Discussion:
Constructor theory paper by David
Alan
2012-10-31 08:25:04 UTC
Permalink
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
a b
2012-11-02 13:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.

However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.

So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.

The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.

Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?

What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect. Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can. We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.

Only by having many people like that can science move onward. It's
hard work and can only come to fruition if we are open to some types
of helpful crticisim and totally closed to other types that aren't
helpful ......not helpful/unhelpful in the philosophcial sense, but in
the sense of helping us develop and improve and ultimate realize and
prove that our personal intutions are true. God bless 'im.
Rami Rustom
2012-11-02 17:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.

A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.

So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
theories, then I'm either going to:

(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,

or

(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.


You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
Post by a b
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
Post by a b
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?

For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
Post by a b
Only by having many people like that can science move onward. It's
hard work and can only come to fruition if we are open to some types
of helpful crticisim and totally closed to other types that aren't
helpful ......not helpful/unhelpful in the philosophcial sense, but in
the sense of helping us develop and improve and ultimate realize and
prove that our personal intutions are true. God bless 'im.
So you're saying that you gave DD some criticisms that he didn't
address because he found them unhelpful. Thats false. He criticized
them.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-02 19:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
I don't think anyone is lying, but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin. It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true, or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.

That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian. There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
Post by a b
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview. I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate. I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you. But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck. You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?

That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary. Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
Rami Rustom
2012-11-02 21:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
over the past few months.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
I don't think anyone is lying,
And I didn't say that you did.
Post by a b
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Post by a b
or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.
Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.

For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
(unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
Post by a b
That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian.
And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
explaining why its a flaw.
Post by a b
There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
"the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
the table.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
Post by a b
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview.
I didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
Popperian view *is*.
Post by a b
I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
method.
Post by a b
I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you.
You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
you're talking about them, what are they?
Post by a b
But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck.
What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
Post by a b
You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
I don't feel shame. I used to though.
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-02 23:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and
popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
over the past few months.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
I don't think anyone is lying,
And I didn't say that you did.
Post by a b
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Post by a b
or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.
Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.
For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
(unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
Post by a b
That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian.
And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
explaining why its a flaw.
Post by a b
There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
"the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
the table.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
Post by a b
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview.
I didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
Popperian view *is*.
Post by a b
I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
method.
Post by a b
I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you.
You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
you're talking about them, what are they?
Post by a b
But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck.
What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
Post by a b
You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
I don't feel shame. I used to though.
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.

But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.

Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.
Rami Rustom
2012-11-03 14:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and
popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
over the past few months.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.

Or, I'm wrong that you are evading, and maybe you agree with me and
you just didn't think its important to say so (which I do plenty of
times).
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.
Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.
For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
(unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
Post by a b
That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian.
And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
explaining why its a flaw.
Post by a b
There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
"the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
the table.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
Post by a b
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview.
I didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
Popperian view *is*.
Post by a b
I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
method.
Post by a b
I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you.
You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
you're talking about them, what are they?
Post by a b
But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck.
What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
Post by a b
You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
I don't feel shame. I used to though.
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.

Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.

Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?

BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.
Post by a b
Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.
Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
reasons for those actions and words.

For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
(who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
all the religions are man made.

