only grab a small bit of reality that our senses can perceive,
more with some tools) and we don't experience them directly, but after the
brain has interpreted them.

Now, you make a real leap when you think this mean we have "no knowledge" of
the real world. We have knowledge filtered through our beliefs and
understandings, based on what we've experienced and have been taught. The
fact that we come up with ways to operate successfully in the world is prima
facia evidence that our subjective ability to interpret reality is pretty
good, we can construct usable knowledge with it. But you don't have to
assume *accurate* knowledge in order to operate effectively. (One reason I
like "You Bet Your Life" so well...a good philosophy of science twist).

But realism certainly is persausive in a number of ways (and one of the top
modern constructivist scholars in social science, Alexander Wendt, wrote a
book where he develops constructivism from a realist philosophy of science
framework -- a fascinating theory about 'cultures of anarchy' in the
international system, contrasting the current "Lockean" culture with
possibilities of Hobbesian (war of all against all) or Kantian (common
identity and cooperation) cultures, and what they would mean for the
international system. The argument he has is "anarchy is what we make of
it," but that this can be analyzed as the real result of structural factors
and human thought.


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 19, 2002, 8:30:06 PM8/19/02
to

"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.02081...@posting.google.com...

What's wild is if you read modern theoretical physics, and the way they look
at "time and motion" -- quantum mechanics, probable universes, and causality
as an illusion. This is where the math and their observations are leading
them at this time. And, of course, a real scientist can't dismiss such
ideas just because they seem out of sync with the conventional wisdom of the
day. That quantum actions can simultaneously impact particles distant from
each other, and that time ends up just a dimension in the equation, with all
time also being 'simultaneous'....

Well, maybe we don't know as much about the world as we think we do!


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 1:38:10 PM8/20/02
to
"The Professor" <> wrote
in message news:2xd89.71180$vg.14...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>

> Yes, our sensory organs evolved to perceive a physical reality that really
> exists. Light waves and sound waves are there. Our perception of them on
> the purely physical level is the same. However...
>
> The mind (as opposed to the eyes or ears) "pre-classifies" that information.
> That is, what we pay attention to, what we see as having meaning, is not in
> the "things themselves" but in the structure that our mind imposes on that
> data. The sensory data does not come into *the mind* raw. It comes in
> already "filtered." There is a difference between the physical order of the
> world and the sensory order of our minds. The problem of the mind is
> explaining how the first gets "translated" into the second. And yes,
> mental/sensory orders have to be accurate in order to promote survival, from
> an evolutionary perspective, but that doesn't mean we perceive the world in
> its raw form.

I'm not clear what you mean here. You seem to be arguing a Kantian
epistemology, but like Kant, I don't know what (in reality) you base it
on.

In many ways humans are exactly the same. There are elements of
our mind/bodies that are exactly the same. Our hearts beat, our lungs
breathe, and our muscles operate the same way. In our minds,
we all have substantially similar behaviors (emotions, reasoning
abilities, etc). Artists and magicians have made it their trade to
play with our perceptions, and it works the same with all of us.
Some of us may think/know that there is 'more than meets the eye',
and so may have different reactions to what we see or hear, but
when they play with light, mirrors, or sounds, we all see and hear
the same things.

Regardless of our individual higher level reactions to what we
see and hear, we can all be shown how the magic trick works
by seeing the things that we weren't shown. We can measure
things, and otherwise be shown the missing data that lead to
our perceptions being tricked, and then our conscious reactions
change.

It seems to me that in this thread there is also some obfuscation
between our individual reactions to complex issues (like politics),
where there is a lot of room for us to induce based only on a limited
or chosen subset of facts, and the basic functions of our how our
minds process fundamental sensory information.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 2:37:01 PM8/20/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
>
> > "Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
> > > Ultimately, both reduce to solipsism, both posit that sensory information
> > > is ambiguous, insufficient, and must be elaborated on by cognitive
> > > processing,
> >
> > I agree with this. Sensory info is ambigious, we have to make distinctions
> > and put meaning to it in order to come to know what is out there in reality.
> >
>
> No, I think you misunderstand me - sensory information is *not* ambiguous.
> If it were, then how can perception make sense of it without relying on
> what Scott Erb is calling "a prism of beliefs and past experience".
> The alternative is to hypothesize that meaning exists in the world, and
> our perceptual systems evolved to detect it and make use of it.
> Page down for further elaboration:

Yes, I was thinking of 'meaning' in an individual subjective sense,
at a higher level in our thoughts. What something 'out there' (what
I would probably call 'facts') means to the individual.
I see what you mean :), by it now. Causation is causation, even
without a mind coming to know it. The moon causes the tides,
which means something to someone standing on the shore,
regardless how they see that 'meaning' their minds.

Okay, I just needed to see your perspective, wrt the use of the word
'meaning'. :)

You might read David Kelley's "The Evidence of the Senses", which
also expresses direct realism at the perceptual level from an Objectivist
view. I wouldn't recommend much Piekoff for the philosophy anymore,
he is always so rhetorical that his arguments are usually lacking.

> However, I do have some reservations about her ideas, because even though
> she skips over the perceptual side of her argument, she does describe
> perception as the extraction of information from a set of meaningless
> sensations. How does one get meaning (perception) from something that is
> meaningless (sensations)? This is a major epistemological problem, and is
> why I favor the direct realist position I layed out above: meaning resides
> in the world, and our perceptual systems evolved to detect it.

