Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

As I said, you seem to be concerned with how one creates an explanation. My interest is purely in the limitations imposed on "an explanation" by its definition and nothing else. Somehow you just cannot comprehend that as something worth thinking about.

My blind spot is right here. You assume, because I cannot grasp the referent, that I don't think it's worth grasping. That's your mistake. I can't grasp the referent, 'limitations imposed on "an explanation" by its definition'. I'm focused on the wrong thing. My mind just skipped right on past it. I've read it now 10 times. It's like that logic puzzle about the guy looking at a picture. "Brothers and sisters I have none, this man's father is my father's son". The answers people give show their inability or perhaps weakness in getting clear referents when they think. That's what I'm dealing with right now. My ability to get a firm referent when I read, 'limitations imposed on "an explanation" by its definition'. Sonofabitch. :rainbow:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Dick, you're talking about the definitions of the words in an explanation, right? And how they act as contraints to the meaning provided by the explanation. Is that correct?

[InfiniteNow]

???? So you are saying that there is nothing out there which plays any role in your model of the universe except the information available to you

right now

?????

Hey Doc,

You may consider checking into some of the posts in this thread if you care to clarify the particular point referenced above.

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/4843-moments-events.html

 

Keep on keepin' on, and thanks for sharing!

[Doctordick]

Dick, you're talking about the definitions of the words in an explanation, right? And how they act as constraints to the meaning provided by the explanation. Is that correct?

Somewhat, but I really don't worry much about the clarity of English in general, there are many ways to skin a cat (or so they say ;) ). The real issue is that definition always amounts to a constraint on what is being talked about; however, people seldom analyze the implied constraints tending to presume their emotional understanding of the definition is adequate. :(

 

There is a subtle aspect to science unrealized by even many scientists. When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. Suppose one begins by defining downhill with a carpenters level. :)

 

I hope you understand what a carpenters level is! It's one of those wooden sticks with a curve glass tube in the middle containing water with a bubble and some marked lines in the glass which indicate when the bubble is centered. I wouldn't make that comment except for the fact that I was once talking to someone and it turned out that they didn't know what a carpenters level was (and didn't bother to ask when I brought it up). :rain:

 

At any rate, if one tries to design an experiment to see if water runs downhill and defines downhill via a carpenters level, one has made a very major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment. Downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of your definition. ;)

 

What I am getting at is that scientists seldom waste much time worrying about the consequences of their definitions; they almost always simply presume that they know exactly what they are talking about. I have discovered that the definition of "an explanation" has some very extensive logical consequences which are not at all obvious. That is why I have gone to such care in specifying exactly what a definition is: "it is a method of obtaining your expectations from what you know" and that line all by itself opens the door to some very interesting properties. :rainbow:

 

You are wasting all your time thinking about the very simple mechanism I have set up to handle three very important facts: that all explanations are based on knowing less than everything, that your knowledge changes and sometimes what you think you know is wrong. My position is that these three fact are basic limitations on any explanation and have far reaching consequences. ;)

 

The favorite issue philosophers like to concentrate on is "how do you tell the difference between what is true and what seems to be true". They will not allow me the division unless I tell them how to perform the separation. It is, of course, clear to them that the separation cannot be performed and they waste all their time trying to convince me that the only possible logical conclusion is "there is no difference". And that leads directly to the "Realism"/"Solipsism" dichotomy. Case closed, I must be wrong! :lol:

 

A is what we are trying to explain and is a set of significant things: objects, concepts, relationships ... . It makes utterly no difference what goes in to make A up. It's just what is to be explained and nothing more. Is it real? If you want it to be real, it's real; if not, it's not. What A is has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments. :angel:

 

B is a finite collection of elements of A which constitute a change in what you know about A. A finite collection of objects, concepts, relationships which are part of what you want to explain. A change in the information central to your explanation. But what these elements are is absolutely irrelevant to my argument. What they are is part of the explanation you have come to believe. :)

 

C is a finite collection of sets B. The net total accumulated changes in information central to your explanation. What you know about what you are trying to explain. (There is utterly no way for you to identify what objects, concepts, relationships, ... go to make up C and the issue has no bearing on my arguments.) In fact, in all probability, your explanation is going to include other objects, concepts, relationships, ... which are a complete fabrication of your mind and not part of A at all. :rainbow:

 

D is the set of things significant to your explanation which are not part of A. These are things which would be required (part of C if your explanation is correct). Since, unless you are all knowing and A is entirely available to you the possibility always exists that you are wrong, you must assume that some part of "what you think you know" is actually D so it is a very important component of your explanation and not to be neglected. :eek:

 

God only knows what part of what you think you know is correct. The only thing I am concerned with is the fact that it exists: there is something which is to be explained even if I don't know what it is. :Guns:

Hey Doc,

You may consider checking into some of the posts in this thread ...

