My piece in Scientific American
John S. Wilkins
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
on-sense-2011-05-24
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John Stockwell
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
Good piece. I am rereading the first volume of the Feynman Lecture
Series.
In an effort to teach the reader how to think like a physicist, the
author(s) discuss
how not to get hung up on details and how not to get hung up on
mathematical proofs.
They discuss how the things that we call laws are "wrong" in that they
do not hold absolutely
for all situations, but that they are useful, nonetheless.
The authors are struggling to teach a kind of common sense that we see
does not take on
some individuals on this group, who thrive on defining things to
death, or whose arguments
hinge on what they view as being that "one critical piece of evidence"
that supports
the idea that they believe in.
I am not sure that we actually can know what common sense is, but we
can point out its opposite.
-John
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Burkhard
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
A Kantian construct once bit me in the behind. Just saying....
T Pagano
Wilkins) wrote:
>Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>on-sense-2011-05-24
The article is well written and thought provoking. Furthermore its
written with a clarity that is often not seen in academia.
In any event, my opinion is that the article is a novel beginning of
a fresh look at scientific inductivism. Wilkins begins by wondering
out loud if scientific inductivism is a process that has evolved from
our instinctive skill for drawing generalizations which man uses as a
basis for action (survival judgements for example). Some of the
criteria for evaluating that instinctive process----rationality of
belief, reliability, certitude----are pressed into service.
The question is whether or how rationality of belief (or any measures
of belief for that matter) are truth tracking. Bayesianism, for
example, tracks belief given evidence. Consensus is belief tracking.
While the objective truth is independent of individual and collective
beliefs possibly some new insight into our changing beliefs could help
us "track the truth." Some new insight which might point us in the
right direction. To point us in the direction of the unchanging
objective truth is to point us away from falsity. So "tracking the
truth" has the sound of a novel approach that might prove fruitful. It
sounds different from past attempts at measuring "closeness to the
truth" which have largely failed.
However I'm not quite sure that Wilkins is interested in the
unchanging objective truth and he gives hints that he might not hold
realism. For if he is not interesting in "objective" truth then there
is no light at the end of the tunnel, no final goal. The "track to
the truth" becomes little more than an unending belief tracking. If
the objective truth is what we seek than nothing short of that will
do. Tracking is only useful if the end point is fixed.
Regards,
T Pagano
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>on-sense-2011-05-24
A nice piece.
That science is the enemy of common sense is obvious when you hear,
first, that physicists claim that they and only they have the keys to
everything real in the universe and, second, that they explain it in
terms of quantum mechanics general relativity.
About the umwelt. It is "known" that animals with strange (to us)
senses experience a very different umwelt from our own. But what
about all those blind men with the elephant? They all had their own
umwelts which they used to explain their own environments very
differently but the fact was they all shared the same "real"
environment. Is there a "true" and "real" objective universe we
inhabit independent of our umwelt? Isn't that what science is
supposed to be about.
And then what about our innenwelt? What is the objective reality
behind that??
John S. Wilkins
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Well, their blog, at any rate:
> >
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> >on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> The article is well written and thought provoking. Furthermore its
> written with a clarity that is often not seen in academia.
Thank you Tony. I am not often accused of committing clarity.
>
> In any event, my opinion is that the article is a novel beginning of
> a fresh look at scientific inductivism. Wilkins begins by wondering
> out loud if scientific inductivism is a process that has evolved from
> our instinctive skill for drawing generalizations which man uses as a
> basis for action (survival judgements for example). Some of the
> criteria for evaluating that instinctive process----rationality of
> belief, reliability, certitude----are pressed into service.
I do defend inductivism and ampliative reasoning in science.
>
> The question is whether or how rationality of belief (or any measures
> of belief for that matter) are truth tracking. Bayesianism, for
> example, tracks belief given evidence. Consensus is belief tracking.
Yes, but is it truth tracking? The problem with Bayesian accounts is
that it presupposes that we already have some certainty or warrant in
our priors, but given the uncertainty of the belief being assessed now,
those priors themselves were once (or still are) uncertain, and so we
pile uncertainty on uncertainty. Bayes works if we have solid priors.
> While the objective truth is independent of individual and collective
> beliefs possibly some new insight into our changing beliefs could help
> us "track the truth." Some new insight which might point us in the
> right direction. To point us in the direction of the unchanging
> objective truth is to point us away from falsity. So "tracking the
> truth" has the sound of a novel approach that might prove fruitful. It
> sounds different from past attempts at measuring "closeness to the
> truth" which have largely failed.
Verisimilitude is based on a linguistic and syntactic notion of truth; I
am an unregenerate pragmatist, and so I think truth just *is* a
correlation between the doxastic attitudes of the cogniser and their
eventual success.
>
> However I'm not quite sure that Wilkins is interested in the
> unchanging objective truth and he gives hints that he might not hold
> realism. For if he is not interesting in "objective" truth then there
> is no light at the end of the tunnel, no final goal. The "track to
> the truth" becomes little more than an unending belief tracking. If
> the objective truth is what we seek than nothing short of that will
> do. Tracking is only useful if the end point is fixed.
That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
empiricist notion of "to know".
JTEM
j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
Get's himself in a fancy schmancy magazine but
can't offer up an unbreakable URL... My aching ass...
*Hemidactylus*
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
experience? When the singularity dawns we will deal with the after*math* ;-)
*Hemidactylus*
David Hare-Scott
wrote:
This is an interesting point to me. My dog's sense of smell and
hearing is many times more sensitive than mine but my vision is
better. He can smell that a snake has passed by which I simply cannot
do. If a rabbit freezes he can almost tread on it before he sees it
but I know there is a rabbit there trying to hide from a distance. So
a quantitative difference in senses produces a qualitative difference
in knowledge, attitude and behaviour. It doesn't seem ridiculous to
me to say that in some sense he lives in a different world to mine.
Also we filter our sense impressions, part of raising children teaches
them to see the world the 'proper' way, that is the way we do.
Training can change the filter, those with training that leads in a
particular direction can see things that the untrained person cannot
see even when it is pointed out. We can say that (excluding faulty
eyesight) that our eyes collect the same image of our world but that
the training makes our brains interpret that image differently. The
outcome is the same as if our eyes were physically quite different.
Does this mean that the world depends on our experience?
David
Ray Martinez
[snip....]
>
> That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
> skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
> cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
> that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
> question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
> when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
> empiricist notion of "to know".
In your final paragraph (above) you sound like Ayn Rand (whom you
despise).
