Philosoblog

Anything and all things

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Philosoblog

#521  Postby jamest » Nov 29, 2017 12:38 am

BWE wrote:
jamest wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Models are an approximation of reality based upon observation.

THIS is a physicalist mantra!!!!! How the fuck do you know that there is a 'reality' to model beyond that of the observation?

Well, there is really no way to know what our particular sensory arrays are translating into experience.

Which physicalist science book did you pluck that mantra from?

As far as I understand, speaking from the physicalist perspective, our sensory organs send 'smoke signals' to the brain and they are interpreted by the brain to be about 'the world'.

I might be a dumb fuck, but have you ever asked yourself how that brain seemingly knew [apparently] a priori:

a) What type of sense each of the sensory organs were informing the brain about, to the extent that the brain could differentiate the exact kind of signals from different organs? I mean, since the signals from each organ are of a similar type/code, how can the brain discern sight from [say] sound [from those signals]?
b) That these signals were about 'the world'? I mean, why weren't these signals about the current state of my underwear, or even the current state of my currants? In other words, how the fugg would my brain know in which context the aforementioned signals should be appraised? This is not a question which should be conveniently brushed under the rug, unless you're utterly disingenuous when it comes to approaching metaphysics, for this is a BIGGIE when it comes to undermining physicalism.


However, we do know that patterns of observation are consistent (within the normal limitations of induction). Our models do indeed predict future observations quite precisely which means that there is some level of consistency to sensory input.

Big fuckin' deal. Do you somehow expect idealism to be an advocate of disordered experience??

I need to go, so my apologies for ignoring half of your post. I hope you've got the gist.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18548
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#522  Postby BWE » Nov 29, 2017 1:10 am

jamest wrote:
BWE wrote:
jamest wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Models are an approximation of reality based upon observation.

THIS is a physicalist mantra!!!!! How the fuck do you know that there is a 'reality' to model beyond that of the observation?

Well, there is really no way to know what our particular sensory arrays are translating into experience.

Which physicalist science book did you pluck that mantra from?

Um. I didn't get that from a book. That's just a statement of fact. We cannot know the source of sensory perception because that's our only window onto that source. That is the basic premise from which both physicalism and idealism begin. Actually, it's the basic premise with which ontology of any sort must contend. In case you think you have addressed that somewhere, you haven't.


As far as I understand, speaking from the physicalist perspective, our sensory organs send 'smoke signals' to the brain and they are interpreted by the brain to be about 'the world'.

Smoke signals? Your metaphor there seems strangely chosen. Why would you not just say that we have sensory experience and that the physicalist perspective is that those experiences are triggered through contact with the physical world whereas the idealist perspective notes that we cannot ascertain the source since we only access the sensations themselves and proposes alternatives [god's dream, etc.] to physicalist views (or something along those lines)? Anyway,...


I might be a dumb fuck,

It's possible
but have you ever asked yourself how that brain seemingly knew [apparently] a priori:

a) What type of sense each of the sensory organs were informing the brain about, to the extent that the brain could differentiate the exact kind of signals from different organs? I mean, since the signals from each organ are of a similar type/code, how can the brain discern sight from [say] sound [from those signals]?

How seems somewhat immaterial (pardon the pun) when the fact is inescapable. We interact with different experiences through different senses. Try to play darts blindfolded with a shot of Novocaine in your dominant hand.

b) That these signals were about 'the world'? I mean, why weren't these signals about the current state of my underwear, or even the current state of my currants? In other words, how the fugg would my brain know in which context the aforementioned signals should be appraised? This is not a question which should be conveniently brushed under the rug, unless you're utterly disingenuous when it comes to approaching metaphysics, for this is a BIGGIE when it comes to undermining physicalism.

No. It really isn't. It's an incredibly poorly constructed argument if it is, as you appear to be claiming, an argument. Even if existence is god dreaming, or whatever other notion of idea you wish to apply, these signals are present to our awareness and constitute a large portion of the content of that awareness. That is actually the starting point of a physicalist/idealist divide. That's the point of agreement. It's the interpretation where the disagreement comes in.

However, we do know that patterns of observation are consistent (within the normal limitations of induction). Our models do indeed predict future observations quite precisely which means that there is some level of consistency to sensory input.

