The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

So you think having tantrums on the internet is doing something.

I do?

Teach me some mind-reading, please!

No need for mind-reading Skepdick, your petulance is all over this forum, like the hot fudge sauce over your ice cream.

And to think they did it all from their mums' basements eating ice cream!

You seem to know a lot about that. Were you doing house visits or...?

Alas, there is some irony there. My mom's basement (if I actually lived in it) is actually my basement.
My parents live in a house I bought for them when I was 25.

Well, given that you are consistently inconsistent, it is only a matter of time before you deny buying the house. I'll save you the bother of writing it and believe it right now.

My point precisely.

Try again? Failed making it.

It's hardly cryptic. You do look a bit silly getting all shouty about how clever you are and you can't even work that out.

Oh yeah? Well where were your computers 3000 years ago?

You tell me. Philosophers couldn't come up with the idea in 3000 years?

Don't blame philosophers Skepdick; it's you computer scientists who have spent the best part of 3 millennia scratching your balls in your mums' basements.

[Skepdick]

No need for mind-reading Skepdick, your petulance is all over this forum, like the hot fudge sauce over your ice cream.

Ah well then!

You keep demonstrating how incompetent you are as an epistemologist.

Let me ask you this: do you think that my "petulance all over THIS forum" is representative of my "petulance" when NOT on THIS forum?

Do you think you've successfully mitigated the risk of a sampling bias for the purposes of your experiment?

If you ask me, you've over-determined my "petulance" by quite some margin and you have veered into the hills of confirmation bias.

Well, given that you are consistently inconsistent, it is only a matter of time before you deny buying the house. I'll save you the bother of writing it and believe it right now.

Sure! Why not? Let me help you affirm your bias even further. I didn't buy the house.

But then you'd have to explain to my parents why they aren't homeless.

It's hardly cryptic. You do look a bit silly getting all shouty about how clever you are and you can't even work that out.

Everything is cryptic with you. I can't even get you to tell me if THIS IS RED or THIS IS RED.

Though credit, where credit is due. You are the one who keeps using the word "clever" - I keep calling myself an experienced idiot...

Don't blame philosophers Skepdick; it's you computer scientists who have spent the best part of 3 millennia scratching your balls in your mums' basements.

We stopped scratching almost a century ago. When will philosophers do the same?

[uwot]

You keep demonstrating how incompetent you are as an epistemologist.

Throw me a unicycle and I'll show you some more incompetence. Why should I care about being incompetent as what you call an epistemologist? Given the example you set, who would want to be good at it?

Let me ask you this: do you think that my "petulance all over THIS forum" is representative of my "petulance" when NOT on THIS forum?

Well by asking whether the petulance you show here is representative of your petulance elsewhere, you concede your petulance. QED.

Do you think you've successfully mitigated the risk of a sampling bias for the purposes of your experiment?

Crikey Skepdick are you really so narcissistic that you think I have any interest in you beyond this forum?

If you ask me, you've over-determined my "petulance" by quite some margin and you have veered into the hills of confirmation bias.

Despite being alerted to the fact that you don't know what "over-determined" means in the appropriate context, you continue to use it in precisely the same wrong way.

I didn't buy the house.

See? Maybe I am a mind reader after all.

Everything is cryptic with you. I can't even get you to tell me if THIS IS RED or THIS IS RED.

You have the memory of the proverbial goldfish:

Now there are two options. Any one of them could have been red. That's 1 in 2 odds.

Why do you feel so strongly about one over the other if the odds are equal?

Because one of them is red. The red one as it happens.

It's fucking obvious to me that your posterior probability is not 1/2. All I am asking is what evidence swayed you towards A.

It's red.

I keep calling myself an experienced idiot...

Well yeah, the more you do something, the better you get.

We stopped scratching almost a century ago. When will philosophers do the same?

Indeed Skepdick; and when did you stop beating your wife?

[Age]

SAYS Age using a computer over the internet.

To me, a computer and the internet are improvements of 'how' language' is used, and shared. They are obviously NOT improvements 'with' language itself.

You are communicating with a stranger on the other end of the planet thanks to programming languages.

Language, in the written word, which has been going on now for thousands upon thousands of years already and has NOT improved, relatively, in just the last 50 years.

I am going to guess you never lived in the world where long-distance communication required pen, paper, envelopes and postage stamps.

You can guess/assume whatever you like. But, I would suggest you find out what thee actual Truth is BEFORE you assume absolutely any thing at all.

But you are FREE to do whatever you want to do.

As recently as 1990 a letter sent from Europe took +-30 days to arrive in South Africa.