Ray
Bill
<snip>
>
> > The article is well written and thought provoking. Furthermore its
> > written with a clarity that is often not seen in academia.
>
> Thank you Tony. I am not often accused of committing clarity.
And Tony's not often guilty of being correct.
>
<snip>
Mitchell Coffey
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
Lorraine is impressed; nothing impresses me anymore.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Or the centerfold.
Mitchell Coffey
John S. Wilkins
> On 05/24/2011 06:01 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On May 24, 10:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Well, their blog, at any rate:
> >>
> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> >> on-sense-2011-05-24
> >
> > A Kantian construct once bit me in the behind. Just saying....
> >
> Popper's Kantian-based evolutionary epistemology saved the day!
ITYM Lorenz' K-b e e... Popper was a dilettante.
John S. Wilkins
I have an answer for that, too:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/12/what-it-is-like-to-be-a-digital-came
ra/
John S. Wilkins
*I* am impressed! I grew up on Scientific American! [The paper is really
quite nutritious if you boil it with greens.]
*Hemidactylus*
My dog has excellent vision...at least better than mine. When she was a
mere puppy she knew exactly where every squirrel was located within at
least a 50 yard radius. When she saw cats she would go to crawl on belly
stalk status. I had no clue why she was doing this until I saw some
tabby peeking around the wheel well of a car way down the road. Her
hearing is definitely better than mine and I'm not going to even joke
around that my nose can hold a candle to hers, but I think her vision is
pretty damn good. Could it be that all dogs have good eyesight, but the
really intelligent ones can actually process the input? Or do different
breeds have variation in eyesight capability? And don't even pretend you
can see better in the dark than the average dog.
I just feel after walking with my dog that she's far more cognizant of
our surroundings vis a vis smell, sound, and vision than I am,
especially at night. Too bad she can't communicate with me. I often tell
her that dogs can't read and never built anything like humans have and
lack an opposable thumb. She does watch TV and loves cat meowing videos
on Youtube.
Nashton
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
I recall having mentioned a treatise of this a while back. I don't
recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
"Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were one of the
people that actually rejected this notion off hand and now you're
writing a blog about it?
Hmmm.
John S. Wilkins
You'd need a hexafold to deal with that! [Interpret that how you like!]
John S. Wilkins
I reiterate about Rand what I usually say about Marx: Just because she
says it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong.
John S. Wilkins
No, I do not think I would have rejected that out of hand. Perhaps you
can show that I did. I would, however, have made roughly this argument
(it's been around for a long like, you know).
And I answer that question both in the blog post and in the papers it is
a report of: yes. Monkey brains are actually pretty good at getting at
the truth of what monkeys deal with. They are *horrible* at getting at
the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life, and on that
subject we should disbelieve them.
*Hemidactylus*
Really? How so? I really don't see Wilkins converging upon Rand in the
above. I think you are merely conflating him with an avowed atheist and
teabag heroine philosopher to disparage him without reason. Wilkins
thinks things through with far more careful diligence to nuance than
Rand or her lapdog followers could ever muster on their best days.
Wilkins sounds nothing like Rand, who i loved by teabaggers who are told
to read her and uphold her without realizing she had no truck with
religious nutters like them. I love the irony. Believe me I do!
As a personal aside...I watched the first part of Atlas Shrugged and
thought it pretty well done. I found it sickening that at least one of
the movies advertized before AS started had spiritual undertones. The
demographic this Randroid movie pulled into the theater would likely
have been targeted (ie- dumbass Glenn Beck followers). Ayn Rand would
have f'in rolled over in her grave to have seen a crap spiritual movie
like that (whatever the hell it was called) as a lead in to her
masterpiece! Teabaggers are stupid and gullible and unaware of Rand's
nuances.
*Hemidactylus*
No definitely not. Pervert!
*Hemidactylus*
> Ray Martinez<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 24, 6:04 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> [snip....]
>>
>>>
>>> That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
>>> skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
>>> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
>>> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
>>> directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
>>> cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
>>> that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
>>> question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
>>> when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
>>> empiricist notion of "to know".
>>
>> In your final paragraph (above) you sound like Ayn Rand (whom you
>> despise).
>>
> I reiterate about Rand what I usually say about Marx: Just because she
> says it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong.
>
*Hemidactylus*
> Mitchell Coffey<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2011 5:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>>
>>
>> Lorraine is impressed; nothing impresses me anymore.
>>
> *I* am impressed! I grew up on Scientific American! [The paper is really
> quite nutritious if you boil it with greens.]
Does it hold its flavour if you add hot sauce and vinegar? I'm a fan of
collards with fatback or neck bone.
Nashton
Actually, it was around the time that I posted this here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2eab95a2cc135ea1
I was inspired by a few papers I had read a few days earlier.
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apologetics/darwins-doubt-from-a-monkeys-mind
Is that you, "John?"
;)
Nashton
> Nashton<na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/11 6:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>>
>>
>> I recall having mentioned a treatise of this a while back. I don't
>> recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
>>
>> "Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
>>
>> I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were one of the
>> people that actually rejected this notion off hand and now you're
>> writing a blog about it?
>>
>> Hmmm.
>
> No, I do not think I would have rejected that out of hand. Perhaps you
> can show that I did. I would, however, have made roughly this argument
> (it's been around for a long like, you know).
>
> And I answer that question both in the blog post and in the papers it is
> a report of: yes. Monkey brains are actually pretty good at getting at
> the truth of what monkeys deal with. They are *horrible* at getting at
> the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life, and on that
> subject we should disbelieve them.
I was wrong, it was Harshman.
I tried to locate the paper that I had found quite interesting at the
time. It was lengthy and very elaborate and was written by a woman. I
will try to dig it up but so far I have had no luck.
*Hemidactylus*
[snip for brevity and the limited capacity of Ray Martinez's
comprehensive faculties]
> But whether
> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> directly or via our assays and instruments.
>
Ray, please tell me how Rand would agree with Wilkins' assertion above,
given the words phenomena and apparent make him into a evil debased
Kantian. Rand hated Kant.
Mitchell Coffey
> Nashton<na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/11 6:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>>
>>
>> I recall having mentioned a treatise of this a while back. I don't
>> recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
>>
>> "Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
>>
>> I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were one of the
>> people that actually rejected this notion off hand and now you're
>> writing a blog about it?
>>
>> Hmmm.
>
> No, I do not think I would have rejected that out of hand. Perhaps you
> can show that I did. I would, however, have made roughly this argument
> (it's been around for a long like, you know).