The way I see it, ITOE is nothing near a complete epistemology.
It was just a set of essays Rand released that gave an overview
she saw as being ignored by philosopers and psychologists. She
had stated that she wanted to write a more complete book on the subject
(but she didn't). Few of the ideas were new even when she released ITOE,
but they were pretty obscure. If ITOE at least has the effect of keeping
things moving forward (rather than just taking Kant, for instance, at face value),
then it has done something good in my view.

[.....]
(thanks for the book suggestions, I have saved them and will check
some of them out when I go book shopping next)

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 3:16:23 PM8/20/02
to
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message news:<RWd89.71267$vg.14...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...

> > Precisely what
> > "coloring," "filtering" or "interpretation" do you contend is
> > presently in effect?
>
> The fact that you "pick out" as part of the very act of perception that
> collection of atoms that you identify as a desk means that your perception
> of the world is not "raw" - it's filtered by your mind having evolved, over
> time, a particular model of the world that enables it to "pre-classify"
> sensory data in ways the mind can recognize as meaningful.

It seems to me that you're jumbling two different things, my (1)
seeing the desk and my (2) identifying it as a desk. Let's forget (2)
then. What "coloring" or "filtering" is supposedly in effect when I
see the object? (Scott says that such processes are *always* in
effect.)

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 3:16:00 PM8/20/02
to
"The Professor" <> wrote
in message news:RWd89.71267$vg.14...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>

> The fact that you "pick out" as part of the very act of perception that
> collection of atoms that you identify as a desk means that your perception
> of the world is not "raw" - it's filtered by your mind having evolved, over
> time, a particular model of the world that enables it to "pre-classify"
> sensory data in ways the mind can recognize as meaningful.
>
> "Pure" perception would not be able to identify that as a desk, or as
> anything meaningful.

What you call "pure perception" here is raw sensory information (sensations).
We all must process those sensations into perceptual concepts, and later
into higher conceptual abstractions, but what makes you think that different
people process their sensations into different percepts? What is the
'pre-classification' you speak of, other than basic concepts? And even if
people do form subjective perceptual concepts at times, why can't those
differences be eliminated with measurement and things like looking from
different angles?

> The Professor (again, that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist)

You are coming from an 'critical realism' perspective here, just
like the person who suggests that we don't see the real stick
because it looks bent in the water (when it is not really). The fact
that I can say "when it is not really" parenthetically, means that the
first appearance of the stick was lacking some information, which
I was later able to get by further observation (using my senses,
and action).

That is the kind of thing Rand was trying to fight with her conceptualism
(some would say foundationalism). Perspectives are not immutable,
and inductions that are based on some limited set of data can certainly
be wrong, but there are very often ways to fix that. Get all the relevant facts.


Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 3:21:03 PM8/20/02
to

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> "The Professor" <> wrote
> in message news:2xd89.71180$vg.14...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
>
> > Yes, our sensory organs evolved to perceive a physical reality that really
> > exists. Light waves and sound waves are there. Our perception of them on
> > the purely physical level is the same. However...
> >
> > The mind (as opposed to the eyes or ears) "pre-classifies" that information.
> > That is, what we pay attention to, what we see as having meaning, is not in
> > the "things themselves" but in the structure that our mind imposes on that
> > data. The sensory data does not come into *the mind* raw. It comes in
> > already "filtered." There is a difference between the physical order of the
> > world and the sensory order of our minds. The problem of the mind is
> > explaining how the first gets "translated" into the second. And yes,
> > mental/sensory orders have to be accurate in order to promote survival, from
> > an evolutionary perspective, but that doesn't mean we perceive the world in
> > its raw form.
>
> I'm not clear what you mean here. You seem to be arguing a Kantian
> epistemology, but like Kant, I don't know what (in reality) you base it
> on.
>

I'm not clear on what Prof said either...it sounds like dualism. It
sounds like he's saying that mental things are different from world
things, and that there is some kind of translation between the two. the
problem is that no one has ever been able to make heads or tails of what
the translation is, without resorting to the application of internal
assumptions, which is ultimately rationalism (the idea is: where did those
internal assumptions come from? did we learn them from prior perceptual
experience? if so, then why do we need them now? if perception is not
flawed, we have no need for applying internal rules, and if perception is
flawed, then we cannot apply these rules if they are derived from prior
perceptual experience, because that prior experience is also flawed.
The alternative is rationalism - that these internal rules that help
disambiguate are not based on prior perceptual experience but instead are
just something we are born with.
The idea that Gibson put forth is that there is *no* translation taking
place, because, as he argued, sensations do no exist. There is sufficient
meaning available in the energy arrays, and the perceptual system
responds directly to it. Here's an analogy: our perceptual systems are
like analog devices: they have a direct connection to that which they
measure. Trad cog sci posits that our perceptual systems are more like
digital devices, in which a mass of input needs to be filtered,
processed, and interpreted to make an output.
This may sound like rhetoric but: if you operate on the assumption
that perception is flawed or that any internal assumptions must be used
make sense of it, you cannot in *any* way lay claim to having a
realist epistemology, and you pretty much cannot lay claim to an
empiricist epistemology either. Its my claim that if you don't accept
direct realism, your epistemology is ultimately rationalist and
solipsistic.