Really?

And how does this relate to what has supposedly been DONE 'with language', itself?

Human communication is now more synchronous (less asynchronous).

But 'human communication' is obviously NOT 'language', NOR 'human language', itself.

Really?

What is language? How does it work?
What is communication? How does it work?

Without a scientific model of language; or a scientific model of communication - you can't answer either of those questions with any predictive adequacy.

Yes I can. However, if you are OPEN or NOT to the answers is another thing. Remember what is 'predictive' and what is 'adequate is relative, to you.

You, yourself, use words to portray that you know the accuracy of things, yet then you go on to say that we can not know what words actually mean. You are under some sort of illusion that without so called "scientific models", what words mean cannot be known. Yet, even your own "accuracy of things" is, by your own admission, consistently inconsistent.

'Language', to me, is just words, or messages, used in a particular way. To me language itself does not work, as language, itself, is just the words, or messages, themselves being used in a particular way.

'Communication', to me, is the name given to describe the way language, words or messages, are imparted or exchanged. How communication works is by just the expressing and receiving of words, messages, or language.

[Age]

So you think having tantrums on the internet is doing something.

I do?

Teach me some mind-reading, please!

And to think they did it all from their mums' basements eating ice cream!

You seem to know a lot about that. Were you doing house visits or...?

Alas, there is some irony there. My mom's basement (if I actually lived in it) is actually my basement.
My parents live in a house I bought for them when I was 25.

How can it be 'your' basement if you bought the house, and thus the basement, 'for' them?

When you supposedly bought the house "for them" did you 'give' the house 'to them' or did you keep it for your self?

Either you own the house or you 'gave' the house 'to them', which means they own the house.

My point precisely.

Try again? Failed making it.

Oh yeah? Well where were your computers 3000 years ago?

You tell me. Philosophers couldn't come up with the idea in 3000 years?

[surreptitious57]

What is language ? How does it work ?
What is communication ? How does it work ?

Without a scientific model of language or a scientific model of communication - you cannot answer either of those questions with any
predictive adequacy

Language is an artificial or natural means of communication between human beings or between machines or within an individual machine
Communication is the use of language to gain meaning or understanding from human beings or machines that are also using that language

Language has axioms or rules that have to be understand in order to make communication possible
And the rigidity of these axioms depends upon the type of language that is actually being employed

Computer language is mathematical and so is the most rigid type there is
Human language is non mathematical and so it is less rigid by comparison
While human written language is more rigid than human spoken language

You dont necessarily need a scientific model of language but it has to have some axioms that everyone using it can
agree upon otherwise it makes communication impossible and renders the language in question simply impractical

So for example words or numbers have to be written or spoken a specific way and they also have to have specific definitions
As a shared vocabulary is the minimum base level understanding for communication and understanding between participants
But if it is not known or understood then there can be no effective communication of any kind which defeats the purpose of language

Non mathemathical language evolves according to cultural norms so it is not capable of predictive adequacy
Because what words come into or out of use cannot in any way be determined scientifically only culturally

Mathematical language is more rigid but what comes into existence is determined by necessity but is still not automatically predictive
[ all these non predictable additions to mathematics for example : negative numbers / zero / irrational numbers / complex numbers ]

So for both mathematical and non mathematical language I dont think testable hypotheses for future scenarios are actually all that reliable
Since you cannot predict using scientific principles what the next new word will be or what the next major addition to mathematics will be

[surreptitious57]

You are under some sort of illusion that without so called scientific models what words mean cannot be known

Yes he is but as I have shown in my post above language only has to be rigid in order to be effective
But Skepdick is a computer programmer and so he has a very scientific way of looking at language
Yet most people who use it are not computer programmers and so dont really think like he does
For most people use language - particularly spoken language - very naturally or spontaneously

[Skepdick]

Throw me a unicycle and I'll show you some more incompetence.

Well, you've never expressed interest in unicycling but you did express interest in epistemology.

Why should I care about being incompetent as what you call an epistemologist? Given the example you set, who would want to be good at it?

Anybody who wants to think for themselves, I imagine?

If thinking from first principles is a bad epistemic example what would a "good example" look like?

Well by asking whether the petulance you show here is representative of your petulance elsewhere, you concede your petulance. QED.

You interpreted the quotation marks around "petulance" as a concession? You are even worse at epistemology than I originally thought!

Crikey Skepdick are you really so narcissistic that you think I have any interest in you beyond this forum?

Well, you have non-zero interest in me on this forum. So if you are going to be theorising about me you might want to consider the systemic issues at play?