>
> And I answer that question both in the blog post and in the papers it is
> a report of: yes. Monkey brains are actually pretty good at getting at
> the truth of what monkeys deal with. They are *horrible* at getting at
> the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life, and on that
> subject we should disbelieve them.
My guess, from observation, is that monkeys do passibly well at getting
at the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life. Its only apes
that start getting it horribly wrong.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Rand had nuances?
Mitchell Coffey
Michael Siemon
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 10:27 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
...
> > And I answer that question both in the blog post and in the papers it is
> > a report of: yes. Monkey brains are actually pretty good at getting at
> > the truth of what monkeys deal with. They are *horrible* at getting at
> > the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life, and on that
> > subject we should disbelieve them.
>
> My guess, from observation, is that monkeys do passibly well at getting
> at the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life. Its only apes
> that start getting it horribly wrong.
Ah; evolutionary involution, perhaps... :-)
David Hare-Scott
Not wishing to be rude but could it be that is because you are short
sighted?
When she was a
>mere puppy she knew exactly where every squirrel was located within at
>least a 50 yard radius. When she saw cats she would go to crawl on belly
>stalk status. I had no clue why she was doing this until I saw some
>tabby peeking around the wheel well of a car way down the road. Her
>hearing is definitely better than mine and I'm not going to even joke
>around that my nose can hold a candle to hers, but I think her vision is
>pretty damn good. Could it be that all dogs have good eyesight, but the
>really intelligent ones can actually process the input? Or do different
>breeds have variation in eyesight capability? And don't even pretend you
>can see better in the dark than the average dog.
Dogs are dichromats and typically detect motion better than they see
central detail. Different breeds do have different seeing ability and
as far as I can tell it is not related to what we call intelligence,
ie the ability to understand the environment and learn quickly. The
one that couldn't see the frozen bunny was extremely smart coming from
a line of working dogs. If the bunny held still it blended into the
background, if it lost its nerve and moved it was dead.
But we are digressing.
D
John S. Wilkins
I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
named John. It's not me. But Griffiths and I are responding to
Plantinga's argument.
Glenn
> Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > On 5/24/11 11:21 PM, Nashton wrote:
> > > On 5/24/11 6:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > >> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> > >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> > >> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> > > I recall having mentioned a treatise of this a while back. I don't
> > > recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
>
> > > "Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
>
> > > I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were one of the
> > > people that actually rejected this notion off hand and now you're
> > > writing a blog about it?
>
> > > Hmmm.
>
> > Actually, it was around the time that I posted this here:
>
> > c135ea1
>
> > I was inspired by a few papers I had read a few days earlier.
>
> > mind
>
> > Is that you, "John?"
>
> > ;)
>
> I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
> named John.
Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
Australia.
Are there no Johns in Sydney?
John S. Wilkins
Glenn
John S. Wilkins
> On May 25, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On May 24, 11:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/11 11:21 PM, Nashton wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/24/11 6:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > >> Well, their blog, at any rate:
> >
> > > > > >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution
> > > > > >>-of-common-sense-2011-05-24
> >
> > > > > > I recall having mentioned a treatise of this a while back. I don't
> > > > > > recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
> >
> > > > > > "Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
> >
> > > > > > I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were
> > > > > > one of the people that actually rejected this notion off hand
> > > > > > and now you're writing a blog about it?
> >
> > > > > > Hmmm.
> >
> > > > > Actually, it was around the time that I posted this here:
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2e
> > > > >ab... c135ea1
> >
> > > > > I was inspired by a few papers I had read a few days earlier.
> >
> > > > >http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apologetics/darwins-doubt-from-a-m
> > > > >on... mind
> >
> > > > > Is that you, "John?"
> >
> > > > > ;)
> >
> > > > I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
> > > > named John.
> >
> > > Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
> > > state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
> > > after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
> > > Australia.
> >
> > > Are there no Johns in Sydney?
> >
> > Yes. They all moved here from Melbourne.
> >
> Wouldn't that have been a little too obvious?
The name is John, and you are asking about "obvious"? We couldn't be
more obvious unless our last names were all "Smith".
Glenn
Isn't that why Johns don't use their real names?
John S. Wilkins
> On May 25, 1:00 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On May 25, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 24, 11:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> > > > > > I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
> > > > > > named John.
> >
> > > > > Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
> > > > > state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
> > > > > after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
> > > > > Australia.
> >
> > > > > Are there no Johns in Sydney?
> >
> > > > Yes. They all moved here from Melbourne.
> >
> > > Wouldn't that have been a little too obvious?
> >
> > The name is John, and you are asking about "obvious"? We couldn't be
> > more obvious unless our last names were all "Smith".
> > --
>
> Isn't that why Johns don't use their real names?
I've never heard that one before. Ha. Ha. That is very funny. Did you
think it up yourself.
Glenn
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On May 25, 1:00 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 25, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 24, 11:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> ...
> > > > > > > I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
> > > > > > > named John.
>
> > > > > > Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
> > > > > > state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
> > > > > > after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
> > > > > > Australia.
>
> > > > > > Are there no Johns in Sydney?
>
> > > > > Yes. They all moved here from Melbourne.
>
> > > > Wouldn't that have been a little too obvious?
>
> > > The name is John, and you are asking about "obvious"? We couldn't be
> > > more obvious unless our last names were all "Smith".
> > > --
>
> > Isn't that why Johns don't use their real names?
>
> I've never heard that one before. Ha. Ha. That is very funny. Did you
> think it up yourself.
> --
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/24/2011 08:28 PM, r norman wrote:
>> > On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> > Wilkins) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>> >> on-sense-2011-05-24
>> >
>> > A nice piece.
>> >
>> > That science is the enemy of common sense is obvious when you hear,
>> > first, that physicists claim that they and only they have the keys to
>> > everything real in the universe and, second, that they explain it in
>> > terms of quantum mechanics general relativity.
>> >
>> > About the umwelt. It is "known" that animals with strange (to us)
>> > senses experience a very different umwelt from our own. But what
>> > about all those blind men with the elephant? They all had their own
>> > umwelts which they used to explain their own environments very
>> > differently but the fact was they all shared the same "real"
>> > environment. Is there a "true" and "real" objective universe we
>> > inhabit independent of our umwelt? Isn't that what science is
>> > supposed to be about.
>> >
>> > And then what about our innenwelt? What is the objective reality
>> > behind that??
>> >
>> What umwelt would a self-aware computer (or tablet or smartphone)
>> experience? When the singularity dawns we will deal with the after*math* ;-)
>
>I have an answer for that, too:
>
>http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/12/what-it-is-like-to-be-a-digital-came
>ra/
I notice that the illustration there is not actually of your own
living room. I might guess that the emotional impact on the camera's
delicate sensibilities of that rather different qualia might be rather
devastating!
