Spelunking the Universe
Posts tagged Philosophy
Hindsight Bias, Everyone knew this would happen.
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Another remarkable aspect of cognitive faculties is their ability to convince us that we are certain of something that in reality was (or may still be) incredibly uncertain. This phenomenal effect is so convincing that in many cases we are absolutely positively sure that it isn’t happening. We just know that what we think now isn’t an illusion or manipulated by outside sources, we tend to forget that if our brain is tricked we are going to be unaware that it was. One particular form of these biases that can have a remarkable impact on our lives, especially debates of previous events, is the Hindsight Bias. To use my favorite resource for quick and dirty information Hindsight Bias is defined as follows:
Hindsight bias is the inclination to see events that have occurred as more predictable than they in fact were before they took place. Hindsight bias has been demonstrated experimentally in a variety of settings, including politics, games and medicine. In psychological experiments of hindsight bias, subjects also tend to remember their predictions of future events as having been stronger than they actually were, in those cases where those predictions turn out correct.
One explanation of the bias is the availability heuristic: the event that did occur is more salient in one’s mind than the possible outcomes that did not.
- Wikipedia
One of my favorite lines that is formed from this bias is that of “Oh man I should have seen that coming.” A person has an event that was no more likely than a another event transpire (or the difference is negligible) and yet they feel in retrospect (aka hindsight) that it was blatantly obvious that event would have transpired. When watching a horror movie we scold people who have died for not thinking about the obvious nature of their situation even though there could have been a multitude of ways it would have ended. It just so happens that the way it does end is the way that comes most strongly to the mind in hindsight.
This seems like a reasonable way to examine the past as well, events that have occurred in the past have proven that it is possible that they occur (obviously). Causally this gives them priority over ‘possible’ events that have not yet transpired. Why fear what has never been when you can much easier fear what has and at least prepare for its next occurrence (rhetorical).
Hindsight bias is also one of the many crippling tools in gambling. When playing a game where there is always the same chance of winning to losing people will feel that after X loses they are bound to win. A game as simple as ‘heads or tails’ could have people sitting around for hours waiting for a half dozen heads in a row to place 20 million dollars on tails. The remarkable thing is that regardless of what ends up happening they’ll respond with a relatively similar answer. “I knew that was going to happen.” If it is tails then they’ll probably say it in a much happier fashion and perhaps try the gamble again an hour later and lose it all, at which time they’ll respond similar to how they would have had it been 7 heads in a row the first time. “Damn. It obviously favors heads.” It’s powerful because much like confirmation bias we ignore the possibility of a contradictory outcome. We (usually) do not actively search for information to contradict what we believe is the likely (or perhaps only) outcome to a situation, to do so is to open up a can of worms, to possibly spark high levels of skepticism in all facets of life.
It’s much easier in the end to simply assume that all past events were obviously going to happen. However it is important to stress that just because this wonderful little quirk exists we should not assume that nothing is likely. If you leap from a 50 story building there is a near certainty that without aid you will die, if you light yourself afire and jump into a pool full of gasoline you will likely not survive, if you date a super model and are hoping for a thoughtful relationship you…alright that last one might of been a bit mean.
To defeat (or at least weaken) this effect it pays to (when possible) examine all possible outcomes of an event, there is no obvious result of a coin toss (specifically either side compared to its opposite) and there is no certain result to the roll of a die (cheating aside). It is important that we recognize these biases exist and try our best to not be overcome by them, otherwise we end up being terrible journalists, economists, historians, or basically any profession that involves interaction with other people or worse still positions of influence. As I’ve told my girlfriend, the brain is a whore for stimulation. We as the unusually quirky software must make sure that our hardware doesn’t go off and get us killed for its own jolts of yum yums.
That last bit inspired me, I think tomorrows discussion will be on the unusual nature of our construction (or I think I should say architecture). Humans remind me a bunch of jelly fish…or really any other living organism, but I’ll save this train of thought for tomorrow.
PS. For those that didn’t catch it, Jamie Berger himself commented on my DRM post a while back. You can find his comments here. I appreciate all input and his was no exception 
.
The Illusion of Freedom
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
There appears to me to be a great bit of confusion when looking into the term of freedom. Something I feel that should be addressed for future discussion. There will be certainly some subjectivity however I hope that it will be treated as objective as it can be 
. I will certainly try my best to keep it as objective as I can (which in itself is somewhat impossible given the conversation).
This is a good visual example of what I’m about to explain. Think of the above image as describing the freedom of choice between two options given their outcome (assuming you know it). In particular while I’m not a fan of digging into religious discussions (mainly because it tends to get bitter even if you don’t want it to) but I feel a particular ‘choice’ is very useful for illustrating my point.
For a choice to be free it must not, in the case of a fully and properly functional organism, contradict the very nature of self preservation. A praying mantis male may sacrifice its own being but it does so in an act to feed it female and to press on the likelihood that it’s seed/genes (and in essence its very being) will pass on. In many cases the actions an organism does that appear to contradict it’s natural inclination for survival are indeed actions that are required for such. Drinking from a stream that has a predator in them is a necessity where the danger of the predator does not outweigh the danger of dying of thirst.
This is where the image comes into play. It works in a negative correlation (or sorts), the further you move in either direction (to the left towards option A or to the right for option B) the less likely the opposing option becomes. If you enter the red range of the Freedometer you have essentially left the realm of freedom. It’s not necessarily that once you pass 50% you are no longer free in all cases, I’m using the simplest example to help explain my point with the least amount of thought (so you can use your extra resources to expand the concept).
In essence if you place a gazelle in the situation where it must drink or it will die, the odds of dying while drinking are outweighed, if they were not outweighed it would not do what it does. This is why some animals do indeed starve or dehydrate (I imagine there is a better term) to death, the odds of them being eaten far exceed the odds of them dying at the current moment. It’s a sad state of affairs.