> In many ways humans are exactly the same. There are elements of
> our mind/bodies that are exactly the same. Our hearts beat, our lungs
> breathe, and our muscles operate the same way. In our minds,
> we all have substantially similar behaviors (emotions, reasoning
> abilities, etc). Artists and magicians have made it their trade to
> play with our perceptions, and it works the same with all of us.
> Some of us may think/know that there is 'more than meets the eye',
> and so may have different reactions to what we see or hear, but
> when they play with light, mirrors, or sounds, we all see and hear
> the same things.
>

There's a great paper about "Misperception Misconstrued". So much of trad
cog sci theories on perception are based on the study of illusions. Its
what I said before: you can't build a theory on the successful function of
a system by trying to explain instances of its unsuccessful function (esp
when 99% of our documentation of unsuccessful function relates to
artificial conditions set up by an experimenter purposefully trying to
create unsuccessful function).
I (from Gibson) say that its best to start by understanding the "job
description" of perception (from an evolutionary pov), understand what
sort of information perception is supposed to provide us, and what we use
that information for, and then discover how that information is encoded in
things like the visible light spectrum (the optic array) or the acoustic
spectrum, patterns of force on the skin, etc., and then manipulate those
patterns to learn how a subject's perception changes as those patterns
change. The study of illusion becomes just an interesting sideshow:
"Look, I can create a particular pattern in the optic array that is
ambiguous, and I can make someone see something incorrectly"
But to take the existence of illusions as evidence of a general theory of
perception as flawed and requiring help from higher cognitive structures
is unwarranted.


> Regardless of our individual higher level reactions to what we
> see and hear, we can all be shown how the magic trick works
> by seeing the things that we weren't shown. We can measure
> things, and otherwise be shown the missing data that lead to
> our perceptions being tricked, and then our conscious reactions
> change.
>

Right - just because we don't see all of reality doesn't mean that
perception if flawed. The perceptual system responds veridically to that
portion of reality that it is exposed to. If there is someone standing in
the hallway outside my door, and I can't perceive them because they are a
few feet left of the door, and are being very quiet, then my lack of
ability to see through walls or hear their breathing above the background
noise doesn't mean perception if flawed.

> It seems to me that in this thread there is also some obfuscation
> between our individual reactions to complex issues (like politics),
> where there is a lot of room for us to induce based only on a limited
> or chosen subset of facts, and the basic functions of our how our
> minds process fundamental sensory information.
>

Exactly. I think Rand puts it correctly when she argues that we have
perception, which is direct knowledge of the world around us - but then
there is cognition, which is the abtraction of those concretes into
categories. We categorize things we see and hear. Her example in ITOE is
when we see 3 men, we put them all into the category of "man" when in fact
they may have zero physical char's in common. We perceive each one of
them veridically, but there is some process of abstraction that we perform
that extracts some essence in all of them and uses that to create the
category "man". Plato has a theory on this, so did Aristotle, and others.
This is cognition, not perception. Thus, there may be flaws and biases
when different people perform these abstractions and categorizations.

Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 3:26:40 PM8/20/02
to

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> "Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020819...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:
> >
> > No, I think you misunderstand me - sensory information is *not* ambiguous.
> > If it were, then how can perception make sense of it without relying on
> > what Scott Erb is calling "a prism of beliefs and past experience".
> > The alternative is to hypothesize that meaning exists in the world, and
> > our perceptual systems evolved to detect it and make use of it.
> > Page down for further elaboration:
>
> Yes, I was thinking of 'meaning' in an individual subjective sense,
> at a higher level in our thoughts. What something 'out there' (what
> I would probably call 'facts') means to the individual.
> I see what you mean :), by it now. Causation is causation, even

Its tricky. When I tell people I study perception, and that I teach a
class called "The Psychology of Perception", they respond with things like
"Oh, like if I perceive that someone is lying to me" or "I perceive that
the world is a sick place" or stuff like that, they are misusing the word
perception, IMO.
They usually look confused and even disappointed when I explain "No, I
study how people visually perceive the distance to an object and how they
use that information to control a reach to that object"
In 2 days, there are going to be 35 bewildered students here, as in the
first 2 days of class, I'm going to hit them with pretty much everything
we've covered in this thread.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 3:52:47 PM8/20/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020820...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>

> Its tricky. When I tell people I study perception, and that I teach a
> class called "The Psychology of Perception", they respond with things like
> "Oh, like if I perceive that someone is lying to me" or "I perceive that
> the world is a sick place" or stuff like that, they are misusing the word
> perception, IMO.

What is even sadder to me is that so many people have exactly
that 'sense of life' (something Rand and Neil both have mentioned
frequently, Neil several times in his recent book). It's sort of
a 'malevolent universe' induced premise (or axiom).

You and others can very often fix the conceptual misunderstandings,
but I think only the individual in question can really fix the outlook,
because they have to want to see 'all the relevant facts' in order to
get a better 'sense of possibilities'.


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 4:09:02 PM8/20/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:um57jis...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020820...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
> >
>
> > Its tricky. When I tell people I study perception, and that I teach a
> > class called "The Psychology of Perception", they respond with things
like
> > "Oh, like if I perceive that someone is lying to me" or "I perceive that
> > the world is a sick place" or stuff like that, they are misusing the
word
> > perception, IMO.

So you have no objection to my "people interpret their perceptions through
their beliefs and understandings..." and have "no unfiltered access" to
reality, as all perceptions are interpreted by the brain? That's what I
mean (and stated earlier), but in trying to use fewer words I misued the
word "perception."

> What is even sadder to me is that so many people have exactly
> that 'sense of life' (something Rand and Neil both have mentioned
> frequently, Neil several times in his recent book). It's sort of
> a 'malevolent universe' induced premise (or axiom).