-- Rami
a b
2012-11-03 16:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Alan
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper
list,
not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am
here if
I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think
it
is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from
science.
I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before
they
get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems
that
he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange
value.
Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism
can
help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this
theory
can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is
why
I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been
a
lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of
trying
to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
over the past few months.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian. So by
definition if I don't yet call myself a Popperian I must not
understand it :O)
Post by Rami Rustom
Or, I'm wrong that you are evading, and maybe you agree with me and
you just didn't think its important to say so (which I do plenty of
times).
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.
Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.
For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
(unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
Post by a b
That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian.
And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
explaining why its a flaw.
Post by a b
There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
"the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
the table.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview.
I didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
Popperian view *is*.
Post by a b
I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
method.
Post by a b
I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you.
You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
you're talking about them, what are they?
Post by a b
But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck.
What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
Post by a b
You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
I don't feel shame. I used to though.
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami. It was just
simple case of you didn't get it, and then reflexively covered it up.
Which is what people because we feel embarassed when we don't get a
joke...if we also think we ought to have got the joke, or that the
fact we didn't get it reveals something about our knowledge we didn't
want revealed. And so on and so on.
Post by Rami Rustom
BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.
It's just a good example that when put into the situation of feeling
shame, you reverted to non-popperian strategies and behaviours, And
you're not the only one I've seen do that. So what I would ask is,
what is the value if the philosphy abandons one when real situations
show up? A real situation involving shame, is one where it has that
intensity that reflexive ingrained strategies take over.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.
Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
reasons for those actions and words.
For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
(who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
all the religions are man made.
-- Rami
Maybe....but again I would say that we judge actions more than words.
And by actions what is required are specific contexts. For example for
courage there has to be real fear because courage is about acting in
the face of fear.
a b
2012-11-03 17:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Alan
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper
list,
not
neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am
here if
I
think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think
it
is
wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from
science.
I
think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
tend to diverge as you let them run.
So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have
seen.
IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
become foundationalism.
The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
good. But...they are probably at their best right now before
they
get
developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems
that
he
does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange
value.
Not
right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism
can
help
us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this
theory
can
help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
like and resolve.
Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is
why
I
don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I
think
I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been
a
lot
of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of
trying
to
explain it?
What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
respect.
You have little understand of Popperism.
Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.
I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
over the past few months.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian. So by
definition if I don't yet call myself a Popperian I must not
understand it :O)
Post by Rami Rustom
Or, I'm wrong that you are evading, and maybe you agree with me and
you just didn't think its important to say so (which I do plenty of
times).
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.
Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.
For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
(unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
Post by a b
That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian.
And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
explaining why its a flaw.
Post by a b
There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.
Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
"the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
the table.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
can.
That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
What do you think DD does any of that?
For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?
No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview.
I didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
Popperian view *is*.
Post by a b
I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
method.
Post by a b
I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you.
You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
you're talking about them, what are they?
Post by a b
But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck.
What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
Post by a b
You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
I don't feel shame. I used to though.
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami. It was just
simple case of you didn't get it, and then reflexively covered it up.
Which is what people because we feel embarassed when we don't get a
joke...if we also think we ought to have got the joke, or that the
fact we didn't get it reveals something about our knowledge we didn't
want revealed. And so on and so on.
Post by Rami Rustom
BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.
Sorry...I didn't see what you were asking here. OK the point is not
that Popperians can feel shame...the point is that you claimed you
don't..that you'd moved past that. And the issue that gets raised by
that...is whether a self-belief like that makes it easier or harder to
identify and deal with ways that you do fall back into shame mode.
Rami Rustom
2012-11-03 19:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
think you'll say this:

The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it.

Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.

So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.

BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.

Why do I say "good indication"? Because you could have a different
problem that you're trying to solve, that I'm not aware of and maybe
that problem is consistent with Popperism. Or maybe its inconsistent
with Popperism, but ones reasoning for the problem are still
subconscious, so the person hasn't criticized them well, yet.
Post by a b
So by
definition if I don't yet call myself a Popperian I must not
understand it :O)
Right. Note also that some people think they are Popperians, but they aren't.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
the joke". Thats ridiculous.

I often don't say things that other people expect me to say. Does that
mean that I'm evading saying what they expected me to say?
Post by a b
It was just
simple case of you didn't get it, and then reflexively covered it up.
Quote the part that you think indicates that I was covering up that I
didn't get the joke.
Post by a b
Which is what people because we feel embarassed when we don't get a
joke...if we also think we ought to have got the joke, or that the
fact we didn't get it reveals something about our knowledge we didn't
want revealed. And so on and so on.
That is common.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.
It's just a good example that when put into the situation of feeling
shame, you reverted to non-popperian strategies and behaviours, And
you're not the only one I've seen do that.
I don't get the point of what you're saying.

Are you saying that to be Popperian one must be perfect. Nobody is
perfect. To be Popperian doesn't mean to *never* rationalize. To be
Popperian doesn't mean to not have any anti-rational memes.

If a Popperian (or any person) has an anti-rational meme, it means
he's not aware that he does have it. Its a subconscious idea. Take for
example the idea you described that *someone doesn't want other people
to know that he doesn't know some specific knowledge*. Its a mistaken
idea. Feeling shame for *that* is mistaken. Feeling shame in general
is mistaken.

Being Popperian means knowing that you could be wrong about any
theory, including one's theory that *he doesn't have any anti-rational
memes left to get rid of*.

