Jump to content

MonDie

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

144 Excellent

About MonDie

  • Rank
    Formerly "Mondays Assignment: Die"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Panic" by The Smiths "Panic" by The Smiths is mine. Right hemisphere! Right hemisphere! No offense please.
  2. In any case, I didn't want to discuss religion but to discuss how discussion of religion could be useful, so I will end with some comments on the opening poster's content. Please note that I have virtually no philosophy studies. It is a hobby. Another advantage to this pragmatism or functionalism is the idea that a problem should be diagnosed before it is solved: If it isn't broke, don't fix it. I will elaborate this later. For now, the opening post repeatedly evoked my notion of precedent. [...] Acceptance of a hypothesis is of course like acceptance of any belief in that it demands rejection of whatever conflicts with it. The less rejection of prior beliefes required, the more plausable the hyothesis--other things being equal. Often some hypothesis is available that conflicts with no prior beliefs. Thus we may attribute a click at the door to arrival of mail through the slot. [...] The mail falling through the mail slot is not so parsimonious or consilient as it is having precedent--and moreover the phone dialing example seems to elaborate Blike's frequentist approach--. The parsimony is in each instance of prior observation of the event having precedent, e.g. the mail slot: the parsimony is the corroboration from each sense that confirms what is happening, that mail is falling through the mail slot. When you think it might be happening again, you are relying on precedent, not parsimony. Blike's "modesty" elaborates the first complication of relying on precedent. Virtue II: modesty: One hypothesis is more modest than another if it is weaker in a logical sense; if it is implied by the other, without implying it. A hypothesis A is more modest than A and B as a joint hypothesis.[...] This is the complication of categorizing similar events or things without violating parsimony. For a human who is the product of evolution within an ecosystem of other evolved organisms and evolved structures, the Gestalt processes of perception are usually enough to efficiently identify recurrent things and iterative behaviors. At least, that is what I personally arrived at. Thus my diagnosis: Gestalt perception is necessary for the categorization of recurrent phenomena which is necessary for the notion of precedent, but it is evolved for the parts of a natural ecosystem and not scientific inquiry per se. This is a potential diagnosis that could allow us to identify why people have problems reasoning about abstract scientific concepts. Again, I am not an expert, but it is an example. Virtue III: simplicity: Where simplicity considerations become especially vivid is in drawing curves through plotted points on a graph. Consider the familiar practice of plotting measurements. [...] [...] However many points we plot, there remain infinitely man curves that may be drawn through them. Whatever curve we draw represents our generalization from the data, our prediction of what bioling temperatures would be found at altitudes as the slimplest curve that passes through or reasonably close to all the plotted points. [...] Now Blike was getting into the abstract, and that is why we are using a representation, a graph. I have struggled with this a lot. In my opinion, the idea of simplicity is more complicated because it so easily traverses the subjective/objective divide between the mental representation and the thing represented. Sometimes the simple representation fails to capture the entire reality, because the mind must conform to the reality and not the other way around. After the mind conforms, the corrected concept starts to seem more familiar and accessible to the subject, and the altered mental landscape means that subjective simplicity has aligned with the objective phenomena that is represented by it. If this seems whacky, you might be right. The same problem is precisely why I took issue with Blike's description of Conservatism. Sometimes improper training of the mind, or improper reinforcement of the problem solving tendency, results in the increased accessibility of concepts despite the concepts' lack of parsimony or empirical utility. Such an improperly trained mind will perceive Blike's "conservatism" where others will not. I hope that was fun. Peace. I will revisit this thread to heck for interesting responses.
  3. This is a slight diversion, but it will be interesting as a creative idea about how to stimulate this sort of thinking in other people. We already know that the process of neuronal death guides cognitive development. If we can tie this to God's existence, we might get some productive discussions about truth and reality. A pragmatistic understanding of knowledge that explains ideas as useful and functional---but ultimately subjective--tools in the interaction between the subject and his surroundings is not something that is easy to reconcile with the notion of consciousness without evolution via natural selection. Selection among random variants, whether biological or cosmological, seems to be the only process by which functionality would emerge from randomness. If you assume that randomness comes first and that cognition must involve functionally useful concepts, it is difficult to imagine cognition that is not the result of natural selection. Will this taint Darwin's theory with filthy atheism? Darwinian evolution =/= Atheism. Evolution does explain life without providing an explanation for God, and it could potentially explain cognition through neuronal death without explaining God too. And kinetic molecular theory doesn't explain God either. However, if cognition has an explanation and God still does not, Huston we have a problem. If we can discuss God's existence while discussing the cognition of information and facts, we could do society a service. We will not taint Darwin's well established theory with atheism