I don't like Rand, since I disagree with her on so much, but it does seem to
me that those people who think the world a malevolent, dangerous, cold place
tend to make choices in life that end up getting them life experiences that
fit their beliefs about the world. Confident, happy, engaging people who
see the world as an exciting adventure full of possibilities, potential good
friends and even a touch of magic, tend to get that kind of experience of
the world.

> You and others can very often fix the conceptual misunderstandings,
> but I think only the individual in question can really fix the outlook,
> because they have to want to see 'all the relevant facts' in order to
> get a better 'sense of possibilities'.

The trouble is that the 'relevant facts' and 'sense of possibilities' can be
interpreted into either world view (or many others), and so just looking for
facts isn't going to 'fix' a perspective. I'm not sure what you mean by
conceptual misunderstandings.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 4:57:50 PM8/20/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ylx89.22093$Ke2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> news:um57jis...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020820...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
> > >
> >
> > > Its tricky. When I tell people I study perception, and that I teach a
> > > class called "The Psychology of Perception", they respond with things
> like
> > > "Oh, like if I perceive that someone is lying to me" or "I perceive that
> > > the world is a sick place" or stuff like that, they are misusing the
> word
> > > perception, IMO.
>
> So you have no objection to my "people interpret their perceptions through
> their beliefs and understandings..." and have "no unfiltered access" to
> reality, as all perceptions are interpreted by the brain? That's what I
> mean (and stated earlier), but in trying to use fewer words I misued the
> word "perception."

You are responding to Dan here, I'll leave that one for him

> > What is even sadder to me is that so many people have exactly
> > that 'sense of life' (something Rand and Neil both have mentioned
> > frequently, Neil several times in his recent book). It's sort of
> > a 'malevolent universe' induced premise (or axiom).
>
> I don't like Rand, since I disagree with her on so much, but it does seem to
> me that those people who think the world a malevolent, dangerous, cold place
> tend to make choices in life that end up getting them life experiences that
> fit their beliefs about the world. Confident, happy, engaging people who
> see the world as an exciting adventure full of possibilities, potential good
> friends and even a touch of magic, tend to get that kind of experience of
> the world.

Indeed. In my view, this is what Neil means by:

"I believe in what I see.
I believe in what I hear.
I believe that what I'm feeling
Changes how the world appears."

He is talking about direct realism (his preface), and his 'sense of life'.
We do indeed choose which facts we bring to that conclusion
on a personal level.

> > You and others can very often fix the conceptual misunderstandings,
> > but I think only the individual in question can really fix the outlook,
> > because they have to want to see 'all the relevant facts' in order to
> > get a better 'sense of possibilities'.
>
> The trouble is that the 'relevant facts' and 'sense of possibilities' can be
> interpreted into either world view (or many others),

I said, "all the relevant facts", and that you chose to eliminate the
word 'all' is indicative of how you came to the conclusion beginning
at "can be interpreted....". If one knows/includes *all* the relevant facts,
as much as can be known presently anyway, then the conclusion will be
much closer to objective. Feelings (emotions) often lead people to
eliminate many of the relevant ones.

> and so just looking for facts isn't going to 'fix' a perspective.

You see a stick bent in the water, I picked up the stick and put
it back in. I have more facts than you do, and therefore a different
perspective. If you say, "the stick is bent", I will say, "no, it's straight".
Only one of us is telling the truth, and the truth only exists because
I picked the stick up and looked at it.
My thoughts are closer to reality (all the relevant facts).

> I'm not sure what you mean by
> conceptual misunderstandings.

I was referring to what Dan said about people who think
'perception' means higher levels of abstraction that are
arrived at very intuitively. Perception is what happens
at a very low level in our thought processes, right after
sensations. After percepts (rudimentary concepts) comes
higher level concepts, deductions, and inductions.
I wouldn't consider jumping to conclusions, usually based
almost entirely on emotion, as 'perception'.


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 5:28:56 PM8/20/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:um5bdej...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by
> > conceptual misunderstandings.
>
> I was referring to what Dan said about people who think
> 'perception' means higher levels of abstraction that are
> arrived at very intuitively. Perception is what happens
> at a very low level in our thought processes, right after
> sensations. After percepts (rudimentary concepts) comes
> higher level concepts, deductions, and inductions.
> I wouldn't consider jumping to conclusions, usually based
> almost entirely on emotion, as 'perception'.

The problem too is that words have multiple definitions, so you have to
consider how it is used, and define it precisely if you're arguing a
specific point.

For instance, in both English and German the word for perception is often
used like this: "Boy she was sending me signals she was interested in going
out!" Response: "You think so? I didn't perceive it that way." In
everyday jargon that's legit. But obviously in talking about things like
philosophy of science and the sociology of knowledge we have to be very
careful that we're all using words in the same way. Most people who use
"perceive" in the every day form would say, "well, of course..." if you went
into a psychological description of how the perception is not the
interpretation.