So, when a person rationalizes, this is *a* mistake. That doesn't mean
that he is acting with an anti-Popperian method. One mistake isn't a
method. Now, if someone proposes the idea that he might have
rationalized, and if he rejects the idea in an irrational way, then
that is an anti-Popperian method.
Post by a b
So what I would ask is,
what is the value if the philosphy abandons one when real situations
show up? A real situation involving shame, is one where it has that
intensity that reflexive ingrained strategies take over.
Each time that one notices that he felt shame (or any negative
emotion), he should examine it in search of the subconscious idea.
That means guessing what the idea might be and criticizing the guesses
and the criticisms. Then later, examine oneself in similar situations.
Is the same (or any negative emotion) gone? If not, then continue
guessing and criticizing looking for the subconscious idea.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.
Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
reasons for those actions and words.
For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
(who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
all the religions are man made.
-- Rami
Maybe....but again I would say that we judge actions more than words.
And by actions what is required are specific contexts. For example for
courage there has to be real fear because courage is about acting in
the face of fear.
I think you're saying that emotions are required to create motivation
in people. I disagree. If you want, you could consider a hypothetical
situation where someone experiences fear, and then courage, and
explain how fear was required in order to motivate him to act
courageously.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-03 20:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
Post by a b
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
I think it's sufficient to say that having come up with the idea 100%
of cannabis users will use heroin, you might then have moved to refute
the possibility that this was meant. It can't possibly mean that can
it? What if someone has a heart attack and dies while smoking the pot.
He won't be using heroin.

Understanding these things requires thoughtfulness or it's not
meaningful. One example just from personal experience of why there
would be a link between cannabis and heroin is that - certainly in
poorer districts - there will be a link between cannabis dealers and
heroin dealers.. Maybe not direct...but buying dope will bring you
into contact with a whole load of criminality. 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.
Post by Rami Rustom
The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.
You'll have to examine it on your own steam. But look....what's the
point if you don't try to put an argument (that you dont' agree with)
into its best possible form? Suggesting the gateway theory is that
100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously not
plausible at all.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.
So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.
BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear? I mean, if that's a consequence of
my criticism then I would be sensible to think twice before bothering,
right? By the way, I actually mentioned all this in the original post.
Post by Rami Rustom
Why do I say "good indication"? Because you could have a different
problem that you're trying to solve, that I'm not aware of and maybe
that problem is consistent with Popperism. Or maybe its inconsistent
with Popperism, but ones reasoning for the problem are still
subconscious, so the person hasn't criticized them well, yet.
Post by a b
So by
definition if I don't yet call myself a Popperian I must not
understand it :O)
Right. Note also that some people think they are Popperians, but they aren't.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
Post by a b
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
the joke". Thats ridiculous.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
Post by Rami Rustom
I often don't say things that other people expect me to say. Does that
mean that I'm evading saying what they expected me to say?
Post by a b
It was just
simple case of you didn't get it, and then reflexively covered it up.
Quote the part that you think indicates that I was covering up that I
didn't get the joke.
Post by a b
Which is what people because we feel embarassed when we don't get a
joke...if we also think we ought to have got the joke, or that the
fact we didn't get it reveals something about our knowledge we didn't
want revealed. And so on and so on.
That is common.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.
It's just a good example that when put into the situation of feeling
shame, you reverted to non-popperian strategies and behaviours, And
you're not the only one I've seen do that.
I don't get the point of what you're saying.
Are you saying that to be Popperian one must be perfect. Nobody is
perfect. To be Popperian doesn't mean to *never* rationalize. To be
Popperian doesn't mean to not have any anti-rational memes.
If a Popperian (or any person) has an anti-rational meme, it means
he's not aware that he does have it. Its a subconscious idea. Take for
example the idea you described that *someone doesn't want other people
to know that he doesn't know some specific knowledge*. Its a mistaken
idea. Feeling shame for *that* is mistaken. Feeling shame in general
is mistaken.
Being Popperian means knowing that you could be wrong about any
theory, including one's theory that *he doesn't have any anti-rational
memes left to get rid of*.
So, when a person rationalizes, this is *a* mistake. That doesn't mean
that he is acting with an anti-Popperian method. One mistake isn't a
method. Now, if someone proposes the idea that he might have
rationalized, and if he rejects the idea in an irrational way, then
that is an anti-Popperian method.
Post by a b
So what I would ask is,
what is the value if the philosphy abandons one when real situations
show up? A real situation involving shame, is one where it has that
intensity that reflexive ingrained strategies take over.
Each time that one notices that he felt shame (or any negative
emotion), he should examine it in search of the subconscious idea.
That means guessing what the idea might be and criticizing the guesses
and the criticisms. Then later, examine oneself in similar situations.
Is the same (or any negative emotion) gone? If not, then continue
guessing and criticizing looking for the subconscious idea.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.
Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
reasons for those actions and words.
For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
(who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
all the religions are man made.
-- Rami
Maybe....but again I would say that we judge actions more than words.
And by actions what is required are specific contexts. For example for
courage there has to be real fear because courage is about acting in
the face of fear.
I think you're saying that emotions are required to create motivation
in people. I disagree. If you want, you could consider a hypothetical
situation where someone experiences fear, and then courage, and
explain how fear was required in order to motivate him to act
courageously.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Rami Rustom
2012-11-04 13:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my
theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my
theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change
their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that
Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
I think it's sufficient to say that having come up with the idea 100%
of cannabis users will use heroin, you might then have moved to refute
the possibility that this was meant. It can't possibly mean that can
it? What if someone has a heart attack and dies while smoking the pot.
He won't be using heroin.
Understanding these things requires thoughtfulness or it's not
meaningful.
So now you're saying that you've put in more (or better) thought than
I have. Lets see.
Post by a b
One example just from personal experience of why there
would be a link between cannabis and heroin is that - certainly in
poorer districts - there will be a link between cannabis dealers and
heroin dealers..
Ah so you agree that the gateway theory, at least in the situations
you're describing, hinges on the fact that cannabis and heroin use is
illegal. Hence, part of the causality is a law rather than anything to
do with a chemical or how that chemical affects humans.
Post by a b
Maybe not direct...but buying dope will bring you
into contact with a whole load of criminality.
Because of the laws against drugs and the drug war.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.
You'll have to examine it on your own steam. But look....what's the
point if you don't try to put an argument (that you dont' agree with)
into its best possible form?
You're claiming that I don't try to do that? So, you're claiming that
I evade. If you believe that I evaded, why don't you call me out on
that? That you don't call me out on it, is a sign that you don't
understand Popperism.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.
So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.
BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear?
Then you don't understand Popperism. It means that you've interacted
with Popperians, and you failed to persuade them, and you're blaming
your failure on this theory that "Popperians are absolutely awful at
hearing criticism they don't want to hear".