if we always distinguish it from speculative, philosophical theories about cognition. Debating God's existence could be an antidote for misinformation if it becomes a debate about cognition in consciousness. The sort of perspective I am describing is really not some tenuous theory but rather an uncommon way of describing something very common. We always talk about thinking in the first-person and second-person. This cognitive pragmatism is only the consequence of thinking about thinking in the third person and acknowledging the necessary relationship between perception and cognition (first person), which is the relationship between the perceivable world and our ideas about the world (third person). The consequence of this third person perspective is that our ideas are not parts of the world but are tools with a functional, pragmatic relationship with the parts of the world they pertain to. The more controversial question would be whether ideas that are functional tools are the result of an evolution-like process underpinned by neuronal death, but I think it is probably the case. This should have consequences for where we should expect to find cognitive activity or the communication it produces, but also, because it produces analogies between the scientific method for a hypothesis and the trial testing of a tool, it has consequences for what sorts of popular ideas should or should not be verifiable by the populaces they infiltrate. That is all for now. Uh, happy - and hopefully safe - Thanksgiving. 👋😌 bye
  4. Duck, duck, duck, duck, homodimer!!!! How many months until the vaccine can be approved for widespread use, again? We might already be immune by that time if they don't disseminate this information carefully.
  5. Re: Moontanman in What are You Listening to? To be fair, a pragmatic understanding of knowledge that explains ideas as useful and functional---but ultimately subjective--tools in the interaction between the subject and his surroundings is not something that is easy to reconcile with the notion of consciousness without evolution via natural selection. Natural selection among random variants, whether biological or cosmological, seems to be the only process by which functionality would emerge from randomness. If you assume that randomness comes first and that cognition must involve functionally useful concepts, it is difficult to imagine cognition that is not the result of natural selection. I will grant that my lack of imagination is inevitably a limiting factor, but I have to admit that "autistic" gods like Spinoza's or Temple Grandin's are probably a lot more imaginative and substantive than the pop-theology that helps people get more donations. Call me Egnostic. Andrew Jackson Jihad shout out! I had a Defiance Ohio song removed form page 9.
  6. Sometimes I have to refresh myself. Diffusion of responsibility, or the bystander effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpdUbW8vbw It's kitty genovese, but it didn't embed.
  7. Haven't read, but Yay Guns is closed. Re: the hate speech problem. I've been mulling over and over the relationship between neuroticism (and mental health) and power, given that neurotic, "emotionally unstable" people enjoy less success while antagonistic people, with "callous unemotional" traits, enjoy as much success as anyone else. It would seem that unemotionality is favored over emotionality even though neurotic people score higher on measures of "emotional empathy." To be fair, honesty-humility, the sixth factor of personality which splinters off from agreeableness, is probably the better predictor of life success. Neuroticism would probably be the next factor to splinter, but my printer broke when I tried to print information on the SNAP and DAPP measures of personality. Neuroticism is related to suicide and being female even though females are less suicidal, which could be explained by sub-factors of the neuroticism factor. Whenever we direct our attention toward violent behavior -- rather than callous behavior which includes violent behavior -- we reinforce an implicit bias, an availability heuristic on neurotic people, that neurotic people are bad because they can turn violent. The argument isn't any more logical than suggesting that we shouldn't have toasters if some people electrocute themselves, but it probably sticks with us implicitly via the availability heuristic. Of course violent tendencies should be reigned in, but that doesn't mean neurotic people should be stigmatized. They might be a lot more compassionate than a lot of the indifferent people who lord over us. Incidentally, meditation would increase empathy and emotional control... 🙃 It is hard to say the extent of the damage, but these mass shootings and the argument that guns don't kill people have probably been useful for reinforcing negative stereotypes about powerless people. Posting now. Might have more That said, I also think racism and sectarianism might provide convenient routes for blame externalization and the misdirection of anger. Re anti-semitism, I have to wonder whether there is a discussion to be had about whether Hitler himself was corrupt even while he scapegoated the Jews for this problem. I don't like AIPAC any more than I like any other special interest, but I really wish Bernie had won the primary. I don't think it's a Jew problem.
  8. He both is and isn't the moon, depending on who he's talking to. High self-monitoring, you see. and an ever simmering kettle to boot. ... My bad. I'm music babbling.
  9. DuThe Shins was my first favorite from way before the unexpected acid trip. He also has Broken Bells, which I never noticed until 2020, somehow. I don't think I ever posted The Damned here. Franifio FTW!
  10. I have a magical unicorn that is completely untestable and mostly inconsequential. And it lends my Xbox to people who believe in it. So which side are you on?
  11. Arms treaties should allow other countries to opt in.  If Kim was only envious of the Iran Nuclear Deal, that is a down-side.  Unfortunately, radical Trump sanctioned Iran's food and medicine during a crisis.  