Walter Bushell
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Before she called in the exterminators, yes.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ray isn't keen on the genetic fallacy.
Not to confused with genetic phallacy.
Perseus
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
that is very a good article.
Perseus
John S. Wilkins
> On May 24, 10:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Well, their blog, at any rate:
> >
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> > on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> that is very a good article.
> Perseus
Thank you.
Mitchell Coffey
> Glenn<GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 25, 1:00 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>> Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 25, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>> Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 24, 11:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> ...
>>>>>>> I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
>>>>>>> named John.
>>>
>>>>>> Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
>>>>>> state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
>>>>>> after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
>>>>>> Australia.
>>>
>>>>>> Are there no Johns in Sydney?
>>>
>>>>> Yes. They all moved here from Melbourne.
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that have been a little too obvious?
>>>
>>> The name is John, and you are asking about "obvious"? We couldn't be
>>> more obvious unless our last names were all "Smith".
>>> --
>>
>> Isn't that why Johns don't use their real names?
>
> I've never heard that one before. Ha. Ha. That is very funny. Did you
> think it up yourself.
It's plenty more clever than where I'd thought "Are there no Johns in
Sydney" was going.
Mitchell
r norman
That would probably be "Are there no Lous in Sydney?"
jillery
wrote:
Did what you were thinking have anything to do with which way they
flushed?
Mitchell Coffey
> In article<iri2r8$prn$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2011 10:27 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> ...
>>> And I answer that question both in the blog post and in the papers it is
>>> a report of: yes. Monkey brains are actually pretty good at getting at
>>> the truth of what monkeys deal with. They are *horrible* at getting at
>>> the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life, and on that
>>> subject we should disbelieve them.
>>
>> at the truth of Gods, purpose and cosmic meaning of life. Its only apes
>> that start getting it horribly wrong.
>
> Ah; evolutionary involution, perhaps... :-)
>
Just so. I reckon we careened off the right philosophical path when we
started going about as more than one cell. Some, even more conservative
than myself, point to the warm pool somewhere and curse the sunlight
that warmed it.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Speaking of languages related to English - like Frisian and Australian -
maybe John can explain to why Julian Assange, though born in Oz, sounds
like a European who began learning English in his late-teens?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
I wasn't thinking too specifically, only around a general lack of
sanitation.
Mitchell
*Hemidactylus*
Yes. Very much so when compared to the ignorant Beckian teabaggers who
blindly put her forward as one of their own. How many people have
grabbed a copy of Atlas Shrugged in the past several years, only to give
up in exasperation?
This WSJ link might get paywalled but the author has it right:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256782014528702.html
Quoting Luskin on key nuances:
1. "Rand was a devout atheist, which set her against the [conservative]
movement's Christian bent"
2. "Rand was strongly pro-choice, speaking out for abortion rights even
before Roe v. Wade"
3. "She was an early opponent of the Vietnam war, once saying, "I am
against the war in Vietnam and have been for years. . . . In my view we
should fight fascism and communism when they come to this country.""
If the average teabagger were to meet someone like Ayn Rand on the
street and just take her stances on atheism, abortion, and Vietnam and
couple them with her thick Russian accent, they'd be telling her to go
to hell with the rest of the commies and/or waterboarding her.
Will in New Haven
There are several right at the airport. After THAT flight it is
important to find one fast.
--
Will in New Haven
Paul J Gans
>On 5/24/2011 5:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>
>Lorraine is impressed; nothing impresses me anymore.
Too old for the navy?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> On 5/24/2011 5:45 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> > Well, their blog, at any rate:
>> >
>> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>> > on-sense-2011-05-24
>> >
>>
>> Lorraine is impressed; nothing impresses me anymore.
>>
>*I* am impressed! I grew up on Scientific American! [The paper is really
>quite nutritious if you boil it with greens.]
I also grew up on the Scientific American. The downside is the
50 Years Ago column. I often remember reading those stories... ;-(
Paul J Gans
>My dog has excellent vision...at least better than mine. When she was a
>mere puppy she knew exactly where every squirrel was located within at
>least a 50 yard radius. When she saw cats she would go to crawl on belly
>stalk status. I had no clue why she was doing this until I saw some
>tabby peeking around the wheel well of a car way down the road. Her
>hearing is definitely better than mine and I'm not going to even joke
>around that my nose can hold a candle to hers, but I think her vision is
>pretty damn good. Could it be that all dogs have good eyesight, but the
>really intelligent ones can actually process the input? Or do different
>breeds have variation in eyesight capability? And don't even pretend you
>can see better in the dark than the average dog.
>I just feel after walking with my dog that she's far more cognizant of
>our surroundings vis a vis smell, sound, and vision than I am,
>especially at night. Too bad she can't communicate with me. I often tell
>her that dogs can't read and never built anything like humans have and
>lack an opposable thumb. She does watch TV and loves cat meowing videos
>on Youtube.
My daughter the experimental psychologist tells me that dogs, for
whatever reason, trust their noses over everything. They then use
vision for reinforcement. We'd do the opposite. There are theories
as to why, but nobody really knows.
And that's why dogs love riding in a car with their noses out the
window. SMELLOVISION! It is a joyous experience for them.
Paul J Gans
>Rand had nuances?
Don't forget that she was Russian. And so were her nuances.
Paul J Gans
>In article <bKCdnQ21m5gF8UHQ...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray isn't keen on the genetic fallacy.
>Not to confused with genetic phallacy.
Is that curable?
Paul J Gans
Even Olivia Newton-John, who was born in Cambridge, England
and was moved to Australia as a child. To Melbourne, of
course.
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 6:04 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > [snip....]
>
> > > That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
> > > skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
> > > we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> > > We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> > > directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
> > > cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
> > > that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
> > > question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
> > > when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
> > > empiricist notion of "to know".
>
> > In your final paragraph (above) you sound like Ayn Rand (whom you
> > despise).
>
> says it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong.
>
True for just about anyone.
But in the paragraph at issue you:
1. advocate Realism
2. denounce Skepticism
3. affirm the existence of Knowledge
4. oppose Kant (by implication)
While these observations, concerning your thought, are derived from
one paragraph, each component is there. Rand would be proud.
Rand was a bonafide genius. In fact, I am going to use her philosophy
to refute Darwinism.
Ray
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walter Bushell
Ray Martinez
> On 05/24/2011 09:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 6:04 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > [snip....]