The ironic thing about what you just said is that in the scenario you
described, a Popperian would criticize the way someone is replying. If
you think someone evaded, you can criticize *that* he evaded, and
explain how he evaded. You could explain why you think that a certain
part of the discussion needs addressing and explain why you think it
needs it (instead of assuming that someone is evading).
Post by a b
I mean, if that's a consequence of
my criticism then I would be sensible to think twice before bothering,
right? By the way, I actually mentioned all this in the original post.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary. Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
the joke". Thats ridiculous.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?

And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-04 14:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rami Rustom
Post by Rami Rustom
A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.
So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my
theory
to be true,
or
(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such
that
my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my
theory
to be false.
You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change
their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What
does
that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that
Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?
but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way
you
dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin.
It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true,
What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
specifically I'm up for it.
If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
I think it's sufficient to say that having come up with the idea 100%
of cannabis users will use heroin, you might then have moved to refute
the possibility that this was meant. It can't possibly mean that can
it? What if someone has a heart attack and dies while smoking the pot.
He won't be using heroin.
Understanding these things requires thoughtfulness or it's not
meaningful.
So now you're saying that you've put in more (or better) thought than
I have. Lets see.
Post by a b
One example just from personal experience of why there
would be a link between cannabis and heroin is that - certainly in
poorer districts - there will be a link between cannabis dealers and
heroin dealers..
Ah so you agree that the gateway theory, at least in the situations
you're describing, hinges on the fact that cannabis and heroin use is
illegal. Hence, part of the causality is a law rather than anything to
do with a chemical or how that chemical affects humans.
Post by a b
Maybe not direct...but buying dope will bring you
into contact with a whole load of criminality.
Because of the laws against drugs and the drug war.
Post by a b
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?
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.
You'll have to examine it on your own steam. But look....what's the
point if you don't try to put an argument (that you dont' agree with)
into its best possible form?
You're claiming that I don't try to do that? So, you're claiming that
I evade. If you believe that I evaded, why don't you call me out on
that? That you don't call me out on it, is a sign that you don't
understand Popperism.
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.
So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.
BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear?
Then you don't understand Popperism. It means that you've interacted
with Popperians, and you failed to persuade them, and you're blaming
your failure on this theory that "Popperians are absolutely awful at
hearing criticism they don't want to hear".
The ironic thing about what you just said is that in the scenario you
described, a Popperian would criticize the way someone is replying. If
you think someone evaded, you can criticize *that* he evaded, and
explain how he evaded. You could explain why you think that a certain
part of the discussion needs addressing and explain why you think it
needs it (instead of assuming that someone is evading).
I think what you say above indicates YOU don't understand Popperianism
so ner ne ne ner ner!