If you are presented with a ‘simple choice’ one with two outcomes. You either believe in a single an entity, or you spend the eternity damned to a torturous nothingness. You are no longer provided a free choice, you are given an ultimatum. It is a choice only in the most literal of terms, but it is not free. In the case of an ultimatum you are placed in the extreme red zones, a point in which no properly thinking and functioning beings would choose the other option. Whenever you are placed in a position in which one of the options is not an option that the organism would choose it is no longer a choice and the illusion of freedom is the only freedom that is truly present.
I am not sure if this has made anything more clear, but at the very least I’d hope that the next time someone reads about a ‘free choice’ that they remember the Freedometer and remember that at a certain point even a choice is not a choice.
Indeterminism
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Dipping back into the wonderful world of Determinism we have a slightly different take on the idea. We’ll begin by defining Indeterminism:
Indeterminism: Not every event that occurs is completely determined by previous conditions.
Now you might be saying “Well that’s obvious Captain Jack.” To which I’d remind you I’m not Jack, regardless we’ll continue. The next important thing to know is what it means for something to be undetermined.
e is undetermined =df e is not completely determined by previous conditions.
This is important because it leads us into what becomes of Indeterminism. It’s a fascinating philosophy because as with other philosophies it gets taken to some very unusual extremes. One such extreme is called “simple determinism” which looks as follows:
Simple Indeterminism
1) There are some undetermined actions.
2) People act freely whenever they perform undetermined actions.
3) People are morally responsible for their own undetermined actions.
At first glance this appeared to be a pretty reasonable setup. The first tenet says that there are ‘some’ undetermined actions. It is difficult to say that something never happens, so its safe to say that there are ‘some’ undetermined actions. Likewise it comes out to feeling common sense when you look back on your life. Some events did not move along because of the flowing of the wind or the force of gravity.
Likewise tenet two is making a general statement that seems difficult to argue with. A person is acting freely when they are performing an action that is undetermined. In essence they had options A) and B) (at the very least) and decided to go with one or the other. That choice was their freedom in action.
Finally the third tenet states that when you act freely you are morally responsible. The idea being that if you choose to murder someone then you are responsible for that activity. However there is a large loophole that this particular version of Indeterminism has and it has to do with the global nature of the third tenet. A seizure is indeed an undetermined action, during that particular moment before the seizure you had the event you desired and the possibility of a seizure. However if you killed someone while having seizures many would be hard pressed to file charges against you. There are more complicated examples but this simple situation puts us in the place of either denouncing Simple Indeterminism or deciding that indeed a seizure victim is fully responsible for the repercussions of their seizure.
If we were to make some minor modifications to Simple Indeterminism we could clean up most situations.
Rico’s Indeterminism
1) There are some undetermined actions.
2) People act freely whenever they perform undetermined and desired actions.
3) People are morally responsible for their own undetermined and desired actions.
The introduction of desired to the pre mentioned “undetermined” situations fixes the issue of involuntary problems. In this case when presented with (for simplicities sake) two options if you choose to do one but you are unable because of uncontrollable variables (IE. Seizures or similar situations) then the resulting act is not something you are morally responsible to.
Now this philosophy has the possibility for abuse but only in the judgement of the person by other persons. If we are to accept morality as something of a natural law (which it isn’t but bear with me) then the person IS morally responsible it’s just that they are attempting to mask the fact that they are. Likewise the action of lying about it being their desired action is also another situation of being responsible.
Morality is certainly a discussion for another day, however when taken into context of the idea of Indeterminism I feel it’s somewhat self explanatory. Likewise I’m relatively hard pressed to think of a situation where your desired action is not one you are morally responsible for or even one that isn’t an act of freedom. However anyone feeling frisky can take a shot at providing a situation where you are acting out in a desired fashion and are not morally responsible (or even should not be).
Determinism
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
As I sit here realizing that it would cost me 100 dollars to recover my corrupt one note files, I feel that (time permitting) that it may at least be good for the topic of determinism (Note: Time was not permitting). Otherwise its an incredibly crushing experience that gives me a very negative view of Microsoft at the moment (which is a shame because Windows 7 had peaked my interest in them). So to anyone out there make backups of your one notes, there is NO way to recover them (as far as I know) without paying some random asshole 100 dollars. May sound hard but charging that much for file recover is preposterous.
So without further delay:
Determinism: Every event that occurs is completely determined by previous conditions.
E is physically necessary =df E is required by the laws of nature.
E is completely determined by previous conditions =df the combination of previous events and the laws of nature makes e physically necessary.
Now this is important information. For those that do not know =df means "if by definition", likewise if you’ve seen it before iff means if and only if. E is simply a variable much like *.
The idea is that our history is a singular line, each event directed by the previous event which is also governed by its previous event traveling all the way back to the big bang (be that for you a cosmic blast or just some deity doing the ole bang solo). In essence it says that all actions have been predetermined by events that happened even before the agents of those actions were alive.
It goes so far for some as to say that because we cannot control our actions (and instead are merely reacting) that we should not be responsible for those actions. It has caused a few thoughts to spark in my head that make it a very sketchy system.
The second is an example of the life of a simple system. In the beginning it’s as simple as a coin toss, then in this particular case it becomes a 3 way outcome. However if we look back historically the actions of this organism would look like the above line because there would be only one outcome to every one of the actions.
Essentially Determinism says that because natural law is unable to make decisions and must act directly with the world around it that living organisms act entirely in the same way. However essentially determinism says the following.
If every single variable in the past happened exactly in the same way the exact same history would transpire.
This explains everything and in the same manner states nothing (a very popular tactic in philosophy). When an organism is born the actions it makes are at the simplest level a coin toss between two possibilities, the response is so quick to the outside viewer that it can be mistaken for a mere reaction to the environment not unlike how the waves move with the turning of the Earth, the gravitation of the moon and other bodies, as well as the shear orgy of shoving between the forces in the sea. In fact random functions like coin tosses aren’t even negated in the universe of determinism. Because if the coin was tossed with the exact same force, from the exact same point, with the exact same wind resistance, the exact same gravitational pull, landing exactly on the same spot on a surface that is in the exact same condition as the first attempt, and all other variables I cannot even fathom being exactly the same then the results would be exactly the same. However this requires a universal knowledge (omniscience I think its called) for it to be a form of understanding that has any purpose in life.
