Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it. It's just another claim he can't hope to substantiate, but which he will no doubt enjoy swaddling in layers of unrelated bluff and waffle which he can later pretend is the missing substantiation, and then gaslight other people with. SSDD.

First time around, I missed the second-last punctuation and thought you were talking about 'people with SSDD'. What's that? I thought. Suggestible Self-Diagnostic Disorder? I had to look up the SSDD meme, which turns out to be something some people have in spades.

John is talking about the part of the idea that is uniquely creative and yours alone. It's Special Sauce, with a twist. I'm not disagreeing with you. But: How exactly could anyone substantiate such claims? See the latest thread on "Bullshit".

They can't.

John Platko wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Fallible wrote:Loaded question.

I saw what you did there.

Maybe no ideas just pop into your head.

Ok I'll bite.

Of course ideas seem to 'pop into our heads'. The question is whether 'angel thoughts' is an apt descriptor for them or a good explanation for the process.

Imo, there is latitude to describe certain aspects of our thinking as 'angelic and demonic' (or angelic and fallen angelic if one wants to try to avoid a lack of parsimony). In many ways, they can be handy metaphors. Personally, I think they have the potential disadvantage of being, um, couched, in terms of hommunculi. As such, I would not use them too readily because of that pitfall.

But that's a relatively minor concern nowadays, when, fortunately, at least in most 'developed' cultures, a lot of intelligent, rational people (not all, sadly) can distinguish between when they are being used either in the abstract or as metaphors and when they aren't.

I might have more of an issue with whether or not they are arbitrary labels and an arbitrary dichotomy, which they arguably indeed are. They seem to presume that (a) thoughts/actions can be divided into good or bad and (b) that we can know which is which. Even setting that issue aside and allowing (for pragmatic purposes) that such a distinction may be defined, what is the supposed source of ideas which are a mix of both, or which are neither (outside either set or their intersection)?

But I would reserve my main criticism for the linking of the term 'angels' to ideas such as CTjp because I think that's when we start to see the square peg being hammered into the round hole. The problem, as I see it, comes in trying to say that the 'angels' originate in a supernatural/impossible state and then combine with other 'angels' in a similar state to enter a possible state. Setting aside the question of whether this is even a possible transformation that can happen in the real world (examples lacking at this time) it seems to me that the majority of ideas which 'pop into our heads' ( as they seem to do regularly) are likely to merely consist of a coming together of two or more possibles. This, and not my personal preferences for certain terms, is imo what makes the use of the term in this instance at least, a poor explanation. If one were to temporarily set aside or take note of the caveats in my first two paragraphs above, the use of the word 'angel' as a descriptor for certain neurological or psychological processes is not daft of itself. I might even be prepared to say that the terminology can have utility.

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it. It's just another claim he can't hope to substantiate, but which he will no doubt enjoy swaddling in layers of unrelated bluff and waffle which he can later pretend is the missing substantiation, and then gaslight other people with. SSDD.

It has already been established in the free will thread that long (for appropriate values of long) before the idea to make certain choices pop into your head you have made the choice. It was that popping mechanism that I was inquiring about.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it. It's just another claim he can't hope to substantiate, but which he will no doubt enjoy swaddling in layers of unrelated bluff and waffle which he can later pretend is the missing substantiation, and then gaslight other people with. SSDD.

First time around, I missed the second-last punctuation and thought you were talking about 'people with SSDD'. What's that? I thought. Suggestible Self-Diagnostic Disorder? I had to look up the SSDD meme, which turns out to be something some people have in spades.

John is talking about the part of the idea that is uniquely creative and yours alone. It's Special Sauce, with a twist. I'm not disagreeing with you. But: How exactly could anyone substantiate such claims? See the latest thread on "Bullshit".

Joyous news, the unconscious has been substantiated. It's a big part of Blackmore's (and other's - it's all the rage in neuroscience land ) spiel on why free will is a myth. And why the workings of the unconscious is not helpful to her argument, the verification of the unconscious is a convenient truth for me.

archibald wrote:

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it.

Not nothing. Angelsjp. The only thing john is begging is for someone to talk with him about them.

Actually, I'm about to bail the thread, it seems to be T time.

archibald wrote:

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it.

Not nothing. Angelsjp. The only thing john is begging is for someone to talk with him about them.

Or, as I like to call it, the pinhead hoedown.

(As in how many imaginary entities can dance on the head of a pin).

RS

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Fallible wrote:Loaded question.

I saw what you did there.

Maybe no ideas just pop into your head.

Ok I'll bite.

Of course ideas seem to 'pop into our heads'. The question is whether 'angel thoughts' is an apt descriptor for them or a good explanation for the process.

Imo, there is latitude to describe certain aspects of our thinking as 'angelic and demonic' (or angelic and fallen angelic if one wants to try to avoid a lack of parsimony). In many ways, they can be handy metaphors. Personally, I think they have the potential disadvantage of being, um, couched, in terms of hommunculi. As such, I would not use them too readily because of that pitfall.