>
> >> That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
> >> skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
> >> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> >> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> >> directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
> >> cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
> >> that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
> >> question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
> >> when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
> >> empiricist notion of "to know".
>
> > In your final paragraph (above) you sound like Ayn Rand (whom you
> > despise).
>
> above. I think you are merely conflating him with an avowed atheist and
> teabag heroine philosopher to disparage him without reason. Wilkins
> thinks things through with far more careful diligence to nuance than
> Rand or her lapdog followers could ever muster on their best days.
> Wilkins sounds nothing like Rand, who i loved by teabaggers who are told
> to read her and uphold her without realizing she had no truck with
> religious nutters like them. I love the irony. Believe me I do!
>
Comparing Wilkins to Rand (loosely) is not an insult----quite the
contrary, however. Since Wilkins has no love for Any Rand, but enmity,
and since his thought is Randian, she is hated without just cause.
I am a fanatical disciple of Ayn Rand. She (along with two others) was
the most brilliant scholar of the 20th century.
> As a personal aside...I watched the first part of Atlas Shrugged and
> thought it pretty well done. I found it sickening that at least one of
> the movies advertized before AS started had spiritual undertones. The
> demographic this Randroid movie pulled into the theater would likely
> have been targeted (ie- dumbass Glenn Beck followers). Ayn Rand would
> have f'in rolled over in her grave to have seen a crap spiritual movie
> like that (whatever the hell it was called) as a lead in to her
> masterpiece! Teabaggers are stupid and gullible and unaware of Rand's
> nuances.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rand was not one of the most brilliant scholars of the 20th century
because of "Atlas Shrugged" (a novel), but because of her
accomplishments in Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy (Objectivism).
Ray
Richard Harter
No, it's in the jeans.
Ray Martinez
> On 05/24/2011 10:21 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 24, 6:04 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> [snip....]
>
> >>> That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
> >>> skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
> >>> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> >>> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> >>> directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
> >>> cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
> >>> that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
> >>> question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
> >>> when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
> >>> empiricist notion of "to know".
>
> >> In your final paragraph (above) you sound like Ayn Rand (whom you
> >> despise).
>
> > says it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right.
The claim of the genetic fallacy is fallacious. It assumes and asserts
that the most basic fact concerning opinion (the bias of the author)
does not exist.
Ray
Mitchell Coffey
I understand the generic phallacy comes in only one size.
Mitchell Coffey
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
You could not be anymore wrong.
Ray
J. J. Lodder
> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> on-sense-2011-05-24
> Arthur Stanley Eddington was an interesting fellow. The English
> astrophysicist who photographed the solar eclipse that validated
> Einstein's theory of general relativity was also a Quaker, a pacifist, and
> a clever popular writer.
So falsificationism is out, as is verificationism.
And validationism hasn't been invented yet.
Isn't there an opening for you there?
Jan
*Hemidactylus*
broke down to the same old classical liberalism of a bygone era.
*Hemidactylus*
Rand wasn't Russian? Please do give details on this one. I'll go pop
some microwave popcorn and try not to shoot soda through my nose.
*Hemidactylus*
How do you deal with the blatant atheism (=dislike for religious BS).
And I thought you were a fan of Obama.
>> As a personal aside...I watched the first part of Atlas Shrugged and
>> thought it pretty well done. I found it sickening that at least one of
>> the movies advertized before AS started had spiritual undertones. The
>> demographic this Randroid movie pulled into the theater would likely
>> have been targeted (ie- dumbass Glenn Beck followers). Ayn Rand would
>> have f'in rolled over in her grave to have seen a crap spiritual movie
>> like that (whatever the hell it was called) as a lead in to her
>> masterpiece! Teabaggers are stupid and gullible and unaware of Rand's
>> nuances.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Rand was not one of the most brilliant scholars of the 20th century
> because of "Atlas Shrugged" (a novel), but because of her
> accomplishments in Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy (Objectivism).
Cardboard cutouts devoid of the necessary efforts put into objectivism
like Karl Popper (= real philosopher). She was interesting in her views,
but hardly stellar as far as epistemology goes.
DanaTweedy
>>
>>> Rand had nuances?
>>
>> Don't forget that she was Russian. And so were her nuances.
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You could not be anymore wrong.
Ray, according to the Ayn Rand Institute, Rand was born in St.
Petersburg, Russia. This would appear to be another area you are
ignorant about.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
Ayn wept.
I mean, seriously? That's gotta be one of the most bizarre assertions
I've seen you make in a very long time. You're kidding right?
You oughta take your dog and pony show over to
humanities.philosophy.objectivism and see how long you last. They'd make
mince meat out of you.
I doubt Second Renaissance would be carrying your book when it's
published. Leonard Peikoff might bitch slap you for misusing Rand's work
to bolster creationism and a belief in God.
I'm at a loss. Wilkins is no Rand, to his credit. You are no Rand, to
her credit. I'm not a fan of Rand, but I cringe at the thought of how
you could possibly combine her epistemology with a creationist
manifesto. Syncretism at its worst.
John Stockwell
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > >Well, their blog, at any rate:
>
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
> > >on-sense-2011-05-24
>
> > written with a clarity that is often not seen in academia.
>
> Thank you Tony. I am not often accused of committing clarity.
>
>
>
> > In any event, my opinion is that the article is a novel beginning of
> > a fresh look at scientific inductivism. Wilkins begins by wondering
> > out loud if scientific inductivism is a process that has evolved from
> > our instinctive skill for drawing generalizations which man uses as a
> > basis for action (survival judgements for example). Some of the
> > criteria for evaluating that instinctive process----rationality of
> > belief, reliability, certitude----are pressed into service.
>
> I do defend inductivism and ampliative reasoning in science.
>
>
>
> > The question is whether or how rationality of belief (or any measures
> > of belief for that matter) are truth tracking. Bayesianism, for
> > example, tracks belief given evidence. Consensus is belief tracking.
>
> Yes, but is it truth tracking? The problem with Bayesian accounts is
> that it presupposes that we already have some certainty or warrant in
> our priors, but given the uncertainty of the belief being assessed now,
> those priors themselves were once (or still are) uncertain, and so we
> pile uncertainty on uncertainty. Bayes works if we have solid priors.
Even more fundamental, Baysian approaches operate on the notion a
model based on probabilities is useful.
>
> > While the objective truth is independent of individual and collective
> > beliefs possibly some new insight into our changing beliefs could help
> > us "track the truth." Some new insight which might point us in the
> > right direction. To point us in the direction of the unchanging
> > objective truth is to point us away from falsity. So "tracking the
> > truth" has the sound of a novel approach that might prove fruitful. It
> > sounds different from past attempts at measuring "closeness to the
> > truth" which have largely failed.