That is. If you actually gave a shit about epistemology.

Despite being alerted to the fact that you don't know what "over-determined" means in the appropriate context, you continue to use it in precisely the same wrong way.

Despite your attempts to insist on semantic norms, I have told you how I am using the word. Why then do you continue insisting that your way is the "right" way?

See? Maybe I am a mind reader after all.

I wouldn't know - you can't tell me your prior or posterior.

You have the memory of the proverbial goldfish:

Now there are two options. Any one of them could have been red. That's 1 in 2 odds.

Why do you feel so strongly about one over the other if the odds are equal?

Because one of them is red. The red one as it happens.

It's fucking obvious to me that your posterior probability is not 1/2. All I am asking is what evidence swayed you towards A.

It's red.

Is it your old age getting in the way of figuring out that it's your memory that is failing and not mine. Because you never addressed the epistemic question.

How do you know that IS THIS RED?

Well yeah, the more you do something, the better you get.

Which is probably why you suck at epistemology.

We stopped scratching almost a century ago. When will philosophers do the same?

Indeed Skepdick; and when did you stop beating your wife?

The day I was born.
The day I met her.
The day we got married.

All valid answers.

[uwot]

Is it your old age getting in the way of figuring out that it's your memory that is failing and not mine. Because you never addressed the epistemic question.

How do you know that IS THIS RED?

Here it is again:

It's red.

...you suck at epistemology.

Skepdick, if being good at your version of epistemology means I waste time wondering whether something which is clearly red is red, I have no use for it and am entirely content that I suck at it.

[Skepdick]

Yes I can. However, if you are OPEN or NOT to the answers is another thing. Remember what is 'predictive' and what is 'adequate is relative, to you.

I have told you more than once that it's not relative to me, but it is relative to maximum entropy.

Will it rain tomorrow?

Flip a coin.

[Skepdick]

Is it your old age getting in the way of figuring out that it's your memory that is failing and not mine. Because you never addressed the epistemic question.

How do you know that IS THIS RED?

Here it is again:

It's red.

...you suck at epistemology.

Skepdick, if being good at your version of epistemology means I waste time wondering whether something which is clearly red is red, I have no use for it and am entirely content that I suck at it.

Obviously you are content at sucking at it. Because you actually suck at it.

You answer the methodists (How do you know?) by appealing to particularism (Because I know).

By what process did you arrive at you conclusion?
By what process did you choose the linguistic label "red" for THIS COLOR instead of THIS COLOR?

My version of epistemology is about "wasting time" wondering on the question: "How do I know that this is red?"
How do I know that anything is what it is?

The informal answer is trivial: I learned it!

What is learning? How does it work? How does learning produce knowledge? I can't find Philosophers ever bothering with these questions in 3000 years.
Makes sense to me, since you (a philosopher) think you have "no use for it".

Computer Scientists on the other hand have a formal model and everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

50 years...

[Belinda]

If I may interrupt,

By what process did you choose the linguistic label "red" for THIS COLOR instead of THIS COLOR?

(Skepdick)

The label's origin is historical and sociological and to some extent also something to do with human anatomy of larynx, sinuses, tongue, cheeks and so forth.One of my favourite studies is etymology.

Delving further into the origins of the labels reveals to some limited extent the economic need for linguistic labels certain physical phenomena such as running, eating, water, hedge, settlement, man, mountain pass, sheep, and so forth.

The psychology of qualia is a lot more mysterious. Is the nature of qualia your epistemological challenge , Skepdick?
If so, what do you make of my idea for a precise and explicit language someone undergoing conscious brain surgery understands and could use to describe mental phenomena. E.g. when the surgeon touches neuron abqx the patient reports xyhs and these variables are correlated across a significant number of brain operations on different patients?

[Age]

Yes I can. However, if you are OPEN or NOT to the answers is another thing. Remember what is 'predictive' and what is 'adequate is relative, to you.

I have told you more than once that it's not relative to me, but it is relative to maximum entropy.

If as you allege here is true, then how does so called "maximum entropy" define the words 'predictive' and 'adequate'?

And, will you provide actual evidence of where you have supposedly already told me "more than once" that " 'it's not relative, to you "?

Will it rain tomorrow?

That all depends on the specifics.

If you want to find out and KNOW the actual specific answer, then you need to ask a far more specific clarifying question.

The more specific the clarifying question you ask, then the more specific, true, right, and correct answer I can, and will, give you.

Flip a coin.