Big fuckin' deal. Do you somehow expect idealism to be an advocate of disordered experience??

No and neither does anyone else who has the first idea what idealism is. You seem to have erected a strawman which has fallen on and crushed your horse.


I need to go, so my apologies for ignoring half of your post. I hope you've got the gist.


I definitely didn't. I found no arguments at all in it.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#523  Postby BWE » Nov 29, 2017 1:42 am

The task of ontology is to explain the apparent consistency which I referenced above.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#524  Postby LucidFlight » Nov 29, 2017 8:37 am

One of the more amazing achievements of idealist ontology is the ability to maintain the consistent appearance of a physicalist realm on par with that of a physicalist realm. The fact that we as God are able to do this constantly amazes me and we should hold ourselves in awe.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#525  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 29, 2017 10:06 am

LucidFlight wrote:One of the more amazing achievements of idealist ontology is the ability to maintain the consistent appearance of a physicalist realm on par with that of a physicalist realm. The fact that we as God are able to do this constantly amazes me and we should hold ourselves in awe.


Awe? Shucks!
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#526  Postby BWE » Nov 29, 2017 7:29 pm

LucidFlight wrote:One of the more amazing achievements of idealist ontology is the ability to maintain the consistent appearance of a physicalist realm on par with that of a physicalist realm. The fact that we as God are able to do this constantly amazes me and we should hold ourselves in awe.

Lol. That's excellent.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#527  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 29, 2017 8:12 pm

At times like this, I review the wikipedia article on Hauntology.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#528  Postby Matthew Shute » Nov 29, 2017 9:20 pm

VazScep wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. You do know that java is ontologically nothing more than despair right? :smoke:

I'll take a look. Maybe convert it to kotlin.
The famous old blog post says that Java is ontologically the Kingdom of Nouns.


The nouns in Javaland do allow verbs to drive, but the verbs generally have to be accompanied by a noun relative at all times. If we want to subvert the status quo in the Kingdom, about the best we can do is put the nouns in burquas or otherwise keep them out of sight. It's not exactly ideal, having to actively oppress the nouns just to give the verbs some breathing space.

Code: Select all
public class LessMonarchicSyntax {
   
   public static void print(String s) {
      System.out.print(s); // Let that verb show its face in public unaccompained, paternalistic noun!
      // I'm forced to call you, nannying System, but we can at least avoid seeing you after this!
   }

}


Code: Select all
public class HelloWorld extends LessMonarchicSyntax {

   public static void main(String[] args) {
      print("Hello, World");
   }
   
}
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 42

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#529  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 30, 2017 5:28 am

Rant is a verb, but you can nounify it.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#530  Postby VazScep » Nov 30, 2017 9:09 am

Matthew Shute wrote:
VazScep wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. You do know that java is ontologically nothing more than despair right? :smoke:

I'll take a look. Maybe convert it to kotlin.
The famous old blog post says that Java is ontologically the Kingdom of Nouns.


The nouns in Javaland do allow verbs to drive, but the verbs generally have to be accompanied by a noun relative at all times. If we want to subvert the status quo in the Kingdom, about the best we can do is put the nouns in burquas or otherwise keep them out of sight. It's not exactly ideal, having to actively oppress the nouns just to give the verbs some breathing space.

Code: Select all
public class LessMonarchicSyntax {
   
   public static void print(String s) {
      System.out.print(s); // Let that verb show its face in public unaccompained, paternalistic noun!
      // I'm forced to call you, nannying System, but we can at least avoid seeing you after this!
   }

}


Code: Select all
public class HelloWorld extends LessMonarchicSyntax {

   public static void main(String[] args) {
      print("Hello, World");
   }
   
}
One of the most successful of the non-Java JVM languages is Clojure, a Lisp dialect which massively favours functions and is pretty hostile to OOP. I remember an old lecture by its creator talking about his early steps towards Clojure, and he was explaining how, in his latter days as a Java dev, he was writing static methods almost exclusively.