>
> Verisimilitude is based on a linguistic and syntactic notion of truth; I
> am an unregenerate pragmatist, and so I think truth just *is* a
> correlation between the doxastic attitudes of the cogniser and their
> eventual success.
The issue is not to find "truth" but to find the direction to the
truth. or the directions away
from falsehood. The pragmatist chooses those things that work as lying
in the direction of truth,
and of things that do not work as being in the direction away from
truth. A dogmatist like
Pagano already has his dogma, and so he wants to pull everything in
the direction of the dogma,
whether it wants to go or not.
>
>
>
> > However I'm not quite sure that Wilkins is interested in the
> > unchanging objective truth and he gives hints that he might not hold
> > realism. For if he is not interesting in "objective" truth then there
> > is no light at the end of the tunnel, no final goal. The "track to
> > the truth" becomes little more than an unending belief tracking. If
> > the objective truth is what we seek than nothing short of that will
> > do. Tracking is only useful if the end point is fixed.
>
> That there *is* a real world is uncontroversial for me. I leave full
> skepticism to those who think it is a worthwhile approach. But whether
> we *know* or *can* know there structure of that world is open to debate.
> We have nothing more than the phenomena that are apparent to us, either
> directly or via our assays and instruments. We infer the rest. You
> cannot insist that the world is X ahead of time, as you need to discover
> that, not specify it, in order to say that you know it. To do so is
> question begging and very often, in science, results in knowledge claims
> when hypothesis and speculation are what is believed. I have a rather
> empiricist notion of "to know".
The question is what sort of truth do you want? if you want pragmatic
lists of
recipes of what works and what does not work, then that is one level
of knowledge. If you
want to have theoretical understanding, then you are looking for a
model that effectively predicts
the behavior of the world to some precision, then in this case you are
substituting an epistemological
structure for an ontology.
Or do you want to be Pagano, and believe that you have the Truth in
your hand in the form of the
Bible, and then try to shoehorn the universe into that little ill-
fitting box of dogma?
-John
*Hemidactylus*
right, based on the True Scotsman.
Thus...Rand's birth certificate was fabricated. She was born in Austria,
the illegitimate daughter of Ludwig von Mises. The Russian birth
fabrication was a cold war ploy to dis the Soviets. It helped topple the
Berlin Wall along with the brave words of Ronald Reagan.
*Hemidactylus*
> On May 24, 11:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 5/24/11 11:21 PM, Nashton wrote:
>>>>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>>>>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>
>>>> recall the author of the paper, but her argument was essentially:
>>
>>>> "Would you trust a monkey to come up with the truth?"
>>
>>>> I was, of course, lambasted by the regulars. I think you were one of the
>>>> people that actually rejected this notion off hand and now you're
>>>> writing a blog about it?
>>
>>>> Hmmm.
>>
>>> Actually, it was around the time that I posted this here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2eab...
>>> c135ea1
>>
>>> I was inspired by a few papers I had read a few days earlier.
>>
>>> http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apologetics/darwins-doubt-from-a-mon...
>>> mind
>>
>>> Is that you, "John?"
>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> I am from Melbourne, but then so are roughly 75% of all Australians
>> named John.
>
> Wiki says "Melbourne is the capital and most populous city in the
> state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
> after Sydney". About 4 mil population in Melbourne, 22 mil in
> Australia.
>
> Are there no Johns in Sydney?
Yes but they all flush in another direction than those in our
hemisphere. If not, then Paganocentrism is the correct view of the universe.
*Hemidactylus*
badly in Sydney.
Burkhard
Nonsense! She was _obviously_ intelligently created in the great
pyramid of Gizeh, and later found by Gene Scott during one of his
scientific expedition to locate the lost continent of Atlantis. It is
all described in the bible. OK, not my bible, or yours. only Ray's,
but hey!
Randy C
> > You could not be anymore wrong.
> Ray, according to the Ayn Rand Institute, Rand was born in St.
> Petersburg, Russia. This would appear to be another area you are
> ignorant about.
>
> DJT
Aha! I see that you've fallen into the clever trap that Ray Martinez
set for you. Allow me to interpret Ray's words using the same
techniques that Biblical literalists use when interpreting the Bible.
When Ray says "You could not be anymore wrong" note that "any" and
"more" are a single word. If you check any dictionary you will see
that "anymore" as a single word is defined as "any longer".
In other words, you can interpret Ray's sentence as making a prophecy
that the person that he is responding to will not be wrong "any
longer". So Ray is saying that the person is correct NOW and will not
make any mistakes in the future either.
If Ray had said "You couldn't be any more wrong" where "any" and
"more" are two separate words, then Ray would be saying that there is
nothing that the person could say that would be wronger than what they
are saying here. But since he used a single word, we can interpret
his sentence completely differently.
Or...
We can simply believe that Ray made a mistake when he wrote that
sentence...
So, as is the case with much of the Bible, you can get contradictory
messages from Ray's sentence, depending on how you interpret it.
T Pagano
Wilkins) wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Well, their blog, at any rate:
>> >
>> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>> >on-sense-2011-05-24
>>
>> The article is well written and thought provoking. Furthermore its
>> written with a clarity that is often not seen in academia.
>
>Thank you Tony. I am not often accused of committing clarity.
>>
>> In any event, my opinion is that the article is a novel beginning of
>> a fresh look at scientific inductivism. Wilkins begins by wondering
>> out loud if scientific inductivism is a process that has evolved from
>> our instinctive skill for drawing generalizations which man uses as a
>> basis for action (survival judgements for example). Some of the
>> criteria for evaluating that instinctive process----rationality of
>> belief, reliability, certitude----are pressed into service.
>
>I do defend inductivism and ampliative reasoning in science.
>>
>> The question is whether or how rationality of belief (or any measures
>> of belief for that matter) are truth tracking. Bayesianism, for
>> example, tracks belief given evidence. Consensus is belief tracking.
>
>Yes, but is it truth tracking? The problem with Bayesian accounts is
>that it presupposes that we already have some certainty or warrant in
>our priors, but given the uncertainty of the belief being assessed now,
>those priors themselves were once (or still are) uncertain, and so we
>pile uncertainty on uncertainty. Bayes works if we have solid priors.
Some final thoughts:
Wilkins hypothesizes but does not establish that belief tracking is at
the same time truth tracking. He makes clear (and I agree) that
beliefs (and belief tracking) can be a rational basis for action. But
I can't see how "basis for action" connects or "tracks" from beliefs
to objective truth. The connection may have been in the piece; I just
couldn't make it out.