Even the previous example explained by determinism breaks down when rendered on a PC. If you created a simple program to flip a coin (return the result of 0 or 1 with a 50% chance) you would receive results each time that are completely separate from the results of the former. In theory if you were to rewind time you would get a different set of results each time that you did it (assuming you did it 10-20 times). This is because the forces acting upon the results in the digital realm are not a result of the outside world and thusly would not be held down by the rules of determinism.
There are many different forms of determinism, some harsher than the one I’ve described and some weaker. However in all cases it appears that determinism is very weak. Organisms much like Personal Computers take in information, run it through a series of scripts (or a script if its a really small program on a PC >_>), this is a process that nothing else in the universe does (to my knowledge). There is a point where the outside senses of an organism does indeed directly influence it to a point that trumps the looping processes, but that appears to only be in instances of errors. If you place a person in a room that’s twelve times their body temperature you will find a direct influence on their activities (producing a small set of responses), however if you place someone in a room that is .12 percent warmer than their body you will find a multitude of responses. However in either case when you look back it will only look like a straight line.
It is impossible for history to have more than one result when looking back, philosophy aside, it wouldn’t make any form of sense to expect anything else but single incidents in history. One of the simplest forms of logic known as modal logic says (essentially) the following:
If X can exist without Y then X is not identical to Y.
What this essentially says is that you cannot logically exist and not exist at the exact same time. Likewise in history an event cannot happen and not happen. This means that in history even if an event had 90 trillion possible outcomes, there can only be one to have happened, and I feel this is something that even a child grasps. Which is what bothers me about Determinism. It essentially says that since history only happened in one way then all of time has only one possible outcome. This seems like quite a bold statement, it would be like me saying that if I ran a program to flip a coin and it returned heads, that in all cases in the future I’d see heads. It seems foolish to take an obvious property of history and attempt to use it to explain the future.
I’d have dipped more into this but spending 5 hours attempting to recover my notes has all but crushed my writing spirit… Goodnight all . I should be more chipper next update.
The Illusionary Occam’s Razor
3 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
I’ll continue with the Greek Tragedy stuff a little later. This felt like a more pressing piece to speak on today. The subject of course as one would imagine is the idea of Occam’s Razor. Now this is a relatively simple concept that essentially boils down to the following.
The Simplest Explanation is Often the Correct one.
Now I feel that the common misconception here is that any answer as long as it is simpler than all it’s competitors is the correct one. However as I’ve stated before anything that explains everything explains absolutely nothing. Essentially if you make an explanation broad enough it can be used to answer all of life’s questions, it is ambiguity that we often allow to take hold in explanations that creates a false sense of security. In fact it is ambiguity that cannot exist when deciding upon an explanation using the Occam’s Razor.
One thing we must remember that gets missed many many times, is the following quote.
"Simpler theories are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"
- Swinburne 1997 and Williams, Gareth T, 2008
The key word there being "other things being equal". This is where ambiguity breaks down against clarity. In many, many cases we find that people feel they can quote Occam’s Razor to justify their response of "Because". I’ve spoken on it before when discussing the God Problem, people feel that by saying "well because" they have suddenly defeated their opponent. However it comes down to our ability to concretely envision something, can you truly vision what you are postulating or are you merely examining an abstract and speaking about it as if it is a concrete thing.
We cannot truly conceive the nonphysical world communicating or altering our physical world, in doing so we begin to attach physical traits to nonphysical things. This attribution is an error that is commonly refuted by saying "because". Occam’s Razor is not a magical cure all and it would seem that many people erroneously believe that it is. This is where the divide between faith and science seems to burst forth like an infant from the womb. The latter defines something concretely and then displays it ambiguously and for decades it results in ambiguous information being thrown about as if it is concrete fact.
This is absolutely no evidence at all that would suggest that there is a nonphysical world attached in any way shape or form to the physical one. All explanations that seem to support this notion that there is do not have solid evidence to prove so they rely on the Illusionary Occam’s Razor.
So the next time you think that Occam’s razor is the best explanation for your theory. Keep in mind that it requires that all other things be equal, ambiguity is always the lesser to certainty. Likewise as I’ve said before if you are willing to ignore the evidence of the physical world for no better reason than to fulfill confirmation bias then you might as well not debate at all. Nothing can be said to change your mind.
I hope this short lesson was entertaining . This is my 11th entry in a row, which is exciting because both my father and myself currently share ages that are multiples of 11 .
Experimental Neurosis
3 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
The following subject should interest some people, for the rest of you…for shame! It’s a concept known as Experiment Neurosis. When I was actually taking Psychology courses (before the Major’s structure caused me to want to write a collection of depressing poetry) there was a particular concept that I found remarkable. Remarkable both in the fact that it was true and likewise in the fact that it didn’t cause an outcry of "Ah Ha’s!" amongst the class room. I was utterly dumbfounded by the lack of connection. A connection that should hopefully be set within all of you very soon.
experimental neurosis
medical dictionaryA behavior disorder produced experimentally, as when an organism is required to make a discrimination of extreme difficulty and "breaks down" in the process.
Now this definition is full of links that should hopefully aid anyone reading this in reaching a level of understanding that is required. It’s all pretty simple in concept which is why I like it.
Think of it this way. You have a dog (or if it helps a mean person) strapped into a box so that they cannot escape. They are presented with either a circle or an oval. If they click the button when they are presented with the circle they get something nice like food (for the mean person it could be something they like like watching babies cry) and if they click the button when its an oval they receive something not nice like a painful shock (or happy baby imagery). For those that know the terms we would call the first situation an appetitive one. The idea being that all an appetitive stimuli is is one that an organism actively seeks. Whereas the latter stimuli is an aversive stimuli which is simply a stimuli that an organism actively avoids.