Emotion as a perception...I'm not sure... It is a perception of ones' own
subjective state -- that can tell us alot about ourselves, and perhaps we
can use that to train ourselves on how to react (if we feel anger, recognize
that decisions made in that instant may not be the smartest). Emotion can
also be a short hand interpretation of a situation -- perhaps you perceive
things in body language of another, or how they're talking that you don't
cognitively process into an interpretation, but somehow subconsciously
'feel' that the person is sending a certain signal. Emotion is probably
also linked to instinct (from what I read in recent research humans still
have a pretty developed sense of instinct, but its been 'tamed' by our way
of life) -- and what exactly instinct is, where it comes from and why/how we
have it can lead to interesting speculation. Emotion might also be a tie
into something beyond the material world, that is not perceivable through
contact with material reality. Mystic rhythms... But that also makes it
outside science, and at that level can neither be proven or disproven and is
simply speculative.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 6:46:26 PM8/20/02
to
"Daniel McConnell" <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.020820...@linc.cis.upenn.edu...
>


> The idea that Gibson put forth is that there is *no* translation taking
> place, because, as he argued, sensations do no exist. There is sufficient
> meaning available in the energy arrays, and the perceptual system
> responds directly to it. Here's an analogy: our perceptual systems are
> like analog devices: they have a direct connection to that which they
> measure. Trad cog sci posits that our perceptual systems are more like
> digital devices, in which a mass of input needs to be filtered,
> processed, and interpreted to make an output.

I really have to read this Gibson guy.
The analog analogy :) really makes sense to me.
Ultimately, the input to all digital systems are analog.

> This may sound like rhetoric but: if you operate on the assumption
> that perception is flawed or that any internal assumptions must be used
> make sense of it, you cannot in *any* way lay claim to having a
> realist epistemology, and you pretty much cannot lay claim to an
> empiricist epistemology either. Its my claim that if you don't accept
> direct realism, your epistemology is ultimately rationalist and
> solipsistic.

Interesting.


Daniel McConnell

unread,
Aug 20, 2002, 8:06:15 PM8/20/02
to

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, John Shafto wrote:

> I really have to read this Gibson guy.
> The analog analogy :) really makes sense to me.
> Ultimately, the input to all digital systems are analog.
>

Right, and why do all this laborious error prone processing when you could
evolve a device that detects it directly?
There's a good but relatively obscure paper published in the 70's that
addresses what the author calls "smart perceptual mechanisms" that do just
this.

> > This may sound like rhetoric but: if you operate on the assumption
> > that perception is flawed or that any internal assumptions must be used
> > make sense of it, you cannot in *any* way lay claim to having a
> > realist epistemology, and you pretty much cannot lay claim to an
> > empiricist epistemology either. Its my claim that if you don't accept
> > direct realism, your epistemology is ultimately rationalist and
> > solipsistic.
>
> Interesting.
>

and controversial. If I made this statement at, say, the Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, I would probably be laughed
at, or vehemently disagreed with. or both.

Mike Smith

unread,
Aug 21, 2002, 12:51:11 PM8/21/02
to
"John Shafto" <moc....@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:um5herc...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> I really have to read this Gibson guy.
> The analog analogy :) really makes sense to me.
> Ultimately, the input to all digital systems are analog.

And if you drill down further, the input to all "analog" systems are digital
(well, discrete, anyway).

--
Mike Smith

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 21, 2002, 12:53:10 PM8/21/02
to
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<um2k1c...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I disagree with Hume's ethics, I think they were rationalistic just like
> Kant's (trying to justify the prevaling Christian ethics), <snip>

What? Hume was a utilitarian, and a sophisticated one. See his
essay "Of thye Original Contract."

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 21, 2002, 2:05:11 PM8/21/02
to
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...

That essay is more of an attempt to refute "The Social Contract"
(and liberalism to some extent) than moral philosophy, but his
moral philosophy is somewhat expressed there, and it is a convoluted
mix of 'natural instinct' and Kantian duty. This line expresses a very
rationalistic (and contradictory) Kantian type of view:

"The second kind of moral duties are such as are not supported by
any original instinct of nature, but are performed entirely from a sense
of obligation, when we consider the necessities of human society, and
the impossibility of supporting it, if these duties were neglected."

He expresses the very reason why these 'duties' are generally
supported, where the 'sense of obligation' comes from;
by the impossibility of supporting civil society without them, IOW
we (as individuals, all morals are local :) are looking out for our own
best interests.


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 3:26:47 PM8/22/02
to
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<um7lmpk...@corp.supernews.com>...

> "Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<um2k1c...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > > I disagree with Hume's ethics, I think they were rationalistic just like
> > > Kant's (trying to justify the prevaling Christian ethics), <snip>
> >
> > What? Hume was a utilitarian, and a sophisticated one. See his
> > essay "Of thye Original Contract."
>
> That essay is more of an attempt to refute "The Social Contract"
> (and liberalism to some extent) than moral philosophy, but his
> moral philosophy is somewhat expressed there, and it is a convoluted
> mix of 'natural instinct' and Kantian duty. This line expresses a very
> rationalistic (and contradictory) Kantian type of view:
>
> "The second kind of moral duties are such as are not supported by
> any original instinct of nature, but are performed entirely from a sense
> of obligation, when we consider the necessities of human society, and
> the impossibility of supporting it, if these duties were neglected."

Yes, Hume begins with a series of arguments against the theory of
consent. He also distinguishes between "natural duties" (duties based
in natural instinct [e.g., parents' love for their children]) and
"artificial duties" (duties "informed by reason" and based in public
utility). But he believes that *public utility* is the explanation
for and basis of both kinds of duties. There's nothing Kantian about
that.