This sounds like something a robot would say, this is because they/you do not actually have the ability to learn, understand, and reason ALL things. But anyway, if you want to flip a coin to obtain and know the answers you seek, then go right ahead and flip a coin. But just be forewarned, the answers you get will sometimes be completely and utterly WRONG.

[Skepdick]

If I may interrupt,

By what process did you choose the linguistic label "red" for THIS COLOR instead of THIS COLOR?

(Skepdick)

The label's origin is historical and sociological and to some extent also something to do with human anatomy of larynx, sinuses, tongue, cheeks and so forth.One of my favourite studies is etymology.

Delving further into the origins of the labels reveals to some limited extent the economic need for linguistic labels certain physical phenomena such as running, eating, water, hedge, settlement, man, mountain pass, sheep, and so forth.

So, I agree with this (but I am not going to dive into it until next paragraph) - all that I want to point out is that you say "there is a need".

The psychology of qualia is a lot more mysterious. Is the nature of qualia your epistemological challenge , Skepdick?

In general asking the question "What is the nature of X?" can only ever produce linguistic descriptions of X.

What I don't understand is the need behind the question "What is the nature of redness?", and I am not sure whether having a linguistic description of "redness" (e.g what we call an "answer") can actually addresses the individual need which produced the question to begin with.

Experience is holistic. Linguistic descriptions of experiences are reductionist. The question "What is the nature of redness?" explodes into incoherence.

If so, what do you make of my idea for a precise and explicit language someone undergoing conscious brain surgery understands and could use to describe mental phenomena.

See above. I don't think you can describe "redness" any more precisely than experiencing it. Explanations/descriptions serve another purpose.

E.g. when the surgeon touches neuron abqx the patient reports xyhs and these variables are correlated across a significant number of brain operations on different patients?

I don't think you can get a "precise" language for mental phenomena that way, but you will get a language of some sort.

To me the entire idea of "precise language" is a misnomer. Language is never precise - action is. No recipe can replace the cook.

But here's my question to you:

If language is created by the human need to talk about things (precisely or otherwise) - what drives the human need to talk about things? Why do we need to communicate?

I think it's because we need to act cooperatively. If we didn't need to cooperate - we wouldn't need language.

[Age]

Is it your old age getting in the way of figuring out that it's your memory that is failing and not mine. Because you never addressed the epistemic question.

How do you know that IS THIS RED?

Here it is again:

It's red.

...you suck at epistemology.

Skepdick, if being good at your version of epistemology means I waste time wondering whether something which is clearly red is red, I have no use for it and am entirely content that I suck at it.

Obviously you are content at sucking at it. Because you actually suck at it.

You answer the methodists (How do you know?) by appealing to particularism (Because I know).

By what process did you arrive at you conclusion?

I do not know, for sure, how you or they arrive at your conclusion, but the process I use to arrive at that being 'red' is to use the process, which provides thee actual True, Right, and Correct conclusions.

By the amount of times I have expressed this process ALREADY, this process would also ALREADY be KNOWN, for and by those who have been reading what I write.

By what process did you choose the linguistic label "red" for THIS COLOR instead of THIS COLOR?

By the same process.

What process did you use to choose the linguistic label "red", for that color that appears to be red?

My version of epistemology is about "wasting time" wondering on the question: "How do I know that this is red?"

Okay.

How do I know that anything is what it is?

Do you often ask questions to your own self when responding to "others", in forums like this one?

Have you worked out yet the correct and proper process to be able to obtain the correct, true, and right answer?

The informal answer is trivial: I learned it!

Were you looking for the "informal answer", or, for the true, right, and correct answer?

The latter is NOT; "I learned it!"

What is learning?

The acquisition of knowledge or skills through experiences, to me.

What 'learning' is, to you, is up to you to decide.

How does it work?

To me, learning itself does not work.

The skills or knowledge acquired through experiences is just what the word 'learning' refers to, to me.

How does learning produce knowledge?

Learning, to me, does not produce knowledge. To me, the actual acquiring of knowledge is just what the word 'learning' refers to.

I can't find Philosophers ever bothering with these questions in 3000 years.

Okay. How many philosophers over the last 3000 years have you posed these questions to before?

Also, remember you started off asking these questions to your own self.

Makes sense to me, since you (a philosopher) think you have "no use for it".

Okay, but you also think "wasting time" wondering on your own questions, some of which you do not even attempt to answer, also makes sense to you. But, each to their own.

Computer Scientists on the other hand have a formal model and everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

Do they? And,

What does those human beings who you define as being " "computer scientists", having a formal model and (or of) everything meant" to imply?

50 years...