Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And in all of that you fail to mention the law.
>> >> >
>> >> > We've been talking around the idea you had rejected cannabis was a
>> >> > gateway drug. If that wasn't the case why didn't you just say so?
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what you're asking. You asked me questions and I answered
>> >> them directly. Are you again saying that I evaded?
>> >
>> > I don't remember the first time I said you were evading. I'm not aware
>> > of feelings like that toward you. Did I introduce that word?
>>
>> Well, the joke thing you said that I did is a type of evasion.
>
> Rami - I'm sorry for raising the joke thing.

No apology necessary. You use it as part of your explanation about the
self-image. I see no problem in that.


> The intention was to
> illustrate a reflexive response that we all fall into sometimes when
> things happen very quickly.

*Each* time that it happens, there is a meme involved. Its not some
default mode of thinking or anything like that.


> I wasn't thinking of 'evasive' because
> from my perspective...from looking at myself and others...what happens
> in those situations is that we respond - as I say - reflexively and
> then we rationalize what we did in keeping with our self-image and
> then it's gone.

By reflexive, you mean subconscious. Though, I think you're saying
that since its a reflex, then it can't be changed. But thats false.
Its an idea. We can change them.


> So no evasiveness as I am interpreting you are using
> the word.

You're thinking of consciously evading. I'm thinking of evading in
general, which includes subconsciously evading.


> FWIW my personal learning from this discussion will most
> definitely include that the way you responded to my raising the joke
> thing was very much in keeping with the claims you had earlier made
> about yourself (a lot of people - possibly including myself - would
> have reacted much more adversely).

I don't know what you mean. What claims did I make about myself?


>
> However, I feel the joke thing has its own container separate from the
> gateway thread. In fact having  just checked you introduced the word
> asking me if I was evading providing a response about something.

Not addressing criticism can be evasion. Or it could be genuine lack
of interest. Or it could be related to a specific problem one has, and
addressing criticism does not solve his problem, or it would make the
problem worse.

The point is that a Popperian wants to solve his problems. And he
knows that anti-rational memes are problems. And he can't be sure
whether or not he has fixed all of them. So, in situations where he
subconsciously evades, he's (by definition) not aware that he did it.
So he wants others to point it out to him, allowing him to address it
and fix it.

People that consciously evade, are not Popperians. They have goals
that are inconsistent with Popperism.


>
>
>>
>>
>> > I'm not sure we're communicating too well....I'm happy to take
>> > responsibility for that. Let's give this discussion a bit longer to
>> > come to something and then maybe drop it.
>> >>
>> >> I reject the idea that any choice is a gateway to another choice
>> >
>> > It looks to me like you are defining 'gateway' in particular ways that
>> > I wouldn't and doubt any mainstream discussion would either. If as a
>> > consequence of buying grass, someone comes to a decision point about
>> > heroin that they would not otherwise have come to, then that would be
>> > enough to call buying grass a 'gateway' on some definition of gateway.
>> > There's no need to include personal responsibility in the equation
>> > unless that is specifically what you want to do.
>>
>> I don't see any way for a gateway theory to make sense. If you do, tell
>> us.
>
> A 'gateway' seems to me more a 'container' word that is given sense or
> not by the explanations provided. Like I say, if getting in pot
> results in finding oneself at decision points that one would not
> otherwise have come to, that is enough to start defining the decision
> to get into pot as some sort of 'gateway'.
> There's nothing wrong with defining it philosophically in terms of
> choices and personal responsibility but that isn't necessary or
> implicit unless those are the things you want to examine or refute or
> whatever.

No. Its *always* necessary when talking about choices.


>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Suggesting the gateway theory is that
>> >> >> > 100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously not
>> >> >> > plausible at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is not a theory. That is a statement of an expected
>> >> >> observation.
>> >> >> You're saying that the gateway theory *is* of the form: X% of people
>> >> >> who do X will do Y. That is not a theory. It doesn't explain why
>> >> >> anything is happening. It only *asserts* that something is happening
>> >> >> without explaining causality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the only causality you've explained so far is stuff about drug
>> >> >> dealers and you didn't even mention why we have drug dealers.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I actually don't know what you are talking about at this stage. We
>> >> > began a discussion based on the idea you had defined the concept of
>> >> > cannabis being a gateway drug as "100% of users will try heroin". If
>> >> > that wasn't your position you should have said so.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say anything about numbers. You brought that up. All I said
>> >> was that the gateway theory says that A causes B. And I'm saying that
>> >> A and B are choices. And choices don't cause choices. People make
>> >> choices using their ideas.
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought the refutation you brought...along the lines of an example
>> > of someone smoking pot and not taking heroin....implied that the
>> > conjecture you were perceiving involved an absolute link in each and
>> > every instance.
>>
>> If A causes B, then A *always* causes B. There is no sometimes or in
>> some situations.
>>
>> If the gateway theory doesn't talk about causality, then what is the
>> point of the theory?
>
> I don't think the causality is implied by the term 'gateway'.

Then its stupid. A theory that doesn't explain causality is a bad
explanation. It says nothing.


> You have
> to add in what it is. What I would expect is that in the mainstream
> debate, things begin with some statistics and testimony, and a process
> of adding causality has been attempted in various ways and remains
> incomplete.

What is the causality part of the gateway theory?


> My original point was just that, it only makes sense to try to capture
> the actual process that has taken place in the mainstream debate,
> before attempting to refute it or not.

But the mainstream debate messes up the causality of the gateway theory.


> Another way to refute it in the popperian method would be to
> 'pre-refute' for violating some other principle regarded as true.

Right. And you think this is a fault, right? So explain it. Explain
why you think this is a fault.

Basically you're saying that if an explanation (theory) is bad, then
its still ok to consider it true or do science based on that theory.
You are contradicting Popperism. So what is your criticism? What is
your explanation that this is a flaw?


>>
>> And if its going to talk about causality, how can anyone create a
>> theory which explains causality when each person that the theory
>> attempts to explain is different. Each person has different ideas, and
>> those ideas affect his choices.
>>
>>
>> >> > You are implicitly assuming Popperianism is infallible. I have said I
>> >> > have a criticism, one knock-on consequence of which is that
>> >> > Popperians
>> >> > aren't going to be any better than anyone else at hearing criticism
>> >> > they don't want to hear.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know why people don't want to hear criticism of certain ideas?
>> >> It means they have anti-rational memes related to those ideas. Can a
>> >> Popperian have anti-rational memes? Of course. I've already said this.
>> >> What is infallibilist about it?
>> >
>> > You haven't heard the criticism because I haven't made the decision to
>> > attempt to explain it. So there's no way that I can see that you can
>> > attach antirational memes to it.
>>
>> I brought up anti-rational memes because that is the only thing that
>> shields ideas from creativity and criticism. By *shielding* I mean
>> that a person *evades* thinking about the (shielded) idea. Feeling
>> shame is one type of consequence of a person feeling the effects of an
>> anti-rational meme doing its work of shielding an idea.
>
> I hear what you're saying but I do feel there's a certain amount of
> circularity going on in how you define the extent someone understands
> popperianism...that doesn't seem to keep fallibility enough in the
> loop.

You said that earlier. I replied with a criticism and a question. You
did not address my criticism nor answer my question. And then you
repeated your unexplained assertion a second time. This is a form of
evasion.

But, maybe you have a gut feeling, that disagrees with me. That means
you have a subconscious idea that conflicts with my idea. So, at this
point, you could try to make that idea conscious and explicit, so that
you can present it to me, so that I can try to criticize it, or be
persuaded. Of course, you would only want to do that if you're
interested in this problem. By problem I mean the conflict between my
theory (that your action is inconsistent with Popperism) and your
theory (that your action is consistent with Popperism).


>> > If
>> > an obligation like that does exist in the philosophy, then for sure
>> > that is an area I didn't know about.
>> >
>> > Also, as mentioned above, I don't recall thinking or saying that you
>> > were being evasivre in this particular thread.
>>
>> You said that I was evading about not getting the joke. You did use
>> the word "evading" but its the same meaning.
>
> I didn't mean anything with the same meaning as evasive as I
> understand it to be, but I do acknowledge that would very likely be
> the strong impression given. Also...I want to apologize for putting
> you on the spot about that.

I'm not hurt. And you needed to do it to explain your theory about self-image.


> The intention was to illustrate a
> reflexive reaction all of us slip into from time to time.

Its not reflexive in that we can never have control. Its a result of
anti-rational memes. We can fix them.


> I don't
> think it's about evading because I don't think it's a very conscious
> process.

Most evasion is subconscious.


> It happens quicklyI and then we rationalize what we did
> according to our self image, and it's gone.
>
> Could I suggest we take air on the joke thing below. Personally I
> would prefer to draw a line under it. However, with that said, I also
> feel it would be correct to continue should you want to. But let's
> take air...if you want to come back to it I'll be willing.

I'm not interested in it. Its not a problem for me.

Also, I don't think anything can be figured out. I don't remember
exactly what I was thinking. We would need my exact thoughts in order
to figure out whether I evaded or not. Not having that makes it much
harder.

What I think is important is a fault I see in your theory. I think you
think that the subconscious act of evasion, is reflexive, and thus
uncontrollable, at the time that it happens *and* going forward. I
don't understand why you think it works that way. I haven't heard your
theory of the mind that would explain it.

The theory I understand is about ideas. We do stuff using our ideas.
Subconscious evasion is something people do as a result of
anti-rational memes doing their work of making people feel a certain
way when they are presented with certain situations. And people who
feel it, respond by evasion. So the meme, in effect, shields the idea
from creativity and criticism. But, that doesn't mean that those memes
are off limits. We can discover them, and fix them, such that we don't
subconscious evade in those types of situations going forward.

The point is that my theory says we have control. Your theory say we
have no control (though I'm not clear on what your theory is).

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com