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 3:54:15 PM8/22/02
to
"Nyarlathotep" <> wrote in message news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...
>

> Yes, Hume begins with a series of arguments against the theory of
> consent. He also distinguishes between "natural duties" (duties based
> in natural instinct [e.g., parents' love for their children]) and
> "artificial duties" (duties "informed by reason" and based in public
> utility). But he believes that *public utility* is the explanation
> for and basis of both kinds of duties. There's nothing Kantian about
> that.

In my view, Hume's 'duties informed by reason' is a fancy way
of saying ethical rationalism.

Hume was really just a philosophical skeptic, saying essentially
that morals are merely 'sentiments', informed by emotion. Of course,
those emotions have observable evolutionary purpose themselves,
but anyway....

The real document to know Hume's ethics is:
"An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals"
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03/nqpmr10.txt

I don't think there is much there of any value at all. Philosophical
skepticism leads nowhere (nihilism). He was on the right track
with his epistemology, but never got there, so it follows that his
ethics (and politics for that matter) predicated on incomplete
epistemology would be silly.


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 6:57:19 PM8/22/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:umagf9j...@corp.supernews.com...

Philosophical skepticism doesn't have to lead to nihilism, and in most cases
it hasn't. All one has to do is accept that absolute certainty is
impossible to achieve, but that we can develop pragmatic standards (like
Hume pounding the table) or others to construct ethical systems. The key
is -- we can't delude ourselves into thinking we have found the 'one proper
way.' That's the stuff of religion.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 8:14:25 PM8/22/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:j%d99.468$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
>
> Philosophical skepticism doesn't have to lead to nihilism, and in most cases
> it hasn't. All one has to do is accept that absolute certainty is
> impossible to achieve, but that we can develop pragmatic standards (like
> Hume pounding the table) or others to construct ethical systems. The key
> is -- we can't delude ourselves into thinking we have found the 'one proper
> way.' That's the stuff of religion.

It's also the stuff of religion to deny reason where it can be found.

Even if that religion is the religion of anti-dogmatism (nihilism).

(God forbid we should discover the real difference between right
and wrong, there wouldn't be much room for preachers anymore.)


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 9:19:04 PM8/22/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:umavn3i...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:j%d99.468$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Philosophical skepticism doesn't have to lead to nihilism, and in most
cases
> > it hasn't. All one has to do is accept that absolute certainty is
> > impossible to achieve, but that we can develop pragmatic standards (like
> > Hume pounding the table) or others to construct ethical systems. The
key
> > is -- we can't delude ourselves into thinking we have found the 'one
proper
> > way.' That's the stuff of religion.
>
> It's also the stuff of religion to deny reason where it can be found.
>
> Even if that religion is the religion of anti-dogmatism (nihilism).

But there are forms of skepticism that do not at all lead to nihilism.

> (God forbid we should discover the real difference between right
> and wrong, there wouldn't be much room for preachers anymore.)

The "real difference" between "right" and "wrong"?

How could that be "discovered"? What criteria, initial assumptions, and
tests would it take?


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 11:17:17 PM8/22/02
to
"Scott Erb" <> wrote
>

> But there are forms of skepticism that do not at all lead to nihilism.

You seem to regularly suggest that even though we can't really
know anything, there are things we can know. Which is it?
I don't understand this line of philosophy. What "form of skepticism"
violates Aristotle's laws of thought? (remember we are talking about
*philosophical* skepticism here) How can a thing be both itself, and
not itself, at the same time?

If we can't be certain of anything at all, then how can we know
anything at all? Is it dogmatism to say with certainty, "I exist"?
Am I being dogmatic when I say that the earth is a globe?
Could these things be proven wrong in the future?

Am I not really here? Is the earth really a triangle?
If you believe these things *might* be possible, on what
basis do you hold these beliefs?

> > (God forbid we should discover the real difference between right
> > and wrong, there wouldn't be much room for preachers anymore.)
>
> The "real difference" between "right" and "wrong"?
>
> How could that be "discovered"? What criteria, initial assumptions, and
> tests would it take?

The same as any other, look at humans empirically, who use(need) morality,
see why they do what they do. Once you see what we are trying to do,
what we *are*, you can understand what is 'right' in that frame of reference,
and threefore what is 'wrong', and all the mumbo jumbo of preachers
(and dogmatic nihilists) melts away like the chaff that it is.

(hint: what a thing *is* determines what it *ought* to do :)

Why do [left] statists hate morality, and yet they are the first to assert
moral propositions, like, "we should feed the poor"? What can
this morality be based on?


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 22, 2002, 11:32:56 PM8/22/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:umbae8m...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Scott Erb" <> wrote
> >
>
> > But there are forms of skepticism that do not at all lead to nihilism.
>
> You seem to regularly suggest that even though we can't really
> know anything, there are things we can know. Which is it?

You bet your life.

Get out RTB and listen to the final track. There are many interpretations
of reality, none can be proven. You make the best call you can and live it.

> I don't understand this line of philosophy. What "form of skepticism"
> violates Aristotle's laws of thought? (remember we are talking about
> *philosophical* skepticism here) How can a thing be both itself, and
> not itself, at the same time?

A thing is. Linguistically, we can make definitions that are contradictory
or not, and study the discourse. But whether or not the discourse
corresponds to reality is always in question -- it always represents an
interpretation of reality.

> If we can't be certain of anything at all, then how can we know
> anything at all? Is it dogmatism to say with certainty, "I exist"?
> Am I being dogmatic when I say that the earth is a globe?
> Could these things be proven wrong in the future?

