Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:13 am The process I use to arrive at that being 'red' is to use the process, which provides thee actual True, Right, and Correct conclusions.

OK. Explain that process to me.

Explain HOW you arrive at the conclusion This the True, Right and Correct Red Color.
Explain WHY you didn't arrive at the conclusion This the True, Right and Correct Red Color?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:29 am 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".

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:29 am 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.

Is there a way to produce a non-linguistic description of X?

If yes, then how would it be determined to be thee actual description of what X actually IS?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am 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.

I do NOT see a 'need' here. Unless of course someone has a 'need' to learn and understand more or anew here, and if any one does, then I would clarify WHY they 'need' this so much? What would happen to them if they did not get their supposed 'need' here?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am Experience is holistic. Linguistic descriptions of experiences are reductionist. The question "What is the nature of redness?" explodes into incoherence.

It certainly does NOT explode into incoherence, well for me anyway.

The question, and the answer, make perfect sense to me and both are completely coherent, to me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:29 am 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:29 am 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.

This is true, because some people cannot cook without recipes, and some recipes make the cook a much better cook.

Just like language can make human beings much better human beings.

With the right words and the right language human beings can, and will, learn how to be much better people as well as learn how to create a much better "world" for themselves to live in.

Language is always evolving so it can be said that language is never precise. Language is always just getting MORE precise.

This is a bit like human life. Human life is never perfect. Human life, however, can always just get MORE perfect, or just better.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am 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?

To me, we do NOT 'need' to. We were just created and have evolved to communicate with one another. But, then again, you were not asking me this question.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:46 am I think it's because we need to act cooperatively. If we didn't need to cooperate - we wouldn't need language.

Here is a question to you:

If human beings 'need' to act cooperatively, then WHY do they 'need' to act cooperatively?

If human beings have a 'need' to act cooperatively, then that implies that there is, or was, some intended outcome to reach, or achieve?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:32 am If human beings 'need' to act cooperatively, then WHY do they 'need' to act cooperatively?

If human beings have a 'need' to act cooperatively, then that implies that there is, or was, some intended outcome to reach, or achieve?

Yes, there is a. Improved odds of survival and improvement of our quality of life.

That's the "why?".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:13 am The process I use to arrive at that being 'red' is to use the process, which provides thee actual True, Right, and Correct conclusions.

OK. Explain that process to me.

OPENNESS.
Clarification.
Acceptance.
Agreement.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:27 am Explain HOW you arrive at the conclusion This the True, Right and Correct Red Color.

But I did not and would not arrive at that conclusion. That is just the conclusion that 'you' wrote, and may have arrived at.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:27 am Explain WHY you didn't arrive at the conclusion This the True, Right and Correct Red Color?

Because the statement, "This the True, Right, and Correct Red Color", does not even make sense, to me. Also, I NEVER did arrive at that conclusion. So, it is not the conclusion that I did arrive at, nor would.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:32 am If human beings 'need' to act cooperatively, then WHY do they 'need' to act cooperatively?

If human beings have a 'need' to act cooperatively, then that implies that there is, or was, some intended outcome to reach, or achieve?

Yes, there is a. Improved odds of survival and improvement of our quality of life.

Wow, we really do agree on some things.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:39 am Because the statement, "This the True, Right, and Correct Red Color", does not even make sense, to me. Also, I NEVER did arrive at that conclusion. So, it is not the conclusion that I did arrive at, nor would.

OK. Is this True, Right and Correct according to you?

This is not red.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:56 amWhat is learning? How does it work? How does learning produce knowledge? I can't find Philosophers ever bothering with these questions in 3000 years.

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:56 amMakes sense to me, since you (a philosopher) think you have "no use for it".

To the extent that I am a philosopher, I am a philosopher of science; if you can show me why I need to not suck at your type of epistemology, I will make an effort to get better at it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:56 amComputer Scientists on the other hand have a formal model and everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

Hooray for computer scientists, but having read the link, the stuff in there I know I use, and the stuff I don't know, I have little use for. UCL are pretty good at drawing your attention to worthwhile stuff, but which part do you think I am not using that will improve me as a philosopher of science?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:33 pm You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education

I didn't ask you about education.