    1. MonDie

      MonDie

      I'm seconding Kyle Kulinski on Ro Khanna.

      Dwight D Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago, but somehow this issue became "leftist."  I absolutely support Ro Khanna.

  12. I think a speech regulation paradigm that revolves around limiting a person's air-time could incorporate that. Nobody should have more freedom to speak than anybody else does, and one potential solution could be that listening to a person's speech should always be a consensual choice. This would also increase the dialectical quality of speech by limiting most one-way proselytizing scenarios. I do think any regulation of speech should be democratic rather than authoritative, but the systems that are supposed to enact the democratic will will always be manipulated from the outside in ways that virtually guarantee the desired outcomes of the powers that be. Thus I have to fall back on individualistic libertarianism in this case. I just don't trust the antagonist, ruthless, power-hungry people. I do think socialist principles are generally aligned with progress in social justice, and that there are certain things which should not be comodified. Forced child marriages in exchange for dowry payments was an awful idea, and so was slavery and so is wage slavery. Natural resources aren't the same as mass produced commodities. Moreover, I think a case could be made that speech shouldn't be commodified either. Look at the Festinger and Carlsmith peg turning experiments for example. In that case it was a good outcome, because the people who were paid had an out that reduced the experience of cognitive dissonance. Alas, maybe there are other cases where this might manifest as moral wrecklessness. I didn't kill those people who died from what I said; I was paid to say those things and therefore I am not responsible. > I.e. everyone should be an honest actor who is responsible for the effects of what they say.
  13. Does the message strike anyone else as psychotic? I suppose some people, with schizotypal and paranoid personality disorder, do have some baseline level of psychosis that does not worsen with time. Maybe asking them to explain how they got into it could help them get out: schizophrenics, schizotypals and paranoids all have lower than average theory of mind skill, which is related to self-monitoring skill and emotional intelligence et cetera—Think gorillas looking at themselves in mirrors. In any case, the conspiracy theory might already be about to get some "oxygen". I've switched to Majority Report recently (R.I.P. Michael Brooks). Majority Report had two recent callers who were worried about QAnon. I don't know how pervasive QAnon belief actually is, but Michael Flynn posted a video endorsing QAnon a few months ago, and now a few Republicans who have voiced support for it have won their primaries. The candidates Marjorie Greene and Lauren Boebert are expected to win the general election. It is hard to say whether this family of conspiracy theories is propelling itself or is something being peddled by neoconservatives, but having those candidates in congress will increase whatever aura of credibility it already had, and that could be the point. Both parties deserve scrutiny and both constituencies have an obligation to scrutinize their nominees. The whole of congress has been taken over by corporatism, and I can't wait to watch the conspiracy theories jump the partisan divide too. P.S. Trump definitely colluded with the Russians. We understandably have a hard time proving something so difficult to prove, but it's there, we just know it. Who is Guccifer 2.0!? Who is she!?