What we do with this experiment is slowly make the oval look more and more like the circle until they are almost indiscernible. At this point it becomes a guessing game for the organism and after a even as little as a half dozen (perhaps less) trials you will see a spike in distress. If you continue along this path the organism will begin to show severe signs of neurosis becoming either highly aggressive or highly passive, attacking all things around them or looking almost dead.
Now imagine if you will a situation where the entire world surrounding the organism is structured with a collection of situations where the desired outcome is masked behind a circle and an almost indiscernible oval. This is essentially what hypocritical laws and customs create. In the US alone we have the following hypocrisies (off the top of the head):
Tobacco and Alcohol, the two drugs who hold the highest levels of deaths per year, are the only two drugs that are legal. Whereas much less harmful substances with much higher rates of quitting are illegal and have extreme penalties.
It is illegal to be sexually involved with someone under 18 but likewise teenagers are constantly shown in sexually suggestive situations on television, in music, and in everyday life. This creates a paradigm where you are told it is wrong and yet even the Disney network is doing it.
Humans are like any other organism built to sustain their genetic code and thusly are attracted to and pleased by sexual interaction. However we likewise have taboos that say that these things are dirty, calling people sluts, hoes, and other derogatory terms, actively sexual people are attacked when running for office and sex is the center of one of the most heated discussions in the US political scope: Gay Marriage.
Religions are almost always quoted as being belief systems of peace and love and yet slavery, homosexual prejudice, the twin towers incident, the crusades, multiple nations invading other nations, and even the events between Israel and Palestine are all stated as being supported acts of whatever major deity depending on the event.
Anyone reading this could likely name ten separate things off the top of their head that are hypocritical and yet pervasive throughout their country. This I believe is the cause of many of the worlds worst issues. If not the worlds worst issues it is easily the cause of the events that lead up to those issues.
Experimental Neurosis is what I feel to be the best explanation for the reactions people have with the unknown. The aggression against homosexuality being a grand example. There is no real outside way of knowing for certain who is and who is not gay. This creates a paradigm of circle and near-circle-oval that places the person (well their brain) in a level of discomfort that leaves them with two likely responses: High levels of Aggression or High levels of Passiveness.
It’s also likely why people hold on so harshly to their beliefs. The unknown is likely the greatest example of neurosis inducing stimuli one can deal with. It not only resents you with a circle and a near circle it essentially presents you with an infinite number of them. Even though statistically you are going to be victimized during the day most people are scared of the dark, the absence of light leaves us with a plethora of zones that we cannot see and thusly leaves us with many zones of neurosis inducing unknown. The brain enjoys distinct dichotomies because they are the simplest form of knowledge.
So as you look at the world around you, take some time to think of all the things that are one way but said to be another. Taboos, laws that conflict with personal desire, and the conflicting worlds of reality and belief. It’s a fascinating view on life that makes the quest for knowledge all the more vital to our survival as a species. If we allow neurosis to continually spread with every increasing hypocrisies we will likely not survive it. It only takes one aggressive neurotic in control of nuclear or biological weaponry to end the lives of many.
Metaphysics Exam – Studying
3 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Idealism:
Idealism is the philosophy that people are identical to their mind/soul. Their bodies are just tools to an end much like a bicycle is not identical to the body riding it but instead a tool to an end. To be a living person you require a body and a mind.
A mind (or soul) is a nonphysical thing, it is the embodiment of a persons entire self. To put it simpler, it is a “Nonphysical, conscious thing.” When thinking of Idealism the previous statement of the bicycle is probably the easiest way to understand it. Likewise it is important to realize the system of communication is entirely one way in Idealism. The soul/mind commands the body without return information.
Materialism:
Materialism is the philosophy that people are identical to their bodies. The mind/soul is really just physical processes acting out in ones own physical brain via electro chemical responses (or more simply physical processes). It also states that all psychic phenomena are actually physical phenomena.
A phenomena is a process that is seemingly unexplainable, so in the case of a psychic phenomena people tend to bring up things like telekinesis or out of body experiences. Basically in line with all other concrete knowledge it is the assumption that all things involving the person is likewise a series of events acted out entirely in the physical plane.
Dualism:
Dualism is the Philosophy that a person is a composite object, a living person requiring a mind/soul and a body.
The idea being that our mind is the nonphysical thinker and our body is the physical doer. They act in tandem to create a total organic package. When our body dies our mind goes off to live (misnomer?) on its own merry way.
Interactionism:
Interactionism is the Philosophy that a person is a composite object, a living person requiring a mind/soul and a body. Furthermore the mind and body work in tandem communicating back and forth between each other.
When thinking about this it’s easiest to look at the mind and body as the two input/output devices, each sending information to the other and each receiving information from the other. The difference between Dualism and Interactionism is the explicit statement that there is a two way information transfer between mind and body.
In the next section I will present popular arguments against Materialism and my counter arguments to them (these arguments are not of my doing they are from metaphysics).
The Argument from Death:
When a relative dies the common vernacular is to say that “that relative has passed on.” Materialism is wrongheaded because when we enter a funeral and see the dead body of someone we do not say “There they are.” In fact we instead say that they have left us, or passed on, or in some other way departed from there body. Because of this it is certain that the person and their body are not a singular being and thusly Materialism is wrong.
Logically it would be seen as.
(1) Uncle Mort passed on.
(2) Uncle Mort’s body did not pass on.
(3) If (1) and (2), Uncle Mort is not the same as his body.
(4) If (3), Materialism is false.
———
(5) Materialism is false.Justification for line 1 is that when someone dies we say that “They’ve passed on.” Justification for line 2 is that we can see that their body still exists under normal conditions after death. Justification for line 3 is that if a person is not the same as their body then Materialism is false.
If all parts of the logical structure are true, then the argument from death is entirely valid. For an argument to be valid is just to say that if all lines are true then the conclusion must be true. It uses a series of Modus Ponens. For clarification Modus Ponens is the following logical structure. Where each line is a premise.
Modus Ponus
if P then Q
P
—
Q
However while the argument is valid, it is not sound, which is to say that all lines are true. Firstly we look at premise one. Popular opinion is still an opinion, in the same sense that just because you say something does not mean that it is true. It is erroneous to say that uncle mort has passed on, the following example shall illustrated why.