I asked you about learning.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:33 pm To the extent that I am a philosopher, I am a philosopher of science; if you can show me why I need to not suck at your type of epistemology, I will make an effort to get better at it.

To the extent that Quine was right there's no distinction. You learned about science, didn't you?

HOW did you learn about science if you didn't do any science?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:33 pm which part do you think I am not using that will improve me as a philosopher of science?

The "science" part?

Philosophers of science observe scientists doing science.
You'll fare better if you observe yourself doing science.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:39 pmHOW did you learn about science if you didn't do any science?

What does one have to do, that you believe I don't do, to do science?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:39 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:33 pm which part do you think I am not using that will improve me as a philosopher of science?

The "science" part. You might philosophise better about it if you did some.

Seriously Skepdick; which part of Feyerabend are you 100% behind?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:57 pm What does one have to do, that you believe I don't do, to do science?

For starters, you don't even know how to apply the principle of maximum entropy?
Even though you know the English word for it. Agnosticism.

If you knew how to apply that principle you shouldn't be able to decide between THIS RED and THIS RED.
And yet you fucking decided, but you can't tell me HOW.

Because to you the conventional use of the word "red" is evidence for the hypothesis - it affects your posterior probability.
So the verificationist dream is alive and well it seems.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:57 pm Seriously Skepdick; which part of Feyerabend are you 100% behind?

The general part. Where "anything goes as long as it's useful".

The part where I don't see you as a Feyerabenddian is where you can't even tell me why you think what you do is useful.

Skepdick wrote:

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.

I agree precise language is a misnomer. But only when subjective qualities are what is being talked about. Formal logic, maths, and the languages of bees and ants are precise i.e. unambiguous, so I believe.

If a mad scientist connected two individuals' brains together the individuals would not need language. The previous two selves would merge into one self in every conceivable way. It's not only cooperation but also competing, threatening, bargaining,commanding, and expressing feelings that are the social cause of human linguistic behaviour.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:00 pmThe part where I don't see you as a Feyerabenddian is where you can't even tell me why you think what you do is useful.

Lemme get this straight:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:00 pmIf you knew how to apply that principle you shouldn't be able to decide between THIS RED and THIS RED.

Your idea of 'useful' is not being able to tell red from blue? Frankly no, I do not think anything I do could be described as 'useful' in the sense you apply it.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:14 pm Your idea of 'useful' is not being able to tell red from blue? Frankly no, I do not think anything I do could be described as 'useful' in the sense you apply it.

When you tell me HOW you've told them apart you've defined your method.

Apparently that's how science works.

You can't even do it for something as trivial as colors. I don't expect you to be able to do it for any complex issues like morality.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:18 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:14 pm Your idea of 'useful' is not being able to tell red from blue? Frankly no, I do not think anything I do could be described as 'useful' in the sense you apply it.

When you tell me HOW you've told them apart you've defined your method.

I looked at them.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:18 pmApparently that's how science works.

According to who? Certainly not the Paul Feyerabend who famously wrote 'Against Method'. Which Feyerabend are you 100% in favour of?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:18 pmYou can't even do it for something as trivial as colors.

Well yeah Skepdick, telling colours at different ends of the visible spectrum apart is trivial. That you find it difficult is laughable.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:18 pmI don't expect you to be able to do it for any complex issues like morality.

If I were a philosopher of morality, that would be a problem. Ethics is one of those things we haven't yet managed to turn into a science. If one day we do, it will almost certainly be with help from computer scientists. But not ones such as yourself who insist that the tautology 'murder is immoral' is some kind of insight. The history of science is littered with cranks who thought that some method suited to one field was universally efficacious. Whatever use you find for having to define your method for contrasting red and blue in computer science, you haven't made your case that it isn't simply needless obfuscation in other fields.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:39 am Because the statement, "This the True, Right, and Correct Red Color", does not even make sense, to me. Also, I NEVER did arrive at that conclusion. So, it is not the conclusion that I did arrive at, nor would.

OK. Is this True, Right and Correct according to you?

This is not red.

That all depends on what 'you' are actually referring to, and what 'you' actually mean by the word 'red'.

Also, "This is not red" is just a sentence. So, from that perspective, the sentence is true, right, and correct. That is; It is a sentence, and therefore nothing else, including red.

What the color that sentence is in, which you wrote, is, however, another thing.