I noticed you when you first came around and thought some of you comments indicated a seriously rational mind. I have already read most all of your posts and the posts which surround them. I think "time" is a very misunderstood concept. You should read the thought experiments I have posted on

"What is time?" Read the referenced post and the next four. You might enjoy twisting your mind around that and, if you do, the results will be educational. :eek:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[InfiniteNow]

Howdy. Just noticing some inconsistency in your statements.

 

You said:

 

A

is what we are trying to explain and is a set of significant things: objects, concepts, relationships ... . It makes utterly no difference what goes in to make

A

up. It's just what is to be explained and nothing more. Is it real? If you want it to be real, it's real; if not, it's not.

 

...and then later:

 

(There is utterly no way for you to identify what objects, concepts, relationships, ... go to make up

C

and the issue has no bearing on my arguments.) In fact, in all probability, your explanation is going to include other objects, concepts, relationships, ... which are a complete fabrication of your mind and not part of

A

at all.

 

 

Hmmmm. Something's fishy. :rainbow:

[Doctordick]

The inconsistency is not in my statements. It is rather in what you have decided I have said; that would be your interpretation of what I am saying. :rainbow:

Something's fishy. :rainbow:

I'll tell you exactly what is fishy. You are assuming that you have to understand what you are explaining in order to explain it. Just because you can create an explanation which is totally consistent with what you know does not mean the explanation is correct. You could very well be wrong about some of those things you think you know. :angel:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[InfiniteNow]

Let me say this another way then.

 

You said:

 

A

is what we are trying to explain and is a set of significant things: objects, concepts, relationships ...

 

...and then later:

 

In fact, in all probability, your explanation is going to include other objects, concepts, relationships, ... which are a complete fabrication of your mind and not part of

A

at all.

[InfiniteNow]

I always leave open the possibility of being wrong... that's not the issue at present. I do not see how I am wrong about the inconsistency to which I referred.

 

You said basically "A is defined as x,y,z." Then you said basically "x,y,z are not all a part of A."

 

What do you think I'm missing here?

 

All I'm saying is I'm just saying...:rainbow:

[Doctordick]

As I said, :Guns:

The inconsistency is not in my statements. It is rather in what you have decided I have said; that would be your interpretation of what I am saying.

Your interpretation is a misinterpretation. :rainbow:

You said basically "A is defined as x,y,z." Then you said basically "x,y,z are not all a part of A."

That is not at all what I said. What I said was, "A is what we are trying to explain ... and ... your explanation is going to include ...". You are simply assuming what is to be explained and your explanation are the same thing. :angel:

 

From that you then go on to assume that the components of what is to be explained and your explanation are the same. You are apparently making that assumption because I happen to say that A consists of objects, concepts, relationships ... . But you totally ignore the statement, "It makes utterly no difference what goes in to make A up". You should have picked up on the fact that "consists of objects, concepts, relationships ..." was there because I was trying to emphasize the fact that A can be made of anything. :rainbow:

 

Likewise, your explanation also consists of things; but there is certainly no implication that they are the same things. We hope that some of the things in your explanation mirror some of the things in whatever it is that is to be explained but that certainly isn't what I expect to be the case in general. :rain:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

that all explanations are based on knowing less than everything, that your knowledge changes and sometimes what you think you know is wrong. My position is that these three fact are basic limitations on any explanation and have far reaching consequences.

Ok. Now I feel I am at the base of the hill. I need to go back over everything and put it into the new context. Thanks for your patience.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

A definition is

.."it is a method of obtaining your expectations from what you know"

I need to mull this over until I've got it clear. That's different than trying to set up ranges of attributes in order to classify something new when you come across it. You're coming at it from an operational point of view, from a predictive vantage point.

The thought experiment that you pointed InfiniteNow to is a perfect case in point.

I have two choices, really. I can stand and watch and then see if what happens agrees with my understanding of what should have happened. Or I can try to anticipate what will happen. If I do the latter, I might not focus on what takes place because I'll be busy trying to anticipate. And that method might skew what I see. I'd say the proper thing to do would be to watch.

And were I to anticipate, I'd use my understanding of time and now and of how things work. And in this particular case the person would immediately disappear, but that, I think, is beside the point.

[Doctordick]

You're coming at it from an operational point of view, from a predictive vantage point.