Jerry the Caterpillar
When Jerry enters the metamorphosis stage we do not say that Jerry no longer is with us. Likewise when Jerry leaves the cocoon and is now a Caterpillar we do not say that Jerry is gone and a new being has appeared. Instead we acknowledge that Jerry has just entered one of his many stages. In all cases still being a physical being.
Likewise the same is true with uncle mort. The materialist would argue that Uncle mort is in fact in the coffin in front of us. Uncle Mort has merely entered another stage of his physical sequence, in this case death. Much akin to our desktop still existing when we shut off our computer just no longer being accessible Uncle Mort’s brain has ceased to function and we have been shut off from communication. Likewise it may help to think of Uncle Mort’s brain as a monitor that projects thoughts and ideas and that with the ceasing of his heart he has lost power and is equally ineffective at functioning.
Finally not only is this argument unsound I would further stress that it is a very weak argument. If one is willing to accept vernacular as a decider in real life facts then essentially all things are possible as long as we view them as possible. Yet merely saying something is possible has never been shown to suddenly make it true, to help further understand this it is meant that until something is said it is untrue (or impossible). In essence had everyone who walked into the church said “Uncle Mort is not dead.” would that act alone then make Uncle Mort alive?
The Problem of Other Minds
(1) If Dualism is true, then it’s not possible for me to know that there are other people in the world.
(2) It is possible for me to know that there are other people in the world.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(3) Dualism is not true.
Now to help understand the above problem is to first look at a concept that shall be known as “Zombies”. Trying your best to not think of fantasy Zombies, it just makes us both look silly if you do.
Zombies for the purpose of this discussion are human bodies without minds.
The Zombie Principle: There is no way for me to definitively prove that other people have minds.
So with this in mind we look at the above argument. Premise one establishes that by the tenants of Dualism that to be a live person you must a composite object of a mind and a body, however there is no process that we can use to prove that people have a mind. They could very well just be incredibly sophisticated machines simulating the same activities that one would attribute to having a soul. Responses, emotions, and all other human activities can be emulated and thusly there is no way for us to know. Likewise it is utterly nonsensical to think of examining a nonphysical entity with physical tools (the only ones at our disposal).
The second premise is equally reasonable, nearly all persons would recognize that there are people around them. It would be a large stretch (and likely a hypothetical only) to say that anyone has lived their entire life and all those they know and love are to them just zombies. Equally simple would be using Materialism which can be proven by stating that all physical people around you are indeed people.
If we take these two lines to be true then the argument is valid, because it is impossible to know whether there are other persons through the tenants of dualism yet it is ridiculous to say that all people around you are not people. It would place you in a position where you couldn’t have a discussion at all since all those around you are mere simulations of an actual living person.
Further I would say that this argument is sound. I could think of no way through dualism that you could prove that there are people with souls. It is entirely possible to even program a software to believe IT has a soul which would take it even further to say that the dualist cannot even prove they have a soul. Ones own brain cannot accurately portray what it is because it cannot exist outside of itself (from the view of a materialist).
If a statement can only be judged off nonphysical evidence it is flawed because all possibilities in life could be explained with ‘because I think so”. If we take this stance once we no longer need to search for enlightenment since our strategy will simply be to ignore physical evidence in the light of it conflicting with nonphysical evidence. I make this bold statement because it would appear if you are willing to omit physical evidence then all knowledge is omitted seeing as all things we know is either based on outside information or inferences based on previously gained outside information. Even knowledge at the genetic level is passed from parent to child, traveling far enough back until the information is first ingrained from the outside world into the DNA.
The Argument of Psychic Phenomena
(1) Psychic Phenomena Occur
(2) If (1), Minds exist.
(3) If (2), Materialism is false.
—-
(4) Materialism is False
A story and some clarification is necessary. Firstly we have Psychic Phenomena which are designed as follows.
Psychic Phenomena are defined as all events involving the mind that have no explanation, out of body experiences, reincarnation, and telekinesis being a few.
Now for the story. There have been many reported cases of events such as telekinesis, out of body experiences, reincarnation, and other irrefutably psychic phenomena. Because of this it is blatantly obvious to anyone who is not close minded that psychic activities happen, psychic activities cannot happen without minds. Materialism states that the mind does not exist, but this evidence proves it does and thusly the philosophy of Materialism is wrong.
With the above story and definition we find that it is a valid argument. Indeed psychic phenomena (according to the story) occur, thusly minds must exist, and finally Materialism is false if minds exist. I would argue while according to the story and the definition it is a valid argument, I don’t believe in reality that it is a sound argument. See below what I theorize is really happening.
There is not necessarily such a thing as a Psychic Phenomena, instead there are two sub divisions, a perceived psychic phenomena, and a genuine psychic phenomena. It is quite possible people experience what they perceive in all honesty to be a genuine psychic phenomena however likewise they are not actually genuine. If Perceived makes it difficult to grasp instead try “Apparent”. It would then be safe to say the following:
Apparent Psychic Phenomena
(1) Apparent Psychic Phenomena Occur.
(2) If (1), Then Minds Exist.
(3) If (2), Materialism is False.
—
(4) Materialism is False.
If you look at it instead in this light you will find that it is not only not sound but it is also not valid. While it is true that Apparent Psychic Phenomena occur they in no way are explainable solely by the existence of a mind or soul. Which means line 2 is false. In fact there is no better an explanation from the side of minds than there is from the side of materialism. Each raises many questions and neither answers them.
In fact Materialism already states that all Psychic Phenomena are actually physical phenomena. This would mean that the apparent occurrence of psychic phenomena does nothing to disprove the existence of Materialism. Which means that line 3 is also false.
For the Argument of Conceivability go back and read this article which is almost entirely on the topic of conceivability and misconceptions with it.
The No Interaction Argument
(1) Causal interaction between nonphysical and physical things is inconceivable.
(2) If (1), causal interactions do not happen between nonphysical and physical things.