But that's a relatively minor concern nowadays, when, fortunately, at least in most 'developed' cultures, a lot of intelligent, rational people (not all, sadly) can distinguish between when they are being used as metaphors and when they aren't.

I might have more of an issue with whether or not they are arbitrary labels and an arbitrary dichotomy, which they arguably indeed are. They seem to presume that (a) thoughts/actions can be divided into good or bad and (b) that we can know which is which. Even setting that issue aside and allowing (for pragmatic purposes) that such a distinction may be defined, what is the supposed source of ideas which are a mix of both, or which are neither (outside either set or their intersection)?

People, don't usually/ever attribute all ideas to angels and demons. Most ideas get attributed to normal creativity - i.e. evolution of ideas (I've done two rather wonderful threads on that topic ) It's only certain ideas that have a certain quality which the angels or demons get cited for.

But I would reserve my main criticism for the linking of the term 'angels' to ideas such as CTjp because I think that's when we start to see the square peg being whittled to fit in the round hole. The problem, as I see it, comes in trying to say that the 'angels' originate in a supernatural/impossible state and then combine with other 'angels' in a similar state to enter a possible state.

Well it's just a working theory, I'm not saying it's a fact that this is how the mind works. But it is a fact that I have demonstrated how that could work.

Setting aside the question of whether this is even a possible transformation that can happen in the real world (examples lacking at this time)

Like, I said, it's a fact that this can be demonstrated to happen in the real world. What happens inside heads is an open question. I suppose I'd have to give some thought to neural simulation to see if there is an equivalent function.

it seems to me that the majority of ideas which 'pop into our heads' ( as they seem to do regularly) are likely to merely consist of a coming together of two or more possibles.

This, imo, is what makes the use of the term in this instance at least, a poor explanation, and not my personal preference to avoid using the term for when it might be a better explanation. If one were to temporarily set aside or take note of the caveats in my first two paragraphs above, the use of the word 'angel' as a descriptor for certain neurological or psychological processes is not daft of itself. I might even be prepared to say that the terminology can have utility.

theropod wrote:

archibald wrote:

Fallible wrote:He's begging the question that an idea just pops into your head with nothing leading up to it.

Not nothing. Angelsjp. The only thing john is begging is for someone to talk with him about them.

Or, as I like to call it, the pinhead hoedown.

(As in how many imaginary entities can dance on the head of a pin).

RS

Obviously, as many as you can imagine can dance wherever you can imagine them dancing.

But in this case we're talking about a rather specific technical construct where impossible states as defined by the physical laws of the system can never-the-less influence possible state transitions (tasks).

double post. sorry.

John Platko wrote:People, don't usually/ever attribute all ideas to angels and demons. Most ideas get attributed to normal creativity - i.e. evolution of ideas (I've done two rather wonderful threads on that topic ) It's only certain ideas that have a certain quality which the angels or demons get cited for.

Who are these people?

Anywhere that I have seen the terms used (in for example psychology) they seem to be used more widely than this.

John Platko wrote:But it is a fact that I have demonstrated how that could work.

Yes. And I have similarly demonstrated how an elf and a gremlin could make a grelf.

John Platko wrote:Like, I said, it's a fact that this can be demonstrated to happen in the real world.

Really?




ps I hope you've noticed how I have caused you to continue posting instead of having your T.

This is both a demonstration of a classic angel and demon conflict scenario and a demonstration of your lack of free will. I don't know how I worked that combo out. It wasn't intentional. It must have just popped into my head.

John Platko wrote:But in this case we're talking about a rather specific technical construct where impossible states as defined by the physical laws of the system can never-the-less influence possible state transitions (tasks).

Which in one way is a bit of a pity, given that I have reservations about its explanatory value, in that specific instance, or should I say if part of it is being labeled with 'angel'.

Were we to not get into that particular ding dong, we could more pragmatically agree that the following article is interesting. I'm thinking it might be right up your street:

'Harnessing our Inner Angels and Demons'
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/pap ... Demons.pdf

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:People, don't usually/ever attribute all ideas to angels and demons. Most ideas get attributed to normal creativity - i.e. evolution of ideas (I've done two rather wonderful threads on that topic ) It's only certain ideas that have a certain quality which the angels or demons get cited for.

Who are these people?

Anywhere that I have seen the terms used (in for example psychology) they seem to be used more widely than this.

Really What other uses of the term angel do you see people use?

John Platko wrote:But it is a fact that I have demonstrated how that could work.

Yes. And I have similarly demonstrated how an elf and a gremlin could make a grelf.

Perhaps you just imagined that.

John Platko wrote:Like, I said, it's a fact that this can be demonstrated to happen in the real world.

Really?

Absolutely.

ps I hope you've noticed how I have caused you to continue posting instead of having your T.

You've earned it.

This is both a demonstration of a classic angel and demon conflict scenario and a demonstration of your lack of free will. I don't know the source of that combo idea. It must have just popped.

