The Existential Crisis

[FlashDangerpants]

Awseome. So exactly like the guy in that "strawman" parable, you reject both the objectives and the tools of philosophy. You have your own field to pursue, what exactly is holding you back? You don't seem like you are so lacking in confidence in your wisdom and talent that you can't forge ahead without us.

[Skepdick]

Awseome. So exactly like the guy in that "strawman" parable, you reject both the objectives and the tools of philosophy. You have your own field to pursue, what exactly is holding you back? You don't seem like you are so lacking in confidence in your wisdom and talent that you can't forge ahead without us.

So am I to understand that you think that you are of the belief/opinion that philosophy has clearly stated objectives?

As in - you can actually determine whether philosophy is succeeding or failing at what it is trying to achieve?

If that's the case - can you cite some references?

[FlashDangerpants]

Awseome. So exactly like the guy in that "strawman" parable, you reject both the objectives and the tools of philosophy. You have your own field to pursue, what exactly is holding you back? You don't seem like you are so lacking in confidence in your wisdom and talent that you can't forge ahead without us.

So am I to understand that you think that you are of the belief/opinion that philosophy has clearly stated objectives?

As in - you can actually determine whether philosophy is succeeding or failing at what it is trying to achieve?

If that's the case - can you cite some references?

Oh dear, well that would contradict what I told you months ago on this same matter. You didn't pay any attention then and you won't now, but here you go.

Philosophy is a tool like any other. You put on the hat when you need it. You take it off when it has served its purpose.

Philosophers forget to take the hat off. Worse yet - philosophers forget to produce anything testable/falsifiable at the end of the heated conversation.

Isaiah Berlin argued (correctly imo) that this is a misunderstanding of what philosophy is basically for. If you take a question where nobody yet knows what a correct answer would look like, that's a philosophical question.

By the time there is agreement about a method of investigation, let alone an answer that wouldn't be controversial, you've really stopped doing philosophy and witnessed the birth of a new science. After that, of course, all the arguing about whether that new science should have been aborted can begin.

Back then you did not permit this. Today the evidence is that you still will not. But that all just serves to underline the point I made already, and your inevitable poor choice to tell me I must be wrong again because philosophy should be about what you want it to be will work perfectly well for me.

[Skepdick]

Isaiah Berlin argued (correctly imo) that this is a misunderstanding of what philosophy is basically for. If you take a question where nobody yet knows what a correct answer would look like, that's a philosophical question.

Back then you did not permit this. Today the evidence is that you still will not. But that all just serves to underline the point I made already, and your inevitable poor choice to tell me I must be wrong again because philosophy should be about what you want it to be will work perfectly well for me.

The entire purpose of "arguing" is for us to design; or examine the design of; some process (any process!), which can sway the probability distribution towards A or B.

Do you even understand what those words mean? Let me translate it for you.

The entire purpose of "arguing" is for us to invent a mechanism, a system or a process, which can take a Qubit and turn it into a classical bit.

In English: A process which can take a well-stated question and provide a certain answer.

Which leaves you hanging with Quine's problem of Reductionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ductionism

Analyticity would be acceptable if we allowed for the verification theory of meaning: an analytic statement would be one synonymous with a logical truth, which would be an extreme case of meaning where empirical verification is not needed, because it is "confirmed no matter what". "So, if the verification theory can be accepted as an adequate account of statement synonymy, the notion of analyticity is saved after all."

Linear logic solves that! It allows for synthesis.

[Skepdick]

While we are at it... I keep telling you that we have invented declarative languages for expressing questions.

Let me translate that for you in English too: We can turn English sentences that end with question marks into Logical expressions.

If logic is empirical, and English questions can be formulated as logical expressions then questions are empirical too!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand what evasion is too. It's pretty much established that what you referred to as a strawman was a fair enough analogy. So ...

Imagine a man walks into an archeology conference and makes the following set of demands:
1. Quit thinking about the past, you should make space lasers because it is futuristic.
2. Quit fucking around with trowels and brushes, this hydraulic press has ten billion youtube views so it's cooler than they are.

That man wouldn't be a very useful archeologist, and his criticisms would be ignored. You are of the same sort; you don't approve of philosophy's objectives or its methods and wish to impose alternatives to both.

If you can acheive a moment of clarity and see past your umbrage, you will realise the underlying accuracy of this assessment. I am telling you exactly how you have gotten into the position you find yourself in now. So if that position is not your intention, dispassionately thinking through what the hell it is that you want is always an option for those with the talent.

I'm not banning you from surpassing the field of philosophy by demonstrating an actual way in which the tools you advocate can offer a better way to investigate and answer some sort of question. I apparently have no such authority. So if you have these elegant tools, why not use them to do that? You could make me eat my words very easily with a simple demonstration of the actual power of your method. Unless what you've done here is as good a demonstration as you can work up, in which case, less posturing looks like a good idea.

[Skepdick]

I'm not banning you from surpassing the field of philosophy by demonstrating an actual way in which the tools you advocate can offer a better way to investigate and answer some sort of question.

The thing is. You don't even understand what a question is. There is, in fact, such a thing as a stupid question.

If you don't understand why you are asking it, chances are it's one of those.

So if you have these elegant tools, why not use them to do that? You could make me eat my words very easily with a simple demonstration of the actual power of your method.

I could do that. If YOU could tell me what it is that YOU want me to demonstrate. Express your expectations in a testable format.

Define the criteria for success/failure in a way that you aren't the sole arbiter. Because for as long as you are the sole arbiter you will always insist that my demonstration is not what you meant or expected. You will always expect MORE right?

I ain't buying the "Jump higher!" bullshit.

Unless what you've done here is as good a demonstration as you can work up, in which case, less posturing looks like a good idea.

That you have expectations that can't be met is hardly a problem I can fix or you. But you can pretend that what you are doing is useful under the guise of unrealistic expectations.

That is - you just have "very high standards". Right?

[FlashDangerpants]

So that's it. All you have going for you is to so what you have done here until ...until ?
I mean you have been doing this for years and you haven't really moved past the loud complaining bit to actually doing anything.

I don't tell economists to answer the question "what is a bank" by finding thier local branch and pointing at it. They have a an actual field of study with a plethora of controversial methodologies and a thriving industry in arguing about them. they provide their own questions, seldom with reference to philosophy, and they do their own methods, and when need be, they do their own philosophy too. So if I ask them what a bank is, I should expect to receive a much more sophisticated answer from them than the picture of Barclays with a red circle round it that I might get from you.

You criticise philosophy for not knowing what it's for or how to agree on answers - well that's the field and that's what it's about. But you are above that, so you must know what you are trying to do and how. So why hide that?

And so what if I don't endorse your endeavour, or say something mean about its foundational logic? Once you are actually on your turf instead of hijacking irrelevant threads, isn't the onus then on me to demonstrate the applicability of my modes of investigation? I am after all the prisoner of that timeless consistency that you can live without.

I see zero value in a field of inquiry which only accepts any question if it comes bundled with the answer.

[Skepdick]

So that's it. All you have going for you is to so what you have done here until ...until ?
I mean you have been doing this for years and you haven't really moved past the loud complaining bit to actually doing anything.

Second time: What is "it" that you want me to DO? Do you want me to perform summersaults while wearing a clown hat? Pull a unicorn out of my ass? Write some aesthetically pleasing English sentence that triggers a religious experience in your head?

You expect things but you can't put your expectations in words. What do you expect? Mind reading?

I don't tell economists to answer the question "what is a bank" by finding thier local branch and pointing at it. They have a an actual field of study with a plethora of controversial methodologies and a thriving industry in arguing about them. they provide their own questions, seldom with reference to philosophy, and they do their own methods, and when need be, they do their own philosophy too. So if I ask them what a bank is, I should expect to receive a much more sophisticated answer from them than the picture of Barclays with a red circle round it that I might get from you.

Yes!!! This is exactly what I am asking from YOU! Classical economics revolves around expected utility theory. What is Philosophy's expected utility?

I am asking you to give me a sophisticated Philosophical answer to the question "What is a question?".

You can't DO that. I am DOING that.

I have given you a formal model for studying/understanding what a "question" is. A question is a well-structured request for information.
What answers questions is access to the ontology containing the answer.

What more do you want?

You want to know what a "bank" is? Surely you need to understand what "money" and "value" is first?
And maybe you've heard that since money/value is a dualism which is difficult to resolve some people are trying to use quantum logic to model the duality.

You criticise philosophy for not knowing what it's for or how to agree on answers - well that's the field and that's what it's about. But you are above that, so you must know what you are trying to do and how. So why hide that?

Stop spewing verbal diarrhoea. Start listening. Before you get any answers you need to understand what a Question is!.

You don't!

I see zero value in a field of inquiry which only accepts any question if it comes bundled with the answer.

Strawman after strawman after strawman. I am in a field of enquiry which understands what a stupid question is!

If you could recognize stupid questions (and you clearly can't!) you would spend exactly zero time trying to answer them!

[Skepdick]

I don't tell economists to answer the question "what is a bank" by finding thier local branch and pointing at it. They have a an actual field of study with a plethora of controversial methodologies and a thriving industry in arguing about them.

Precisely that! One of those emerging fields of study is Quantum economics.

Neoclassical economics is based on expected utility theory, which combines utility theory to model people’s preferences, and probability theory to model expectations under uncertainty. However the field of quantum cognition calls these assumptions into question, since people don’t necessarily have fixed preferences, or base their decisions on probability theory. Many of the findings of behavioral economics are inconsistent with classical logic, but agree with quantum decision theory of the sort assumed in quantum social science

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes!!! This is exactly what I am asking from YOU! Classical economics revolves around expected utility theory. What is Philosophy's expected utility?

I am asking you to give me a sophisticated Philosophical answer to the question "What is a question?".

You can't DO that. I am DOING that.

I have given you a formal model for studying/understanding what a "question" is. A question is a well-structured request for information.
What answers questions is access to the ontology containing the answer.

What more do you want?

Is that a question? <--- what you gave me there suggests this is not. In which case, your defintion is arbitrary. Now when you are actually on YOUR TURF not ours, you can define the parameters of your study any way you like. But compsci is not the relevant framework here, and no amount of tantrum is changing that.

Again, you are doing what I told you in that parable of the annoying dick who got treated as a fool by all the archaeologists.

You criticise philosophy for not knowing what it's for or how to agree on answers - well that's the field and that's what it's about. But you are above that, so you must know what you are trying to do and how. So why hide that?

Stop spewing verbal diarrhoea. Start listening. Before you get any answers you need to understand what a Question is!.

You don't!

Was that a question!

I see zero value in a field of inquiry which only accepts any question if it comes bundled with the answer.

Strawman after strawman after strawman. I am in a field of enquiry which understands what a stupid question is!

If you could recognize stupid questions (and you clearly can't!) you would spend exactly zero time trying to answer them!

I gave you good advice you know. You aren't being clever by refusing to consider where you have gone wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't tell economists to answer the question "what is a bank" by finding thier local branch and pointing at it. They have a an actual field of study with a plethora of controversial methodologies and a thriving industry in arguing about them.

Precisely that! One of those emerging fields of study is Quantum economics.

Neoclassical economics is based on expected utility theory, which combines utility theory to model people’s preferences, and probability theory to model expectations under uncertainty. However the field of quantum cognition calls these assumptions into question, since people don’t necessarily have fixed preferences, or base their decisions on probability theory. Many of the findings of behavioral economics are inconsistent with classical logic, but agree with quantum decision theory of the sort assumed in quantum social science

So ... those guys found a use for doxastic reasoning then. Because they have actual questions where the actors under description can hold contradictory beliefs and believe them true at once, or change their minds, or hold their inconsistent beliefs inconsistently believing the relevant one at the relevant time.

There you go, all you have to do is actually match your methodology to the questions, this might be better in some ways than insisting on the methodology and then demanding questions to fit it. Possibly more useful that way round.

[Skepdick]

Is that a question? <--- what you gave me there suggests this is not. In which case, your defintion is arbitrary. Now when you are actually on YOUR TURF not ours, you can define the parameters of your study any way you like. But compsci is not the relevant framework here, and no amount of tantrum is changing that.

You just said you don't want economists to just POINT at a bank. You asked for a sophisticated answer.

Why then are you POINTING at a question instead of giving me a sophisticated answer?

Again, you are doing what I told you in that parable of the annoying dick who got treated as a fool by all the archaeologists.

You aren't even DOING what you are telling me to DO. You are doing the OPPOSITE of what you are telling me to DO.

You can't reconcile your own dualisms in classical logic, and you don't even grasp why that problem goes away in Quantum logic.

[Skepdick]

So ... those guys found a use for doxastic reasoning then. Because they have actual questions where the actors under description can hold contradictory beliefs and believe them true at once, or change their minds, or hold their inconsistent beliefs inconsistently believing the relevant one at the relevant time.

Precisely! Real people in the real world are DOING what the LNC says they are "not allowed to do" - hold contradictory beliefs.

ALL humans hold contradictory beliefs. Your monkey brain is too tiny for a consistent world-view.

So does that make the LNC descriptive or prescriptive?

[FlashDangerpants]

So ... those guys found a use for doxastic reasoning then. Because they have actual questions where the actors under description can hold contradictory beliefs and believe them true at once, or change their minds, or hold their inconsistent beliefs inconsistently believing the relevant one at the relevant time.

Precisely! Real people in the real world are DOING what the LNC says they are "not allowed to do" - hold contradictory beliefs.

ALL humans hold contradictory beliefs. Your monkey brain is too tiny for a consistent world-view.

So does that make the LNC descriptive or prescriptive?

Not allowed? What do you hope to mean by that? Everyobdy knows that humans hold multiple contradictory beliefs. Are you under the impression that you are breaking some sort of news to me even though you have quoted me referencing this....

Now when people base knowledge claims upon two contradictory beliefs, then they need to resolve them before they can proceed to substantiating such claims by whatever means are applicable under the circumstances. For that resolution, dependent on the question, experiment or argument may or may not be useful. But your wildly insane rant there has zero impact because this is not contradicted by people merely holding inconsistent belief.