(3) if (2), Interactionism is false
—
(4) Interactionism is false.
The logic behind the first line is that there is no way to reasonably conceive an interaction between a non-physical and a physical thing. To do so requires very high levels of ambiguity that as I’ve discussed before is inappropriate. The reasoning behind line two is that if there is no way to conceive of it then the operation cannot happen. For a further understanding this returns to previous statements of physical evidence. If you accept natural law then the action cannot happen without negating natural law. If you negate natural law then you essentially rebuke existence which is a bold statement to make while arguing within it. The reasoning behind line three is that Interactionism explicitly states that there is a causal relation between both the mind and the body. If there is no means for this to happen then the philosophy is false.
For reasons stated above the argument is valid, likewise I would say it is also sound. There is no way with any possible outside evidence to prove that nonphysical things interact with physical things. Because by design nonphysical things are entirely undetectable. If we are willing to create new rules to make it possible then we’ve essentially created a precedent to make everything true.
Finally we reach the last possible Argument on the exam tomorrow:
The Argument for Materialism by Taylor
(not me I think I could make a better on and probably did already on the conceivability article about god).
(1) Materialism is no worse off than any non-Materialist view in answering for a persons thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc.
(2) Materialism is better than non-Materialist views in explaining the connection between the conscious self and the physical self.
(3) If (1) and (2), Materialism is True.
—
(4) Materialism is true.
Of all the arguments this one requires the most deep explanations to make it make sense. The justification for line one is that when you require non-ambiguity it is shown through comparison that non-materialist views are no better at explaining the difficult questions (many addressed above). Which is a nice way of saying on the unknown Materialism is tied with its competitors. The rational for line two is the idea that a materialist views the conscious self and the physical self as one in the same, there are tools one can use to show physical activities carrying out within the mind when a person is thinking that support it, in the sense that there are many physical means of displaying thought it would appear that Materialism is indeed one up on that.
If then Materialism is no worse at explaining the difficult questions and is better at explaining the critical question of the conscious self and the physical self. With this it becomes apparent that it would be illogical to choose a non materialist view and thusly if you do choose Materialism (as evidence should direct you to) you are then admitting that it is True. Even if you are to say it is “True with all known evidence.” that means at the point of discussion you believe it is true. Indeed why would someone believe in something they don’t think is true, that would be nonsensical.
If we have established the previous reasoning then the argument is sound, you cannot have a case (if you accept the above two paragraphs) where the above lines are true and the conclusion is not. I would further argue that it is a sound argument. The best counter argument I can think to this argument is that one could refute physical evidence but that would to me create the paradigm of explaining everything as true.
However I will likewise admit that while this argument is sound, it’s a very weak or poorly worded argument. It requires far too much explanation to help make its point which is counter productive to the system of logical structure.
—
With this I am done with studying for my next exam tomorrow, I hope anyone who reads this enjoys themselves. I realize in the beginning I was erroneously stating what ‘valid’ is but I corrected myself near the end. Regardless my points should still be correct .
The Burden of Proof
3 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Something that has annoyed me for quite sometime is a common strategy used in many debates. “Prove me wrong.” This I feel is entirely incorrect and takes a very immature and utterly pointless road on the journey to intellectual enlightenment.
There are any number of statements that someone can safely make and by the logic of “Prove me wrong” herein called “PMW” you create a difficult situation that does nothing constructive. Some of life’s greatest questions have been defended with this view. What people fail to recognize is the conundrum they place themselves or at the very least their views in. As stated in a previous article it is the case that all knowledge is either from the outside world or previous information gathered from the outside world. Any and all debates should take this into account and consider any information not in this outside world superfluous.
You might ask why such a bold suggestion would be made. However it comes to pass that if you are willing to accept information with no outside support because it ‘feels’ right you essentially can say absolutely anything and it becomes true (at least to you). Example below:
(1) There are invisible creatures circling the earth generating absolutely no information that could aid any other entity in detecting them.
You can easily defend this argument with PMW but does that accomplish anything but superficially making you ‘win’ (one of the poorer reasons to debate). The PMW is another example of something that explains everything and because of this it explains absolutely nothing. It is not a proper response to support absolutely any argument. It’s highly popular because of its simplicity. Essentially the person making this defense is saying the following:
“All things that cannot be explained at current time can justly be explained with any answer.”
For me the burden of certainty lies upon information. If I am not willing to require solid information then why am I trying to learn? It seems to me asinine to scour the world for knowledge and then toss it aside when it doesn’t sparkle with your beliefs. (Kudos to those that get the joke in that last line)
So that’s it, this goes also for any posts in the future that will inevitably link me to linking back to here. In all cases within this Universe (unless you are willing to negate all Knowledge and thusly the entire discussion in the first place) the burden of proof lies upon all things that are not currently understood. If there is no evidence to support a belief then that belief is unfounded and likewise a piss poor citation.
A final note, an equally poor response to evidence is saying “I don’t believe it.” Instead one must say “I don’t believe it because…” and remember not to fall back upon hokey support discussed above.
Does God negate Existence? (Or at least Natural Law)
3 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
We’ll begin with a story, in (large) part inspired by Professor Markosian. At the beginning of our class on Wednesday we were presented with the following argument known as “The Argument from Conceivability.”
The Argument from Conceivability
(1) I can conceive of existing without my body.
(2) If (1), then it is possible for me to exist without my body.
(3) If it is possible for me to exist without my body, then I am not identical to my body.
(4) If I am not identical to my body, then Materialism is false.
––––––––––––––––––––––
(5) Materialism is false.
What I failed to explain clearly was however explained perfectly by the professor. He argued that proposition 1 of the argument is flawed. We cannot conceive existing without our bodies, we just think we can. He used the following example which he dubbed “The Lois Lane Argument”. If you don’t know even vaguely who the following characters are…shame on you!
The Lois Lane Argument
(1) Lois can conceive of Superman existing without Clark Kent.
(2) If (1), then it is possible for Superman to exist without Clark Kent.
(3) If it is possible for Superman to exist without Clark Kent, then Superman is not identical to Clark Kent.