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. You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
I mean, if that's a consequence of
my criticism then I would be sensible to think twice before bothering,
right? By the way, I actually mentioned all this in the original post.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10
types
of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?
I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed
to
make
it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
solve?
I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.
But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.
Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.
Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.
Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?
The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
the joke". Thats ridiculous.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you. The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....
Post by Rami Rustom
And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.
Rami Rustom
2012-11-04 18:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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 reject the idea that any choice is a gateway to another choice.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.
So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.
BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear?
Then you don't understand Popperism. It means that you've interacted
with Popperians, and you failed to persuade them, and you're blaming
your failure on this theory that "Popperians are absolutely awful at
hearing criticism they don't want to hear".
The ironic thing about what you just said is that in the scenario you
described, a Popperian would criticize the way someone is replying. If
you think someone evaded, you can criticize *that* he evaded, and
explain how he evaded. You could explain why you think that a certain
part of the discussion needs addressing and explain why you think it
needs it (instead of assuming that someone is evading).
I think what you say above indicates YOU don't understand Popperianism
so ner ne ne ner ner!
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?
Post by a b
You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
willing to criticize someone when he evades.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and
those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you.
No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
What is the problem you see in this?
Post by a b
The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....
So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
that joke funny?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.
That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.

So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-04 22:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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?

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.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.
Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
because he knows about the flaw.
So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
it.
BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
criticism they don't want to hear?
Then you don't understand Popperism. It means that you've interacted
with Popperians, and you failed to persuade them, and you're blaming
your failure on this theory that "Popperians are absolutely awful at
hearing criticism they don't want to hear".
The ironic thing about what you just said is that in the scenario you
described, a Popperian would criticize the way someone is replying. If
you think someone evaded, you can criticize *that* he evaded, and
explain how he evaded. You could explain why you think that a certain
part of the discussion needs addressing and explain why you think it
needs it (instead of assuming that someone is evading).
I think what you say above indicates YOU don't understand Popperianism
so ner ne ne ner ner!
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
willing to criticize someone when he evades.
you are assuming that just because popperians want to be criticized
when evasive, other people are obliged to produce such a criticism. 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. As I also mentioned, I
can acknowledge I may have given such an impression. I think we're in
the kind of discussion where such impressions could start to fly.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and
those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in
binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize
explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you.
No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
What is the problem you see in this?
The word joke is used but it isn't really about necessarily being
funny. The expected process is like this:

1. You read the sentence as normal, so absorb that there are 10 types of ideas.
2. Then only two types of ideas are given, so you go 'whoa?'
3. Then you read the second category again "those who think in binary"
4. Then you realize the 10 must be in binary
5. Then you see how the statement now makes sense and go "ahh!"

That 'ahh!' moment is "getting the joke". It doesn't have to be an
actual 'ahhh!', that's just a placeholder for realizing the 10 must
mean binary. And it doesn't have to be those exact steps.

But if there is a moment of assuming decimal, then a moment of
wondering why he says just two types of idea after saying 10, then a
moment of 'getting it' then there has to be a moment of realizing you
were probably wrongfooted deliberately?

What you are saying appened only really makes sense if you parsed
things in some completely different way that automatically went over
to binary.

What I'm suggesting is that that appears rather implausible (how often
in life does something like that happen for it to be automated?)
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....
So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
that joke funny?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.
That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.
So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?
I was talking about you specifically for this example, but I only did
so because I think what you had previously said about having moved
beyond things like shame, came out of a way of thinking that I regard
as fairly typical of popperians..at least that I have interacted with
on these lists.
Rami Rustom
2012-11-04 23:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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?