  14. As much as I love empiricism and science, these mass delusions show that we are social first and empirical second, and that even what we call "history" is a record of what people believed at the time as it includes, by extension, what people knew and/or believed about whatever was really happening at the time as it happened. In social contexts we largely do whatever the crowd is doing, say whatever the crowd is saying, and simply assume all of it to be reasonable by proxy of being popular. This makes us all too easy to manipulate because it creates a positive feedback loop, and the problem can be expected to worsen as the size of the crowd increases, e.g. the massive crowd sizes seen in modern contexts. This undoubtedly interacts with the social psychological phenomena that researchers call deindividuation, diffusion of responsibility, and the false consensus effect + pluralistic ignorance, to name a few. We are, intentionally or unintentionally, negligently or maliciously, being repeatedly gaslit by our own sources of information. Thus we are all compromised agents, the victims of gaslighting, unless we can cautiously contemplate whatever the simpler alternatives to whatever the prevailing wisdom might be might be. A perversion of the simplicity principle is actually one of the virtues of a lie, a lie which is false enough to achieve the ends of the liar but still true enough to seem functionally 'good enough' to the dupe... sorta like Rutherford's atomic model / nuclear model of the atom. Alas, that is in an idealized model of how we should operate, not how we actually operate. In truth, it is tautologically true that we don't know how we operate when we aren't paying attention to how we are operating, and that we may not be able to know what a lack of scrutiny looks like if a lack of scrutiny cannot be properly scrutinized. One thing social psychology told me was that how we really think is very different from how a philosopher might think a person should think, and that we may be optimized for group behavior at the expense of critical thinking functions. Moreover, I think groupthink might be a bigger problem now than it ever was for our hunter-gatherer ancestors two-hundred-thousand years ago.
  15. I was expecting Biden's latest gaffes (and now the new accuser) to quickly squash the momentum Biden seemed to have on Super Tuesday. Between March 3rd and March 10th, the state-by-state composition shifted from mostly blue to mostly red, and yet Bernie still made gains in the popular vote. Unfortunately the popular vote gains were masked by the red-blue balance and red superdelegates, and maybe even red state voter suppression (Alabama & Mississippi epitomize the red skew). Then the popular vote shifted when the pandemic hit, which could be a real change in turnout or some kind of malfeasance, like what happened in Iowa, enabled by the shortage of staff. I don't like the idea of voting amidst a pandemic, but I also think the pandemic was well timed to give the illusion of Biden-mentum rather than a Biden burnout. I am seriously considering whether the wealthy megadonors keeping Biden afloat really want a Biden presidency. The campaign almost seems designed to implode: Biden campaign will float through the primaries on superficial name recognition and then implode during the general election, imploding because (A) any cognitive decline will only become more apparent and (B) it will become apparent that the media was protecting Biden (albeit during the primaries) after it is already accused of an anti-Trump bias (despite being pro-corruption in a way that coincidentally benefits Trump). 11:06AM 3/28 Lastly, the new research that challenged Bernie's electability was awfully well timed, and its verification would require a roughly five times larger sample size. They compared each candidate to Trump separately because they thought Bernie supporters were intentionally skewing the results by lying, lying that they would ONLY support Bernie against Trump and nobody else. My response to their research is the above paragraph. 11:17 AM
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.