Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 3, 2012 1:17 AM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
> >> > > > > criticisms of that theory.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
> >> > > > > theories, then I'm either going to:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > (1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my
> >> > > > > theory
> >> > > > > to be true,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > or
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > (2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that
> >> > > > > my
> >> > > > > theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my
> >> > > > > theory
> >> > > > > to be false.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change
> >> > > > > their
> >> > > > > minds about the things that really matter to them". What does
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that
> >> > > > > Popperians
> >> > > > > don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > but what you define above is just so
> >> > > > soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
> >> > > > table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you
> >> > > > dealt
> >> > > > with the link between cannabis and heroin.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out
> >> > > to
> >> > > me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw
> >> > > that
> >> > > you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > It looks like you decided
> >> > > > it wasn't going to true,
> >> > >
> >> > > What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
> >> > > exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
> >>
> >> Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
> >
> > I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
> > issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
> > to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
> > an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
> > recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
> > of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
> > idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
> > specifically I'm up for it.
>
> If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
> How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
> think you'll say this:

I think it's sufficient to say that having come up with the idea 100%
of cannabis users will use heroin, you might then have moved to refute
the possibility that this was meant. It can't possibly mean that can
it? What if someone has a heart attack and dies while smoking the pot.
He won't be using heroin.

Understanding these things requires thoughtfulness or it's not
meaningful. One example just from personal experience of why there
would be a link between cannabis and heroin is that - certainly in
poorer districts - there will be a link between cannabis dealers and
heroin dealers.. Maybe not direct...but buying dope will bring you
into contact with a whole load of criminality. This isn't necessary
true in more business/middle-class districts...but in poorer districts
dealers are often pushers...under pressure to get new customers for
new types of drug. It happens. There will be lots of other,
complicated, social class relaterd, explanations.

>
> The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
> situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
> agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.

You'll have to examine it on your own steam. But look....what's the
point if you don't try to put an argument (that you dont' agree with)
into its best possible form? Suggesting the gateway theory is that
100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously not
plausible at all.

>
>
> >
> >> This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
> >> understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
> >> answer questions like this one that you evaded.
> >
> > Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
> > understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
>
> Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
> epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
> that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
>
> Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
> them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
> find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
> epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
> because he knows about the flaw.
>
> So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
> Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
> it.
>
> BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
> a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
> noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
> criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
> good indication that you don't understand Popperism.

Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear? I mean, if that's a consequence of
my criticism then I would be sensible to think twice before bothering,
right? By the way, I actually mentioned all this in the original post.

>
> Why do I say "good indication"? Because you could have a different
> problem that you're trying to solve, that I'm not aware of and maybe
> that problem is consistent with Popperism. Or maybe its inconsistent
> with Popperism, but ones reasoning for the problem are still
> subconscious, so the person hasn't criticized them well, yet.
>
>
> > So by
> > definition if I don't yet call myself a Popperian I must not
> > understand it :O)
>
> Right. Note also that some people think they are Popperians, but they
> aren't.
>
>
> >> > > > That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
> >> > >
> >> > > I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Did you
> >> > > > get that joke at the time it was told?
> >> > >
> >> > > I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to
> >> > > make
> >> > > it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
> >> > > solve?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
> >> > knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
> >> > first time I ever heard it.
> >> >
> >> > But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
> >> > other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
> >> > didn't get the relevance and so on.
> >>
> >> Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
> >>
> >> Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
> >> it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
> >> understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
> >> is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
> >> understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
> >>
> >> Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
> >
> > The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
>
> I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
> claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
> point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
> the joke". Thats ridiculous.

Here is one stretch:

>>>>>>> No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and those not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh. Is that a riddle?
>>>>>
>>>>> it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
>>>>>
>>>>> but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
>>>>
>>>> Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point

You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.




>
> I often don't say things that other people expect me to say. Does that
> mean that I'm evading saying what they expected me to say?
>
>
> > It was just
> > simple case of you didn't get it, and then reflexively covered it up.
>
> Quote the part that you think indicates that I was covering up that I
> didn't get the joke.
>
>
> > Which is what people because we feel embarassed when we don't get a
> > joke...if we also think we ought to have got the joke, or that the
> > fact we didn't get it reveals something about our knowledge we didn't
> > want revealed. And so on and so on.
>
> That is common.
>
>
> >>
> >> BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
> >> understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
> >> solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
> >> can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
> >> problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
> >> anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
> >> criticism.
> >
> > It's just a good example that when put into the situation of feeling
> > shame, you reverted to non-popperian strategies and behaviours, And
> > you're not the only one I've seen do that.
>
> I don't get the point of what you're saying.
>
> Are you saying that to be Popperian one must be perfect. Nobody is
> perfect. To be Popperian doesn't mean to *never* rationalize. To be
> Popperian doesn't mean to not have any anti-rational memes.
>
> If a Popperian (or any person) has an anti-rational meme, it means
> he's not aware that he does have it. Its a subconscious idea. Take for
> example the idea you described that *someone doesn't want other people
> to know that he doesn't know some specific knowledge*. Its a mistaken
> idea. Feeling shame for *that* is mistaken. Feeling shame in general
> is mistaken.
>
> Being Popperian means knowing that you could be wrong about any
> theory, including one's theory that *he doesn't have any anti-rational
> memes left to get rid of*.
>
> So, when a person rationalizes, this is *a* mistake. That doesn't mean
> that he is acting with an anti-Popperian method. One mistake isn't a
> method. Now, if someone proposes the idea that he might have
> rationalized, and if he rejects the idea in an irrational way, then
> that is an anti-Popperian method.
>
>
> > So what I would ask is,
> > what is the value if the philosphy abandons one when real situations
> > show up? A real situation involving shame, is one where it has that
> > intensity that reflexive ingrained strategies take over.
>
> Each time that one notices that he felt shame (or any negative
> emotion), he should examine it in search of the subconscious idea.
> That means guessing what the idea might be and criticizing the guesses
> and the criticisms. Then later, examine oneself in similar situations.
> Is the same (or any negative emotion) gone? If not, then continue
> guessing and criticizing looking for the subconscious idea.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
> >> > person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
> >> > shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention
> >> > it...of
> >> > course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
> >> > way a non-popperian would.
> >>
> >> Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
> >> act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
> >> reasons for those actions and words.
> >>
> >> For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
> >> has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
> >> criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
> >> (who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
> >> believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
> >> all the religions are man made.
> >>
> >> -- Rami
> >
> > Maybe....but again I would say that we judge actions more than words.
> > And by actions what is required are specific contexts. For example for
> > courage there has to be real fear because courage is about acting in
> > the face of fear.
>
> I think you're saying that emotions are required to create motivation
> in people. I disagree. If you want, you could consider a hypothetical
> situation where someone experiences fear, and then courage, and
> explain how fear was required in order to motivate him to act
> courageously.
>
>
> -- Rami Rustom
> http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
>
> 


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/