And how do you explain such popping. Initial conditions and laws of motion - is that it? That's the same explanation one can give for everything, i.e. it doesn't have much explanatory value.

John Platko wrote:Absolutely.

Remind me?

ETA: it's not that I don't think it's an interesting hypothetical. It potentially is.

John Platko wrote:and how do you explain such popping. Initial conditions and laws of motion - is that it? That's the same explanation one can give for everything, i.e. it doesn't have much explanatory value.

As I said before, I'm fairly sure I could use more detailed explanations without referring to angels. That said, I am not objecting to use of the term itself (although I don't personally like it a lot for reasons given) but only to the idea that the 'angels' are in impossible/supernatural states. Most of the new blues licks 'pop up' in your program without this.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:But in this case we're talking about a rather specific technical construct where impossible states as defined by the physical laws of the system can never-the-less influence possible state transitions (tasks).

Which in one way is a bit of a pity, given that I have reservations about its explanatory value, in that specific instance, or should I say if part of it is being labeled with 'angel'.

Well what would you call such an impossible thing that can influence the possible?

Were we to not get into that particular ding dong, we could more pragmatically agree that the following article is interesting. I'm thinking it might be right up your street:

'Harnessing our Inner Angels and Demons'
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/pap ... Demons.pdf

The want/should depiction of Angels is a bit of a caricature of angels. They can help with more than those types of decisions.

John Platko wrote:Well what would you call such an impossible thing that can influence the possible?

What would Deutsch call it? I don't think you used him as a source for your DD* term.

John Platko wrote:They can help with more than those types of decisions.

I posted that in response to you saying that angels only get cited for the sorts of things you cite them for. I would say that I've never before heard anyone using them your way outside of religion.

John Platko wrote:They can help with more than those types of decisions.

Well, maybe your 'angels' can help with more than those decisions, but your 'angels' are limited to originating in impossible states. That's my point. That the word/label/concept angel is more appropriate and more useful and a better explanation when not restricted to that type of process.




* Departure from Deutsch

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Absolutely.

Remind me?

ETA: it's not that I don't think it's an interesting hypothetical. It potentially is.

There was nothing unreal in the role angels play in my blues heuristic.

I think a good general way to think of this sort of thing is as a transient phenomenon in state based systems that can influence state transitions. For example, we learned a lot about metastability, which happens in all sorts of places inside your computer, one could consider angelsjp to be what resolves the state.

John Platko wrote:and how do you explain such popping. Initial conditions and laws of motion - is that it? That's the same explanation one can give for everything, i.e. it doesn't have much explanatory value.

As I said before, I'm fairly sure I could use more detailed explanations without referring to angels. That said, I am not objecting to use of the term itself (although I don't personally like it a lot for reasons given) but only to the idea that the 'angels' are in impossible/supernatural states. Most of the new blues licks 'pop up' in your program without this.

Yes, and most ideas that pop into people's heads I imagine to be natural evolution of other ideas. Also, I shouldn't be selling angels short. perhaps they too are possible states or groups of states, I don't mean angeljp to be the last word in what angels can and must be.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well what would you call such an impossible thing that can influence the possible?

What would Deutsch call it? I don't think you used him as a source for your DD* term.

He didn't give it a name. I think CT could use a glossary.

And now we have CLT.

John Platko wrote:Yes, and most ideas that pop into people's heads I imagine to be natural evolution of other ideas. Also, I shouldn't be selling angels short. perhaps they too are possible states or groups of states, I don't mean angeljp to be the last word in what angels can and must be.

Cool.

If you want to continue to talk about angels on that basis, I might be up for it. We might be (almost certainly will be) coming at the concept from different directions, but there's no reason we couldn't agree on quite a bit.

Actually, I thought that article would be really appealing to you, given that it appears to be exploring how to help people make better decisions.

John Platko wrote:There was nothing unreal in the role angels play in my blues heuristic.

Your whole 'space' was arguably unreal. I meant the real world, not one with arbitrary 'rules'. One of your angels could have been a jazz lick, which is not an impossible state.

Ciao. Time for T in my world.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Yes, and most ideas that pop into people's heads I imagine to be natural evolution of other ideas. Also, I shouldn't be selling angels short. perhaps they too are possible states or groups of states, I don't mean angeljp to be the last word in what angels can and must be.

Cool.

If you want to continue to talk about angels on that basis, I might be up for it. We might be (almost certainly will be) coming at the concept from different directions, but there's no reason we couldn't agree on quite a bit.

Actually, I thought that article would be really appealing to you, given that it appears to be exploring how to help people make better decisions.

The article was fine, although I think angels were given short shrift. But we shouldn't derail your thread with angel talk.

I have come to a conclusion about who is qualified to be an expert on God. It seems that the person balanced between atheism and theism is the true expert. An insight not provided to me by an angel, I think , but with the help of SpeedOfSound.