(4) If Superman is not identical to Clark Kent, then the Superman = Clark Kent theory is false.
––––––––––––––––––––––
(5) The Superman = Clark Kent theory is false.
He followed this with a story which I’ll attempt to recreate. Say the Lois decided she in fact wanted to believe that both Clark Kent and Superman are different people, she would verify this belief with the following (somewhat morbid) idea. We are at the funeral of Clark Kent, he has been cremated and is most certainly gone. At this funeral Lois stands beside Superman looking at the Urn of Clark Kent.
In this example she is not accomplishing the first proposition. She is not conceiving Superman existing without Clark Kent, they are one in the same, as she creates the thought she is placing Superman (who is Clark Kent) into the thought mistakenly assuming that he is a separate being. At least one person in the class argued that they could easily think of them as two different beings, which is true (they being the student) but I feel I know why.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Superman and Clark Kent are a single entity. As Bill of Kill Bill said “Peter Parker was just Peter Parker before the Spider bit him. But Superman, he was always Superman, even beneath the guise of Clark Kent he is still Superman.” We know that they are the same entity and thusly with this information we can manipulate the scenario to create a situation where in fact they are different individuals.
Lois however does not know. When she creates the scenario she is placing her Superman (who is Clark Kent) into the funeral looking at an Urn of himself. She is creating a paradox without even knowing that she has created a paradox. It is the fact that we know they are one in the same that gives us the power to separate them. Otherwise we cannot earnestly conceive it.
Now what bothers me is the abuse of the concept of conceiving. You can indeed lie to yourself unknowingly, if you are adopted and do not know it you can earnestly believe that when you think of your biological father fighting (while using the image of your Adopted father) that it is the correct image when in fact the information you are using is false. Likewise for a while some fast food places primarily used a clay mineral for their shakes (which is why they didn’t call them milk shakes) you can imagine yourself drinking one of these and mistakenly believing it is primarily a dairy product where in fact it is a mineral based solution (the clay held its shape at room temperature much longer than a diary medium). We create illusions in our own fantasies because the information we are using is incorrect from the beginning.
To clarify I have a strong belief that I will lay upon you all. I feel that ALL knowledge is either the product of your outside world or the product of previous information gathered from your outside world. Everything you know is manufactured from either outside stimulus or the stored information of previous outside stimulus. Likewise information carried over in your genes was stored there from your parents who either gathered there information from the outside world or from their parents genes caring it over and continuing on. It’s a constant pattern and is the entire reason we advance with our understanding of the world. We are literally building our understanding of the universe on top of previous understandings that we have about the universe. I think if you take a moment to think about it it’s pretty easy to see where I come to that bold conclusion. A Biologist can explain the transfer of base information across DNA far far far better than I can so ask them to clarify and not me.
I am reminded of a story, that either I made up or heard from someone (I can’t tell these days too many stories), regardless of its source it still works pretty well. There is a man who walks upon the beach and see’s the corpse of a horse very near the dismembered horn of a narwhale. So close in fact that it looks as if the horn itself has fallen off of the very horse that lies there dead. The horse itself is in beautiful condition and seems to have fallen from (the conception) of heaven itself. This man happens to be a wonderful artist and goes home to draw what he felt had died upon that beach. He has know previous knowledge of narwhales, and thusly a magnificent new creature is born.
Painting by: Andy Mack
This man has indeed to the best of his abilities conceived of a horse with a horn using information he perceives to be true. He saw a fallen horse very near the horn that had no apparent source other than the horse. However he indeed wrong about what he is imagining. The imaginative figure is not ‘wrong’ just like there are no honest stupid questions, but in relation to reality it is indeed wrong. He thinks what he is imagining is what he saw dead upon that beach, he is entirely correct in thinking what he believes is true, he is however wrong in the fact that it is true. Much like Lois is wrong in believing that figure she is projecting in her thoughts is a figure that is separate of Superman. We however know that in both these situations what the reality is, thusly we can actually create a conception that is real.
I may or may not have confused more people than I helped with that last example but at the very least I got to show a picture of a unicorn. So on with the discussion.
There is one thing that is generally missing from conceived notions that are unintentional fallacies and that is specificity. Now forgive me if I use the word incorrectly but I feel that people will understand my meaning regardless (vernacular is amazing in that incorrectly using a word can still convey the same message as using the correct word for the message). I believe on surface glance that I can create images of amazingly vivid quality, in fact in my mind I can see dragons battling humans in this epic war with flames and death and maybe cheesecake. However once I attempt to get specifics, to look at that image and really scrutinize it, I find pieces fading. When I attempt to really honestly see that dragon’s face it starts to become a blur. Pieces fall off to accommodate more acuity. I believe this in part is the issue many people overlook when they think they can conceive something.
Which leads us back to the original example. The idea is that someone can tell you a story about leaving your body, going to heaven, seeing the pearly gates, and meeting the gate keeper. If you can ‘perceive’ this then it is obviously possible, because we cannot perceive the impossible (by definition I’m sure). The idea being that if it is possible then Materialism cannot exist because Materialism says strictly that it is in no way possible.
However in this situation you are not perceiving heaven, nor are you perceiving the experience of life after death. You are perceiving (I’ll start saying imagining cause its a quicker word for typing) a single concept of such. You are looking at an idea, not an actual thing. We can say that we can imagine an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same existence, however in actuality these two things must be mutually exclusive. Because the results of their contact is incomprehensible…or more simply…unimaginable. However if we remain as vague as we possible can we can give the illusion of imagining. Which is a popular tactic in the metaphysics course I’m taking.
It is the moment that you lose that specificity, that you have left the realm of true perception, and entered an illusionary sense of certainty. Now that we have reached this point I’ll quickly recap.
I feel that all knowledge is based off either information gathered from the outside world, or previous information that was gathered from the outside world. This can be abstracted to include nitpicky things like two pieces of information previously gathered against one another but in the end it requires the outside world (you don’t create something from nothing). Secondly I feel that you can conceive something that you feel is what you are conceiving but it actually isn’t, which falls back upon the previous statement of the source of knowledge. Thirdly the introduction of ambiguity or vagueness (pick your favorite word) can create a false sense of certainty that leads to flimsy logic (or rather illogic).