Also if Wilkins could show that belief tracking bypasses the Problem
of Induction then this would also be significant, but he does not.
Increasing levels of corroborative evidence does not increase the
probability that our theories are objectively true. Increasing levels
of corroborative evidence might form the rational basis for action but
they don't confer certitude upon our beliefs.
>
>> While the objective truth is independent of individual and collective
>> beliefs possibly some new insight into our changing beliefs could help
>> us "track the truth." Some new insight which might point us in the
>> right direction. To point us in the direction of the unchanging
>> objective truth is to point us away from falsity. So "tracking the
>> truth" has the sound of a novel approach that might prove fruitful. It
>> sounds different from past attempts at measuring "closeness to the
>> truth" which have largely failed.
>
>Verisimilitude is based on a linguistic and syntactic notion of truth; I
>am an unregenerate pragmatist, and so I think truth just *is* a
>correlation between the doxastic attitudes of the cogniser and their
>eventual success.
Unfortunately every false universal theory (whose content is not
trivial) entails a large set of true consequence. As such success may
be had by all false theories, even though they are all nonetheless
false. While we may exploit some set of corroborative evidence in a
universal theory this also doesn't imply that the universal theory is
true.
Regards,
T Pagano
*Hemidactylus*
Unfortunately we can only rely upon the word of off the chain X-addicted
nymphomaniacs as to what to think of it:
Paul J Gans
I've been out groaned again! ;-(
Paul J Gans
Which isn't as big as advertised.
William Morse
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/24/2011 08:28 PM, r norman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, their blog, at any rate:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-comm
>>>> on-sense-2011-05-24
>>>
>>>
>>> That science is the enemy of common sense is obvious when you hear,
>>> first, that physicists claim that they and only they have the keys to
>>> everything real in the universe and, second, that they explain it in
>>> terms of quantum mechanics general relativity.
>>>
>>> About the umwelt. It is "known" that animals with strange (to us)
>>> senses experience a very different umwelt from our own. But what
>>> about all those blind men with the elephant? They all had their own
>>> umwelts which they used to explain their own environments very
>>> differently but the fact was they all shared the same "real"
>>> environment. Is there a "true" and "real" objective universe we
>>> inhabit independent of our umwelt? Isn't that what science is
>>> supposed to be about.
>>>
>>> And then what about our innenwelt? What is the objective reality
>>> behind that??
>>>
>> What umwelt would a self-aware computer (or tablet or smartphone)
>> experience? When the singularity dawns we will deal with the after*math* ;-)
>
> I have an answer for that, too:
>
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/12/what-it-is-like-to-be-a-digital-came
> ra/
While I dislike qualia as much as you, I have to note Hofstadter's
question of what happens when the picture from the camera is sent to a
video screen that is in the camera's field of view? We now have an
infinite regress, and will need a filter in order to interpret what we
see. (This is of course a simplification of the real argument for
filters, based on our inability to process all the information our
senses are capable of providing). Without consciousness we would
experience information overload and be unable to respond to
environmental inputs.
Bill
John S. Wilkins
Consciousness remains here an undefined and ill-confined term. If you
mean to say there are governor systems, re-entrant loops (a term of
Edelman's), and filters, sure. None of this involves an Innenwelt that
is qualitatively distinct from ordinary processes of physical
transmission and processing of signals. Bugs, bats and businessmen all
experience things; they just do nothing that isn't physical.
*Hemidactylus*
payback for Ray's past treatment of Louann Miller and Stephen Hawking at
least. I think it should become a talk.origins theme song when Ray
travels down those sadly well worn roads again and played at his book
signing parties.
I could have gotten worse. The song I chose was a generic danceable
reggaeton ripoff of the 2LiveCrew original protest song of former
Florida governor Bob Martinez. If you pull those old crusty 2Live videos
on Youtube I wasn't going there as they were way too personal, but you
had to be there like I was at the time. The generic reggaeton danceable
applies in Ray's case and should become a t.o theme and a required song
at future howlerfests. When F*** Martinez starts everyone must dance!
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please....
You need to read more carefully. My comment was directed at the last
sentence----"And so were her nuances."
Rand was very critical of her native land.
Ray
Glenn
You mean they all flush with their backs to the head?
Ray Martinez
As a source her Atheism only helps my cause and case. No one can say
"he used a Christian source." Her philosophy is ROCK SOLID. Her
political and social views are irrelevant.
> And I thought you were a fan of Obama.
>
I support Obama. I am Democrat.
> >> As a personal aside...I watched the first part of Atlas Shrugged and
> >> thought it pretty well done. I found it sickening that at least one of
> >> the movies advertized before AS started had spiritual undertones. The
> >> demographic this Randroid movie pulled into the theater would likely
> >> have been targeted (ie- dumbass Glenn Beck followers). Ayn Rand would
> >> have f'in rolled over in her grave to have seen a crap spiritual movie
> >> like that (whatever the hell it was called) as a lead in to her
> >> masterpiece! Teabaggers are stupid and gullible and unaware of Rand's
> >> nuances.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Rand was not one of the most brilliant scholars of the 20th century
> > because of "Atlas Shrugged" (a novel), but because of her
> > accomplishments in Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy (Objectivism).
>
> Cardboard cutouts devoid of the necessary efforts put into objectivism
> like Karl Popper (= real philosopher). She was interesting in her views,
> but hardly stellar as far as epistemology goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You could not be anymore wrong. ALL of my posts/arguments are based on
the philosophy and epistemology of Ayn Rand.
There are three and only three names in philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas
and Rand.
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Those who buy her silly claims have stone for brains.
...
Ray Martinez
But as I have observed, when the cards are on the table, Wilkins is a
Realist, believes knowledge exists, and can be discovered. Rand is
famous for taking modern philosophy to task for their absurd position
that nothing can be known. The position is always accompanied with a
semi-visible asterisk, exempting Darwinism. Wilkins probably exists
within the asterisk. But like most intellectuals he is ready, willing
and able to genuflect at the shrine of modern philosophy when needed.
Dawkins, either in "Delusion" or "Greatest Show" (I forget which at
the moment) genuflected, then proceeded to exempt Darwinism and argue
that evolution is known, in the Realist sense, to be true.
Ray
> You are no Rand, to
> her credit. I'm not a fan of Rand, but I cringe at the thought of how
> you could possibly combine her epistemology with a creationist
> manifesto. Syncretism at its worst.- Hide quoted text -
*Hemidactylus*
spiralling towards it asymptotically. We converge upon truths on our
best days, but cannot know that we've arrived. Thus knowledge is tentative.