Dogmatic? No, these things have solid backing of evidence, much more than
any given moral or political philosophy does. "I exist" as Descartes worded
it is pretty persausive as well. But...listen to Nocturne, and look back at
the discussions Ellen and I had about lucid dreaming. Making absolute
statements of reality based on our subjective experience of reality is
sometimes very iffy.

> Am I not really here? Is the earth really a triangle?
> If you believe these things *might* be possible, on what
> basis do you hold these beliefs?

Basic philosophy of science: all scientific facts are contingent facts,
which can be overturned by future evidence or better theories. BUT: some
hypotheses can be falsified, and once falsified they can be disguarded. The
hypothesis that the earth is a triangle or that I am not really here can be
falsified.

> > > (God forbid we should discover the real difference between right
> > > and wrong, there wouldn't be much room for preachers anymore.)
> >
> > The "real difference" between "right" and "wrong"?
> >
> > How could that be "discovered"? What criteria, initial assumptions, and
> > tests would it take?
>
> The same as any other, look at humans empirically, who use(need) morality,
> see why they do what they do. Once you see what we are trying to do,
> what we *are*, you can understand what is 'right' in that frame of
reference,
> and threefore what is 'wrong', and all the mumbo jumbo of preachers
> (and dogmatic nihilists) melts away like the chaff that it is.
>
> (hint: what a thing *is* determines what it *ought* to do :)

That's all very vague and unclear, and doesn't seem to answer the question
at all.

> Why do [left] statists hate morality, and yet they are the first to assert
> moral propositions, like, "we should feed the poor"? What can
> this morality be based on?

Well, I'm left of center, but I think morality and ethics are the most
important part of life. So I reject your categorization.


John Shafto

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 12:36:00 AM8/23/02
to
"Scott Erb" <> wrote
in message news:I1i99.29588$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
<snip sophism>

> "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message

> > Why do [left] statists hate morality, and yet they are the first to assert
> > moral propositions, like, "we should feed the poor"? What can
> > this morality be based on?
>
> Well, I'm left of center, but I think morality and ethics are the most
> important part of life. So I reject your categorization.

Fair enough, you hold morals/ethics (we all do, of course).
What do you base them on?

How do you verify these inductions that have been handed to you?
You seem to be enamored with "basic philosophy of science", certainly
you verify these hypotheses somehow? Are you of the "my inductions are
true until disproven (falsified)" camp, like religious folk?


Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 7:43:04 AM8/23/02
to

"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:umbf1nc...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Scott Erb" <> wrote
> in message
news:I1i99.29588$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> <snip sophism>
>
> > "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
> > > Why do [left] statists hate morality, and yet they are the first to
assert
> > > moral propositions, like, "we should feed the poor"? What can
> > > this morality be based on?
> >
> > Well, I'm left of center, but I think morality and ethics are the most
> > important part of life. So I reject your categorization.
>
> Fair enough, you hold morals/ethics (we all do, of course).
> What do you base them on?

A variety of factors, ranging from reading science, spiritual texts,
observing how people react, understanding a bit about sociology and
psychology, and most importantly recognizing my own intuitive and personal
sense of right.

> How do you verify these inductions that have been handed to you?

I can never be sure, I just keep an open mind, analyze evidence, critique
past practices, learn and move on...that's all anyone can do, unless they
decide to go the easy route and hook up with some religion or 'philosophy'
that promises them false certainty. At base ethics is about how you
interact with others -- how you treat others. Almost all actions have some
impact on others, and the context changes what an action means, and can
change its ethical value (how much can be debated -- hence the debate 'is
war murder' or is the death penalty as bad as the crime? -- the act is
killing, murder is a word use to describe if the context of the killing was
unjustified...but how one makes that call can't be determined by any certain
process). The closest a philosophy has come to at least stating something I
find persausive is Kant's categorical imperative. Don't use other people as
only a means to an end, and judge actions as if each could be treated as a
universal law. But for the second part, Kant leaves out the way context
changes the nature of an act, an act in situation A is different than in
situation B at a level so fundamental that it changes the actual nature of
the act sometimes. That's hard for any philosophy to deal with, and it
really requires we make a judgement based on a nice balance of intuition and
mind (as in, of course, Hemispheres....)

> You seem to be enamored with "basic philosophy of science", certainly
> you verify these hypotheses somehow? Are you of the "my inductions are
> true until disproven (falsified)" camp, like religious folk?

I don't think ethics and morality come down to falsifiable hypotheses, they
are something different.

The odds get even
You name the game
The odds get even
The stakes are the same
You bet your life


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 1:51:02 PM8/23/02
to
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<umagf9j...@corp.supernews.com>...

> "Nyarlathotep" <> wrote in message news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> > Yes, Hume begins with a series of arguments against the theory of
> > consent. He also distinguishes between "natural duties" (duties based
> > in natural instinct [e.g., parents' love for their children]) and
> > "artificial duties" (duties "informed by reason" and based in public
> > utility). But he believes that *public utility* is the explanation
> > for and basis of both kinds of duties. There's nothing Kantian about
> > that.
>
> In my view, Hume's 'duties informed by reason' is a fancy way
> of saying ethical rationalism.

That's mistaken. There's nothing rationalistic or Kantian about
Hume's ethics (or any other area of his philosophy).

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 1:56:21 PM8/23/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<j%d99.468$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> Philosophical skepticism doesn't have to lead to nihilism, and in most cases


> it hasn't. All one has to do is accept that absolute certainty is
> impossible to achieve, but that we can develop pragmatic standards (like
> Hume pounding the table)

Not to quibble, but I believe you're thinking of Samuel Johnson's
"refutation" of Bishop Berkeley.

Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 2:08:04 PM8/23/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<j%d99.468$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> The key
> is -- we can't delude ourselves into thinking we have found the 'one proper
> way.' That's the stuff of religion.

It is possible, however, for us to know the facts.

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 23, 2002, 3:22:48 PM8/23/02
to

"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...

Is it? All the facts? I'm not sure what you mean.


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 24, 2002, 3:28:20 PM8/24/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<cYv99.30920$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Any standard textbook definition of that term will do.

Scott Erb

unread,
Aug 24, 2002, 10:01:40 PM8/24/02
to

"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<cYv99.30920$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:<j%d99.468$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >
> > >
> > > > The key
> > > > is -- we can't delude ourselves into thinking we have found the 'one
> > proper
> > > > way.' That's the stuff of religion.
> > >
> > > It is possible, however, for us to know the facts.
> >
> > Is it? All the facts? I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> Any standard textbook definition of that term will do.

That's not an answer. Also, your statement was so vague, I'm not sure what
kind of facts you mean. Scientific facts are all contingent facts (not
absolute), since science is always open to new evidence and better theories.
So if we go by the text book definition there, a fact is something that
represents the current scientific consensus, based on testing and retesting
of replicable experiments and critiques of current theory. But such facts
are not considered eternal -- indeed, most of what is now accepted science
will be different in 500 years. Some things will be dramatically different,
others just tweaked and improved.

Or do you mean something other than a scientific fact?


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 26, 2002, 2:04:18 PM8/26/02
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<8UW99.33331$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> > > > It is possible, however, for us to know the facts.
> > >
> > > Is it? All the facts? I'm not sure what you mean.
> >
> > Any standard textbook definition of that term will do.
>
> That's not an answer. Also, your statement was so vague, I'm not sure what
> kind of facts you mean. Scientific facts are all contingent facts (not
> absolute),

Yes, the facts derived from science are epistemologically
contingent. What bearing is this supposed to have on my contention
that we can *know* the facts?

> science is always open to new evidence and better theories.

Yes, and theories are revised precisely so that they can better
account for the facts.

> But such facts are not considered eternal

Human beings aren't eternal either. It doesn't follow that you
can't know anyone.


> -- indeed, most of what is now accepted science
> will be different in 500 years.

For someone who talks the talk of an epistemic nihilist, you're
suddenly very sure of yourself, Scott. At any rate, I agree with the
vague proposition that there will be scientific advances. But that's
certainly no reason for denying that facts can be known (on the
contrary).

John Shafto

unread,
Aug 26, 2002, 4:28:16 PM8/26/02
to
"Nyarlathotep" <> wrote in message news:ae12f5f3.02082...@posting.google.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<8UW99.33331$Ke2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > > > > It is possible, however, for us to know the facts.
> > > >
> > > > Is it? All the facts? I'm not sure what you mean.
> > >
> > > Any standard textbook definition of that term will do.
> >
> > That's not an answer. Also, your statement was so vague, I'm not sure what
> > kind of facts you mean. Scientific facts are all contingent facts (not
> > absolute),
>
> Yes, the facts derived from science are epistemologically
> contingent. What bearing is this supposed to have on my contention
> that we can *know* the facts?

Facts aren't epistemologically contingent, but theories (inductions)
are. We can 'know the facts' precisely because they aren't
theories anymore. The proposition "I exist" is not a theory,
and neither are many other more complex propositions (facts).

> > science is always open to new evidence and better theories.
>
> Yes, and theories are revised precisely so that they can better
> account for the facts.
>
> > But such facts are not considered eternal
>
> Human beings aren't eternal either. It doesn't follow that you
> can't know anyone.

His whole argument here rests on muddling the distinction
between facts and theory (which is not entirely supported
induction, or speculation based on a subset of relevant facts).
There are many events and things in the universe that will never
be proven not to have really existed, they are absolute. The only
way to deny facts (make everything theory), is to metaphysically
deny existence itself.

> > -- indeed, most of what is now accepted science
> > will be different in 500 years.
>
> For someone who talks the talk of an epistemic nihilist, you're
> suddenly very sure of yourself, Scott. At any rate, I agree with the
> vague proposition that there will be scientific advances. But that's
> certainly no reason for denying that facts can be known (on the
> contrary).

'Science' is synonymous with 'knowledge', so all this talk of science
is just bluster to lend credence to his idea that we can't know anything
for sure. The 'scientific method' ('knowledge method' really) is a
structured way to learn and be open to new knowledge, and I think
that is what he means when he says 'science', but the method in no
way precludes settled fact.

"To measure is to know."
-Lord Kelvin

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the
beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."
--Lord Kelvin

Lord Kelvin presumes only existence itself (including the existence
of our ability to measure existence) with these statements.


Nyarlathotep

unread,
Aug 27, 2002, 2:25:33 PM8/27/02
to
"John Shafto" <moc....@nhoj.rev> wrote in message news:<uml3iqm...@corp.supernews.com>...

> His whole argument here rests on muddling the distinction
> between facts and theory (which is not entirely supported
> induction, or speculation based on a subset of relevant facts).
> There are many events and things in the universe that will never
> be proven not to have really existed, they are absolute. The only
> way to deny facts (make everything theory), is to metaphysically
> deny existence itself.

Yes, that's precisely his basic confusion on this matter.

0 new messages