We enter now the next part of my experience. Today we began talking about another metaphysical philosophy called “Interactionism”. It quite simple goes as follows (information provided by Professor Markosian).
Interactionism: (i) People are composite objects. (ii) Each living person is composed of two parts: a mind and a body. (iii) The mind and body of a single person typically enter into two-way causal interaction.
It’s essentially dualism with a new clause slapped on the end like trucker mud flaps. What it basically says is that we are a symbiosis of two entities, the physical self and the non-physical self. These two things interact in a causal two-way relationship. Essentially the mind communicates non-physically with your physical body and your body communicates physically with your non-physical brain (for some of you that last sentence just blew your brain into chunks for the rest let me continue to the argument). In the book the question is asked how on earth does a non-physical thing interact with a physical object. By the very natural laws that hold our universe together (well..they do something…haha) you can in no situation have a physical thing interact with a non physical object. It is an instance that is unimaginable, if you take a rather ambiguous look at it and merely allow it to happen it looks imaginable, but once again you are not actually imagining what you think you are (go back to Lois and maybe get a drink if you need a break).
The Professor provided an equally persuasive argument in the direction of the body interacting with the mind that I feel will be a productive piece of information.
The No Interaction Argument
(1) Causal interaction between minds and bodies is inconceivable.
(2) If (1), then causal interaction between minds and bodies does not occur.
(3) If causal interaction between minds and bodies does not occur, then Interactionism is false.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(4) Interactionism is false.
Following this we had two major arguments, both were inherently flawed, the latter of which leads us back to the very first (I’d hope) sentence you read when you came to this particular thread: the topic header. The first argument was this. The brain (or mind) and the body interact in a fashion like Casper the friendly ghost, because as we all know he’s a good source of scientific information. Casper can will himself to be visible (a physical trait), can will himself to touch physical things (such as a Pepsi can), can will himself to no longer be visible or tangible (non physical traits), and he can even create mixtures of the two where part of him is intangible and part is tangible. The idea being that you can imagine your brain communicating with your mind/body and it makes perfect sense.
I however think this returns us back to the Lois Lane situation. We are not in the situation of the outside entity, in the case of Lane and Kent we are outside observers looking in upon a concrete world with concrete limitations (as in there is no case where Kent is not Superman, as far as I know Superman is essentially the same guy in all the infinite DC universes even. He’s relatively consistent consistent compared to his comrades). We beyond a shadow of a doubt know what is true and false in the world of Superman, because we have direct access to the entities that created it: Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Because of this we know beyond a shadow of a doubt (if one is to assume that neither of them are habitual liars) what is true and false in that universe and it is that concrete knowledge of that world that allows us to earnestly conceive of alterations to it. Unlike Lois who is naive to the unity of Kent and Superman, we know that they are the same entity, and thusly we can earnestly separate them. We have the chunks of outside information necessary to correctly fabricate the new possibility in our mind.
Going back to Casper, we are in a position to posit that in Casper’s universe under all the known rules of that universe the intangible can communicate with the tangible. Keeping in mind that at no point does this information in any way negate our own reality or our own natural laws. Because that communication in no way breaks into our world, as I assume not one of the billions of people in the known history of humanity has ever had a real discussion with Casper over a Pepsi.
The second argument actually upset me a bit. It was given by a classmate who felt that there is no reason to believe that an object must be physical to touch physical things or nonphysical to touch nonphysical things. There was no reasoning given, no example (although I think you know where I’m going with this) of a situation where this occurs, just a blatantly ambiguous statement. As I said before one can mistakenly assume they have overcome a problem by thinking of it ambiguously.
This to me is a Pandora’s box of epic proportions which earnestly left me asking another student why she was even in college in the first place (for reasons outlined soon). If we are willing to accept something merely because we can what point is there to knowledge? It would appear to me if you are willing to posit that such reasoning is sound you are essentially accepting the following.
The God Problem (Version 2.0 now )
1. If God Exists all things are possible.
2. Natural law cannot exist if all things are possible.
3. If (2), Nature (The outside world) does not exist.
4. If (3), We know nothing about the external world.
5. if (4), We know nothing.
————–
6. We Know Nothing.
If we exist is in a reality that does not exist (which is possible by proposition 1), then we can learn absolutely nothing (proposition 4), if that is the case then why go to college? Because if you can answer all of the questions in life with “God did it” then haven’t you already completed the equation? This is much like my unicorn story before, I don’t know if I heard it in a dream or from another person but.
“Anything that explains everything explains absolutely nothing.”
If in fact God does exist, and if in fact this breaks ground to the idea that anything is possible (like Casper), it would appear to me that we place ourselves back into the original problem of the course. The problem of Skepticism.
The Brain In a Vat Hypothesis (BIVH): I am just a brain in a vat being fooled by alien scientists.
In Logical Form:
The Brain in a Vat Argument
(1) I don’t know that BIVH is false.
(2) If (1), then I don’t know anything about the external world.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(3) I don’t know anything about the external world.
It essentially places us in a universal Lois Lane situation, we believe that we understand the things around us because of the knowledge we believe to be true. However it is incorrect because the information we are using (information from our outside world) is from the very beginning a fallacy. We believe in any instance that the information we are using (even the information you are using at this moment to dispute my case) is real but in fact it is all an illusion.
It just seems to me that you could have no case where God (or at the very least minds/souls) can exist in the natural world and interact with this natural world without completely negating the natural laws that hold the natural world together. It’s completely sane to say that Casper can sip a Pepsi within the universe he was created in, however I strongly question the legitimacy of thinking that Casper could (or does) reach into the our universe and sip Pepsi with us. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. (In the sense that once you eat it you no longer have it) I feel that too many people use ambiguity to accomplish that task. I hope that I wasn’t ambiguous, anyone who needs clarifications can leave a comment and I will clarify the problem .