I hope he didn't have to work with others. I can't imagine many other Java devs getting on board with that style of coding.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#531  Postby VazScep » Nov 30, 2017 10:43 am

By the way, I read through your code this morning, and I've always had a soft spot for adventurey games based on discrete spacetime. I'd be up for chatting about it, if you're interested.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#532  Postby BWE » Nov 30, 2017 10:37 pm

James, should I be waiting for a response from you regarding your assertions or at least the implied assertions from your earlier posts?
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#533  Postby jamest » Nov 30, 2017 11:58 pm

Sorry, if I remember I'll respond tomorrow.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18548
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#534  Postby SpeedOfSound » Dec 01, 2017 11:55 am

BWE wrote:Also, no we don't abandon anything except the map-territory error. The source of experience has one apparently iron law and even if it is wrong, we have no choice but assume it is right or we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether. That law is tbis; the universe is consistent. Patterns repeat predictably.


Can you give us a concrete example or occurrence of this map-territory error?
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#535  Postby Matthew Shute » Dec 01, 2017 12:36 pm

VazScep wrote:By the way, I read through your code this morning, and I've always had a soft spot for adventurey games based on discrete spacetime. I'd be up for chatting about it, if you're interested.


I'm happy to discuss it but, so we're not talking past one another, would you like me to upload the code I adapted it from? There's a bit more of a "game" there (although not much more, yet!). With the code you're seeing, I used my Inventory item class as the basis for Thing.class. Then I moved my Game Character class over, turned it into Human, and "derived" it from Thing, post hoc. Something like this I might still do. I don't have a fixed idea about how I'm going to handle building and exploring the world cells (I get less bored when I've little clue how it's going to pan out), there're just a lot of them, and I've got them branching off from one another to make a navigable world map. I've still got to populate them and get the NPCs to do something, too, of course.

Oh and, get this, you can now wait around for up to an hour of game time whenever you like. When will the fun end?

Well, if you want to take a look, give the word and I'll post what I've got so far in a new thread over in Video Games.
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 42

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#536  Postby VazScep » Dec 01, 2017 1:03 pm

Definitely like to see the original code, too!

I'm first interested in whether you've got any assumptions you're making about the game map. It looks to me like you're modelling it as an arbitrary graph, so any node can connect to any other node, perhaps only unidirectionally, and with optional travel times. Presumably it'd be up to the map designer to decide how to make a realistic world?
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#537  Postby Matthew Shute » Dec 01, 2017 5:32 pm

"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 42

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#538  Postby BWE » Dec 01, 2017 6:32 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
BWE wrote:Also, no we don't abandon anything except the map-territory error. The source of experience has one apparently iron law and even if it is wrong, we have no choice but assume it is right or we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether. That law is tbis; the universe is consistent. Patterns repeat predictably.


Can you give us a concrete example or occurrence of this map-territory error?

Sure. Qualities we assign individuals are purely maps. Honest, dishonest, thrifty, whatever.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#539  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 01, 2017 6:36 pm

BWE wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
BWE wrote:Also, no we don't abandon anything except the map-territory error. The source of experience has one apparently iron law and even if it is wrong, we have no choice but assume it is right or we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether. That law is tbis; the universe is consistent. Patterns repeat predictably.


Can you give us a concrete example or occurrence of this map-territory error?

Sure. Qualities we assign individuals are purely maps. Honest, dishonest, thrifty, whatever.


Who ever claimed any of this as territory? If you want to name names, the next question is why you'd want to argue with them.

If you issue a glib, poorly-thought-out response to what is, depending on your attitude, a deep or shallow question, then the natural conclusion is that you take it for a shallow question, and you should just state your position plainly.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#540  Postby BWE » Dec 01, 2017 9:33 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
BWE wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
BWE wrote:Also, no we don't abandon anything except the map-territory error. The source of experience has one apparently iron law and even if it is wrong, we have no choice but assume it is right or we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether. That law is tbis; the universe is consistent. Patterns repeat predictably.


Can you give us a concrete example or occurrence of this map-territory error?

Sure. Qualities we assign individuals are purely maps. Honest, dishonest, thrifty, whatever.


Who ever claimed any of this as territory? If you want to name names, the next question is why you'd want to argue with them.

If you issue a glib, poorly-thought-out response to what is, depending on your attitude, a deep or shallow question, then the natural conclusion is that you take it for a shallow question, and you should just state your position plainly.

No u.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest