The Existential Crisis

[Skepdick]

But in plain descriptive factual terms, philosophy does consider questions for which there is no clear path to a good answer, and investigating the questions themselves to see what makes them so resistant to resolution while often havint the appearance of simplicity is very often the best way to go about it. If that doesn't suit you, you had the option to go into some sort of detail about what it is that you have to offer instead, but you have opted to go with a tell-don't-show approach.

That seems rather misguided. WHY do you need to answer ANY questions?

What do you need the answers for? Oh, shit! Are we allowed to talk about human needs when doing philosophy?
It's hard to tell with all the dismissiveness going around.

And now I just refer you back to the tale of ....


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.

Remember when you rejected the analogy as a strawman? It keeps coming back because it is a fairly reasonable comparison though.

You object because even you presumably wouldn't tell archaeologists that they aren't doing to right thing by choosing to study the physical objects of the past? And you presumably would not tell them to actually abandon the tools they have crafted for their purpose and methods either.

Yet you have no problem trying to do that to philosophy, over and over and over again. If you are rejecting all of our standards, and our questions and our methods of investigation, I don't see what it is that you even value in philosophy at all. Help me out, what is your actual objective and what has it got to do with us?

You still don't fucking get it!

You CAN NOT study "the past". It is absolutely 100% impossible given the laws of physics. Humans cannot experience "the past" - because it HAS PASSED.

What archeologists are DOING is that they are constructing a story about the past while traveling TOWARDS the future.
Everything you call "history" - I call "memories".

So IF archeologists succeed on their endeavour, then IN THE FUTURE we will have an incomplete archeological story about the PAST.
We would have "remembered" the past.

You can't ignore time!

Every single human CHOICE violates the is-ought gap! Because archeologists in the present believe that in the future they OUGHT to construct a story about the past!

Do you want me to draw you a picture?

[FlashDangerpants]

OOoof. You really don't get the is/ought thing at all. That's so far off it can only be described as not even wrong.

Everything you wrote there about time is banal and inconsequential.

And am I now to understand that you are much more like the guy in my parable than I intended because you do actually take issue with archaeology now even though you are mostly just stating the wildly obvious as it were profound?

[uwot]

The thing is you are demonstrably a liar and a cheat who will rip the heart out of the truth until it says what you want it to.

It depends entirely on whether you think there is such a thing as THE truth.

I've said it many times Skepdick, 'THE Truth' is limited to 'there is experience'. The truth, on the other hand, is a lot more flexible.

As far as I am concerned Philosophy's "Truth" is much like Theism's "God".

The difference is that you cannot say there is no experience without contradicting yourself. There may or may not be a god, but it is not self-contradictory to say there is no god.

My response to you now is the same as my response to you then: You don't know what "truth" is, and you are applying Classical logic so you can't navigate around the Liar's paradox.

History and philosophy of science is my thing, I really couldn't care less about quirks of language.

I can't help you with your biased (mis)understanding and your constant obsession with normative linguistics.

And I can't help you with your misreading of Against Method. Well I could, but ironically that would require a bit of cooperation on your part.

Since you make words mean exactly what you want them to, the answer to any question you pose is going to be exactly what you want it to be. If you call that communication, you are stupid.

It looks to me you did EXACTLY what I am doing in the paragraph above. You made words mean what you want them to mean.

The question is still "Why?"

Well, given that you have intimated that your words could mean anything, I don't have any choice.

[uwot]

Oh, you hadn't finished editing.

It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything I said?

[Skepdick]

I've said it many times Skepdick, 'THE Truth' is limited to 'there is experience'. The truth, on the other hand, is a lot more flexible.

The degree of flexibility must be subject to some criteria, surely?

The difference is that you cannot say there is no experience without contradicting yourself. There may or may not be a god, but it is not self-contradictory to say there is no god.

Of course I can say it! I AM saying it! Does it even matter if contradictions don't matter?

There is no experience.
I do not exist.

This is only a "contradiction" with respect to some normative rule you are holding me accountable to.

Still gets us no closer to the important question: WHY am I saying it?

Trivially: because I insist that contradictions be demoted from normative to descriptive phenomena.
Contradictions do exist and should be studied like any other phenomenon. Empirically!

History and philosophy of science is my thing, I really couldn't care less about quirks of language.

The entire notion of "history" is a non-starter/incoherent unless you admit TIME into your epistemology/ontology (there is no difference to me - I know where you stand on the matter).

History does not exist except as a collective memory.

So it is PRECISELY a fucking quirk in language when you are using Classical logic (which doesn't encode time), and switching to Linear logic which does!

Or maybe, just maybe, you were intuitively using linear logic all along but you mistook it for being Classical?

Now that would be an explanation Occam would be proud of: Your description of your own logic was wrong.

And I can't help you with your misreading of Against Method. Well I could, but ironically that would require a bit of cooperation on your part.

It is pretty ironic to say such things, given that all all scientific progress manifests as rejection of prior axioms/paradigms.

I am rejecting the classical paradigm in full recognition of its contributions. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Well, given that you have intimated that your words could mean anything, I don't have any choice.

But those weren't my words you spoke - they were your words.

[Skepdick]

What the fuck has that got to do with anything I said?

The thing is you are demonstrably a liar

Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.

You don't know what Truth or "truth" is !!!!!!

It's an arbitrary decision procedure that runs in YOUR head - you can't tell me what it is that you are testing for! Of course, you are testing me against your conception of "truth" which I may or may not give a shit about!

When you ATTEMPT to assign a truth-value to what you are observing YOU arrive at a contradiction!

You cannot determine such things. That is what underdeterminism/non-determinism entails in practice

[uwot]

The degree of flexibility must be subject to some criteria, surely?

Meh; they're pretty flexible.

There is no experience.

I'm having one now.

I do not exist.

Well for current purposes, 'you' are whatever is creating the empirical data on my screen. So relax Skepdick, whatever you may be, there is some substance to your existence, if only in my world.

This is only a "contradiction" with respect to some normative rule you are holding me accountable to.

Skepdick, you may think as you please.

Still gets us no closer to the important question: WHY am I saying it?

The entire notion of "history" is a non-starter/incoherent unless you admit TIME into your epistemology/ontology (there is no difference to me - I know where you stand on the matter).

You clearly don't if you think I have no room for time in my epistemology/ontology.

History does not exist except as a collective memory.

Archives and archeology. Lotsa stuff to get your empirical teeth into.

Or maybe, just maybe, you were intuitively using linear logic all along but you mistook it for being Classical?

Hang on, let me search the archive. Here ya go: Only "with respect to some normative rule you are holding me accountable to".

Now that would be an explanation Occam would be proud of: Your description of your own logic was wrong.

See above.

And I can't help you with your misreading of Against Method. Well I could, but ironically that would require a bit of cooperation on your part.

It is pretty ironic to say such things, given that all all scientific progress manifests as rejection of prior axioms/paradigms.

Ah well, that's more yer Structures of Scientific Revolutions. I could help you with that too. In fact a great place to start would be the article I wrote for Philosophy Now, the magazine that hosts this forum: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 What is ironic is that Against Method explicitly rejects that much of Kuhn's work - much as I conclude in this article: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

I am rejecting the classical paradigm in full recognition of its contributions. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

That's not what happens in science. If you had any grasp of even recent history, you would recall that we have spoken at length about utility.

Well, given that you have intimated that your words could mean anything, I don't have any choice.

But those weren't my words you spoke - they were your words.

Have you forgotten already?

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

That was a few hours ago. No wonder history is such a mystery to you.

[uwot]

You cannot determine such things. That is what underdeterminism/non-determinism entails in practice

It really isn't that complicated. As I have said: that there is something(Parmenides)/experience(Descartes) is the only thing that is not underdetermined.

[Skepdick]

Meh; they're pretty flexible.

Clearly not flexible enough if you keep thinking I am "lying".

I'm having one now.

You could say that you aren't.

And it wouldn't be true or false. It would be just words - used for a reason/purpose.

Well for current purposes, 'you' are whatever is creating the empirical data on my screen. So relax Skepdick, whatever you may be, there is some substance to your existence, if only in my world.

It's not even remotely relevant to the purpose of my words.

Skepdick, you may think as you please.

Well, evidently NOT!

In order for you to assert that I am "lying" you must surely have some normative notion of "not lying" in your head!

You are evaluating me against an OUGHT. That's very unphilosophical of you.

You clearly don't if you think I have no room for time in my epistemology/ontology.

You clearly misunderstand. I don't think you have a choice on the matter! You are experiencing time whether you want to or not.

Is just that there is no room for time in classical logic.

Archives and archeology. Lotsa stuff to get your empirical teeth into.

Yeah!

Hang on, let me search the archive. Here ya go: Only "with respect to some normative rule you are holding me accountable to".

I am not holding you accountable to any normative rules. I am DOING empiricism - inference to best explanation.

If you are TALKING about Time (past, present, future) you cannot be USING Classical logic. Because Classical logic is tenseless!

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains.... and all that jazz.

Ah well, that's more yer Structures of Scientific Revolutions. I could help you with that too. In fact a great place to start would be the article I wrote for Philosophy Now, the magazine that hosts this forum: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 What is ironic is that Against Method explicitly rejects that much of Kuhn's work - much as I conclude in this article: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Dude! Once upon a time you promised me that you'll stop with the marketing if I bought your book.

I bought your book....

But seriously. I know what a "paradigm" is. I also know what "multi-paradigm" is. It's like a paradigm made up of other paradigms.

Surely I have pointed you to this wikipedia page before?

Comparison of multi-paradigm programming languages

That's not what happens in science. If you had any grasp of even recent history, you would recall that we have spoken at length about utility.

Science the individual practice (as per Feyerabend) or science-the-social institution?

Then again, I think I have both of those covered...

Modeling_in_science.png

That was a few hours ago. No wonder history is such a mystery to you.

It was actually a few days ago. For a historian you sure bad intuition for time-scale.

[Skepdick]

It really isn't that complicated. As I have said: that there is something(Parmenides)/experience(Descartes) is the only thing that is not underdetermined.

So your determination of me "lying" is under-determined?

Is what I said...

[uwot]

Meh; they're pretty flexible.

Clearly not flexible enough if you keep thinking I am "lying".

See, this in my book is a lie:

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

So yeah, by that reading you are a liar, but that's easy enough to fix - all you have to do is acknowledge that you lied and some people will think you a bit less of a twat. I think what you would find harder to shake off (and bare in mind the likelihood of you doing the former is between nil and not much) is to accept that your 'quantum logic' fails to understand that Schrödinger was making a point about the absurdity of a particular interpretation. The story is that you collapse the wave function the moment you open the box. By the same token the moment you write red in red letters, it's red.

I'm having one now.

You could say that you aren't.

Yes I could, but I couldn't do so without having some sort of experience.

And it wouldn't be true or false.

The joke is that Schrödinger's cat is not ontologically both alive and dead, it's just that ya don't know until you open the box.

It would be just words - used for a reason/purpose.

Fine, let's include 'reason/purpose' in experience, but however true or false an experience, it's an experience. That is why 'I think, therefore I am' is the most famous quote in philosophy and why it is taken for granted by people who don't understand it.

You are evaluating me against an OUGHT. That's very unphilosophical of you.

Skepdick, I am evaluating you on the utter cobblers that you write - like the good empiricist that I am.

You clearly don't if you think I have no room for time in my epistemology/ontology.

You clearly misunderstand. I don't think you have a choice on the matter! You are experiencing time whether you want to or not.

Duh!

It was actually a few days ago. For a historian you sure bad intuition for time-scale.

Well look, if I fuck up I'm happy to be corrected, but I cited it at 11.40 today as it happens.

[uwot]

So your determination of me "lying" is under-determined?

Is what I said...

Absolutely. You might just be a blithering half-wit.

[Skepdick]

So your determination of me "lying" is under-determined?

Is what I said...

Absolutely. You might just be a blithering half-wit.

Which too might be under-determined. Or over-determined. hard to say sinct you never really addressed my question yay back.

Given that Under-determination stands in contrast to Over-determination. Would you say that your insistence on under-determinism is under or over-determined?

Because the two opposing views are nothing more than thef under/over-fitting dualism in Bayesian statistics.

[Skepdick]

See, this in my book is a lie:

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

So yeah, by that reading you are a liar, but that's easy enough to fix - all you have to do is acknowledge that you lied and some people will think you a bit less of a twat.

I suggest there's another way to fix it my "lying". Read it differently. Say in a charitable way such that it no longer appears as "lying" in your book.

Need help getting there?

I think what you would find harder to shake off (and bare in mind the likelihood of you doing the former is between nil and not much) is to accept that your 'quantum logic' fails to understand that Schrödinger was making a point about the absurdity of a particular interpretation. The story is that you collapse the wave function the moment you open the box. By the same token the moment you write red in red letters, it's red.

OBVIOUSLY!!! We both understand the implications of Schrödinger's interpretation, but this is not the scenario we find ourselves in.
I can write two different things in red letters - so they are both red! It's impossible to "collapse the wave function" even after observation!

A. THIS IS RED BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN RED LETTERS
B. THIS IS RED BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN RED LETTERS

How could you be certain which one is correct without some normative standard for "redness"?
Without the normative standard: P(A) = P(B) = 0.5

And yet... you've collapsed it. In your head only one of them is red.

You have chosen. I'd say you don't really believe in the is-ought gap...

Yes I could, but I couldn't do so without having some sort of experience.

I mean, you'd have to have a normative standard for "experience" to assert that with any confidence.

Which is why in the framework of empiricism EVERYTHING is an experience (makes life easy not having to draw distinctions that cannot be drawn).

The joke is that Schrödinger's cat is not ontologically both alive and dead, it's just that ya don't know until you open the box.

Right! The joke is that I don't know what you call "red" because you won't let me open "the box" which contains the normative rule for "redness".

My interpretation of your perspective is like this.

A. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red.
B. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red

So when I insist on a classical perspective (it's either A or B dammnit! CHOOSE one!) - you will help me collapse my wave function.

Fine, let's include 'reason/purpose' in experience, but however true or false an experience, it's an experience. That is why 'I think, therefore I am' is the most famous quote in philosophy and why it is taken for granted by people who don't understand it.

Well, sure but it says too much.

In my philosophy (recursion/computation). "I" is the most famous/sufficient quote, but people who don't understand it also take it for granted.

Skepdick, I am evaluating you on the utter cobblers that you write - like the good empiricist that I am.

Against what normative standard for "cobblers" ?

Well look, if I fuck up I'm happy to be corrected, but I cited it at 11.40 today as it happens.

Time doesn't work like that. When you cited it is not when I said it.

[uwot]

Given that Under-determination stands in contrast to Over-determination.

Blithering half-wit it is then. Seriously Skepdick, given the avalanche of wiki links you have treated us to, did it never occur to you to follow your own advice and do a bit of research? Look the words up and find out what they mean in the context of philosophy; then perhaps you might think of something less ignorant to contribute.

Because the two opposing views are nothing more than thef under/over-fitting dualism in Bayesian statistics.

Tell that to a statistics forum, you might find someone who gives a fuck.