From an operational point of view: no! The definition of an explanation can not be constrained to some operational view other than the fact that it must be based on what you know and must yield some expectations of some kind. From a predictive vantage point: yes! If you are completely in the dark as to what is going to happen, I would say you lack an explanation. Now against that statement, I could point out the rather trivial explanation, "what happens happens because the gods want it to happen"; but I doubt most people who put forth that explanation really believe it. They always seem to have some additional information about that god and his desires: i.e., they seldom consider themselves to be completely in the dark. :Guns: And generally, they also seem to have expectations! :rainbow:

I have two choices, really. I can stand and watch and then see if what happens agrees with my understanding of what should have happened.

How can you know if what happens agrees with your understanding if your understanding yields no expectations at all? :angel:

Or I can try to anticipate what will happen.

Doesn't "try to anticipate" mean little more than express (or at least think about) your expectations? :lol: This is why I said no to the "operational point of view". The only issue of interest here currently (in this thread) is the definition of "an explanation": a method of generating expectations from what you know. :rainbow:

 

My point is that, if you have an explanation, your expectations are constrained to be in accordance with the explanation: i.e., there exists some method of determining those expectations. How you achieve this is of no concern to me at all; my interest goes no farther than the fact that, if an explanation exists, a method must exist. You keep bringing in issues which do not touch on my concern in any way. Your biggest error is trying to bring more to the discussion than is required. :rain:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Doctordick]

In reviewing the posts I have made to this forum, I found myself surprised at the lack of interest in establishing a consensus as to what constitutes a rational discussion. In particular, that there was no response to my last post to ldsoftwaresteve.

If you are completely in the dark as to what is going to happen, I would say you lack an explanation. ... How can you know if what happens agrees with your understanding if your understanding yields no expectations at all? ... The only issue of interest here currently (in this thread) is the definition of "an explanation": a method of generating expectations from what you know.

 

My point is that, if you have an explanation, your expectations are constrained to be in accordance with the explanation: i.e., there exists some method of determining those expectations. How you achieve this is of no concern to me at all; my interest goes no farther than the fact that, if an explanation exists, a method must exist. You keep bringing in issues which do not touch on my concern in any way. Your biggest error is trying to bring more to the discussion than is required. :fly:

Are you all saying my complaints are trivial or don't you understand my complaints?

 

In particular, no one ever responded to my comment:

You are wasting all your time thinking about the very simple mechanism I have set up to handle three very important facts: that all explanations are based on knowing less than everything, that your knowledge changes and sometimes what you think you know is wrong. My position is that these three fact are basic limitations on any explanation and have far reaching consequences.

What is your opinion? Are these not true statements? Do you think they are insignificant when it comes to rational analysis of your explanations? Or is it possible that you all think you understand exactly what the consequences of these limitations are? I am totally in the dark as to what you think!

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Damn.

 

I was nice and comfortable and existing in blissful contemplation of nothing, basically dead, and here you go waking me up.

 

Allow me to rip off my shirt and tie myself to the pole again.

 

Let me wake up gradually. And then understand that the end result might not be fully conscious.

 

Rational discussion takes place mostly inside our own minds, with ourselves. It consists of contemplating what-ifs and bouncing them against our understanding of what is. The 'what ifs' might be donations from someone else or they might come from direct observations, but until they get used internally and get tossed against our map, no discussion really takes place.

 

When you and I 'discuss' this subject, even if it's the methodology behind rational discussion, at best we are providing each other with a donation for internal discussion? And, what is very painful to contemplate is that I might not be making any good donations.

[questor]

Dr. Dick, has it ocurred to you that this discussion is no longer interesting to participants? perhaps with the war, Darfur, taxes, immigration, the threat of Hillary Clinton as a wartime president and other issues of interest, maybe it's just not important to break our heads on the boulders of what is ''Rational

Discussion'' when most of us can communicate with each other and be understood. not to belittle your expert efforts, but who cares?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I don't agree Questor.

Our society is perishing from irrationality and we no longer believe that existence can be understood or at the very least we no longer believe we are capable of doing so. Oh, there are some. But society? No way. Perhaps because there is so much bullshit piled on top of bullshit. And we let ourselves be led from one news flash to another.

So, this might be the most important subject of all and the fact that some don't find it interesting might be the most damning evidence of our society's irrationality.

And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.

It has to do with the cleanliness of our concepts and the orderliness of our understanding. Most of us can't climb the slope he's run up. It's too slippery, not because of him but because of us. Because the slope is in our minds. It's our map, our terrain. It's something we build ourselves and we've mostly done a piss poor job. Myself included.

There, I've wielded the whip on myself.

[questor]

Steve, if you finally ''get it'', let me know. you and Dr. have been at this for...

a year? if what he says is so arcane that only he understands it, then how would it benefit anyone else? your message to me was rational and understood. i trust that this one to you is the same. life is complicated enough that we don't need to muddy the water further. that being said, i am not trying to interfere with your dialogue and i hope the Dr. continues to have fun.