Our perception of reality is created for us by processes within our
brain. This is run of the mill Kantianism, which Rand rejected out of
hand because Kant was the root of all evil. Rand contributed zilch
(=zero) to epistemology or to cognitive science. Daniel Dennett is a
real philosopher. Rand was not and her disciples are intellectually
vacuous poseurs.
Evolution is not exempted from scrutiny. It is the best choice for
explaining the diversity of life we see before us, given the mountains
of evidence in its favor. Creation has no evidence, thus it is rejected.
Darwinism is a limited view of evolution that has been found wanting on
many counts. There is genetic drift. There are nonaptive aspects of
human behavior. Evolution does not necessarily proceed in a gradualistic
manner. Etc. Evolutionary explanations are tentative.
Neither you nor your Randroid friends understand this.
Wilkins in my estimation has a more cautious view of the relationship
between his senses, his perception, and the world "out there" than Rand
or you.
*Hemidactylus*
Her nuances came from her Russian upbringing. She was middle class and
the Revolution negatively impacted her family. This was probably true
for more Russians of her position in society before they were beaten
down by the tyrannical forces of Bolshevism. She was not unique,
especially given the time frame in question. Thus you were wrong that
her nuances were not Russian. Most Americans have viewed the Soviet
Union as an intangible Other. Rand had first hand experience, which
warped her world view and caused her to be so arrogant and dogmatic.
*Hemidactylus*
Creationism and belief in an otherworldly being are anathema to Rand and
her "philosophical" movement. How you could work her in alongside Gene
Scott is beyond me. Cue theme song...
>> And I thought you were a fan of Obama.
>>
>
> I support Obama. I am Democrat.
>
>>>> As a personal aside...I watched the first part of Atlas Shrugged and
>>>> thought it pretty well done. I found it sickening that at least one of
>>>> the movies advertized before AS started had spiritual undertones. The
>>>> demographic this Randroid movie pulled into the theater would likely
>>>> have been targeted (ie- dumbass Glenn Beck followers). Ayn Rand would
>>>> have f'in rolled over in her grave to have seen a crap spiritual movie
>>>> like that (whatever the hell it was called) as a lead in to her
>>>> masterpiece! Teabaggers are stupid and gullible and unaware of Rand's
>>>> nuances.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Rand was not one of the most brilliant scholars of the 20th century
>>> because of "Atlas Shrugged" (a novel), but because of her
>>> accomplishments in Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy (Objectivism).
>>
>> Cardboard cutouts devoid of the necessary efforts put into objectivism
>> like Karl Popper (= real philosopher). She was interesting in her views,
>> but hardly stellar as far as epistemology goes.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You could not be anymore wrong.
I realize I'm not wrong anymore (= me correct).
> ALL of my posts/arguments are based on
> the philosophy and epistemology of Ayn Rand.
As heir of Rand's mindbrain, Leonard Peikoff would perhaps be highly
critical of your pending book.
> There are three and only three names in philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas
> and Rand.
Churchland(s), Dennett, Popper, Hume, Kant, GE Moore, Nietzsche (who
influenced Rand), Bacon, Locke, Descartes, Kuhn, Russell, Quine,
Wittgenstein, Mayr, Wilkins...
John S. Wilkins
I do not think nothing can be known. In fact I am published discussing
how things can be known (including the pieces on which the SciAm blog is
based).
Many, many philosophers think there is a real world. Very few of them
are Randians (in the professional philosophical community I have never
met a Randian, although I am sure there may be one or two). But there
are flavours of realism. One may think there is a real world but we
cannot know it directly (secondary quality realism, later Kantian
phenomenalism). One may think we know the world directly through
successful science (scientific realism) or that all we have is
successful science no matter what the word is like (antirealism, which
is a kind of Kantian phenomenalism extended to theories). Or one may
think that science gives us the *structure* of the world even if the
ontologies of the theories are not to be entirely trusted (a recent view
called structural realism, and to which I tend).
You seem to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It works
this way:
1. If A is a Randian then A is a realist.
2. A is a realist
===
C. A is a Randian
That this is a fallacy can be shown from this version -
1. If A is a dog, then A has four legs
2. A has four legs
===
C My horse A barks
As it happens I think evolutionary theory is telling us about the
structure of the (biological) world, and insofar as we know about the
world, as we have learned anything at all, we can treat it as true. But
since all knowledge is defeasible, because we do not have god's eye
views on things, it may be defeated sometime. All you need to defeat it
is data that contradicts it enough. Go for it.
I have gone public, both here and on my blog, criticising Dawkins' books
on religion rather vociferously.
I don't know why you want to assert I am a Randian. To be frank I have
never read a single thing by her in detail, and a skim of some of her
stuff impresses me not at all, but you must understand that she falls in
a particular philosophical tradition (Kantianism) and so *of course* she
has ideas that are shared by many other philosophers. Hence my comment:
Just because Rand asserts something, doesn't mean it is wrong.
She probably also thought that exercise was a good idea. You know who
else thought exercise was a good idea? Hitler.
>
> Ray
>
> > You are no Rand, to
> > her credit. I'm not a fan of Rand, but I cringe at the thought of how
> > you could possibly combine her epistemology with a creationist
> > manifesto. Syncretism at its worst.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
John Stockwell
No. No. The premise is that "nothing can be known by creationists"
because they are too
hardheaded and pig-igorant to learn.
William Morse
about Edelman's reentrant loops, but I don't. Your notes on what it is
like to be a digital camera do not deal with the feedback discussed by
Hofstadter. This is an infinite loop, and cannot be easily specified in
a formal description. One can accept that everything is physical while
also thinking that that statement and a dollar will get you a cup of
coffee. Consciousness exists, ill-defined or not. You keep responding
that consciousness is not magic, but I have not made that argument. What
you haven't responded to is what does constitute consciousness.
As I noted above, what it is _not_ like is what it is like to be a
digital camera, unless you include Hofstadter's feedback loops.
Yours,
Bill
John S. Wilkins
Coincidentally I had dinner with Dave Chalmers last night. I neglected
to ask him this question :-)
Of course the digital camera has few feedback loops (it has some -
autofocus and exposure control being two); but that isn't what gives us
qualia (which I reject). What is "consciousness"? IMO it's a name we
give to a disparate group of cognitive and psychological phenomena that
involve, as you say, a degree of feedback (re-entrance) so that we
represent ourselves to ourselves.