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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
willing to criticize someone when he evades.
you are assuming that just because popperians want to be criticized
when evasive, other people are obliged to produce such a criticism.
I didn't say obliged.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
As I also mentioned, I
can acknowledge I may have given such an impression. I think we're in
the kind of discussion where such impressions could start to fly.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and
those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in
binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize
explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you.
No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
What is the problem you see in this?
The word joke is used but it isn't really about necessarily being
1. You read the sentence as normal, so absorb that there are 10 types of ideas.
2. Then only two types of ideas are given, so you go 'whoa?'
3. Then you read the second category again "those who think in binary"
4. Then you realize the 10 must be in binary
5. Then you see how the statement now makes sense and go "ahh!"
That 'ahh!' moment is "getting the joke". It doesn't have to be an
actual 'ahhh!', that's just a placeholder for realizing the 10 must
mean binary. And it doesn't have to be those exact steps.
But if there is a moment of assuming decimal, then a moment of
wondering why he says just two types of idea after saying 10, then a
moment of 'getting it' then there has to be a moment of realizing you
were probably wrongfooted deliberately?
What you are saying appened only really makes sense if you parsed
things in some completely different way that automatically went over
to binary.
What I'm suggesting is that that appears rather implausible (how often
in life does something like that happen for it to be automated?)
I don't know what you're saying.

Either way though, the point doesn't matter. Either I did feel shame,
and so I evaded, or I didn't.

Note that I commonly don't get jokes. And, *that* I don't get them is
routine on these lists. Its not uncommon for me to tell people, "I
didn't get the joke", here and in brick-and-mortar life. So I'm used
it and I don't imagine feeling shame for something that happens a lot.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....
So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
that joke funny?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.
That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.
So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?
I was talking about you specifically for this example, but I only did
so because I think what you had previously said about having moved
beyond things like shame, came out of a way of thinking that I regard
as fairly typical of popperians..at least that I have interacted with
on these lists.
When someone feels shame, they try to evade. Its one of the
consequences of an anti-rational meme doing its work of trying to
shield an idea from creativity and criticism.

No Popperian will say that he's absolutely sure that he doesn't have
any anti-rational memes left. So he's always on the look out for
finding his anti-rational memes. This is why a Popperian wants
external criticism. Its so that others can point out that he is
evading (which helps him discover his anti-rational memes).

I realize that my rationalizing article doesn't say this, but I
purposefully didn't mention memes so that it wasn't jargony. If you
understand that I'm saying I (and Popperians) don't have anti-rational
memes, or that its not possible that I have any memes that could cause
shame, then I need to rework that article.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-11-05 01:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Rami Rustom
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. The intention was to
illustrate a reflexive response that we all fall into sometimes when
things happen very quickly. 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. So no evasiveness as I am interpreting you are using
the word. 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).

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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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'. 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.
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.
Another way to refute it in the popperian method would be to
'pre-refute' for violating some other principle regarded as true.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
willing to criticize someone when he evades.
you are assuming that just because popperians want to be criticized
when evasive, other people are obliged to produce such a criticism.
I didn't say obliged.
Post by a b
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. The intention was to illustrate a
reflexive reaction all of us slip into from time to time. I don't
think it's about evading because I don't think it's a very conscious
process. 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.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
As I also mentioned, I
can acknowledge I may have given such an impression. I think we're in
the kind of discussion where such impressions could start to fly.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and
those not.
Uh. Is that a riddle?
it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in
binary).
but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
10 thing.
And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you.
No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
What is the problem you see in this?
The word joke is used but it isn't really about necessarily being
1. You read the sentence as normal, so absorb that there are 10 types of ideas.
2. Then only two types of ideas are given, so you go 'whoa?'
3. Then you read the second category again "those who think in binary"
4. Then you realize the 10 must be in binary
5. Then you see how the statement now makes sense and go "ahh!"
That 'ahh!' moment is "getting the joke". It doesn't have to be an
actual 'ahhh!', that's just a placeholder for realizing the 10 must
mean binary. And it doesn't have to be those exact steps.
But if there is a moment of assuming decimal, then a moment of
wondering why he says just two types of idea after saying 10, then a
moment of 'getting it' then there has to be a moment of realizing you
were probably wrongfooted deliberately?
What you are saying appened only really makes sense if you parsed
things in some completely different way that automatically went over
to binary.
What I'm suggesting is that that appears rather implausible (how often
in life does something like that happen for it to be automated?)
I don't know what you're saying.
Either way though, the point doesn't matter. Either I did feel shame,
and so I evaded, or I didn't.
Note that I commonly don't get jokes. And, *that* I don't get them is
routine on these lists. Its not uncommon for me to tell people, "I
didn't get the joke", here and in brick-and-mortar life. So I'm used
it and I don't imagine feeling shame for something that happens a lot.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....
So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
that joke funny?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.
That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.
So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?
I was talking about you specifically for this example, but I only did
so because I think what you had previously said about having moved
beyond things like shame, came out of a way of thinking that I regard
as fairly typical of popperians..at least that I have interacted with
on these lists.
When someone feels shame, they try to evade. Its one of the
consequences of an anti-rational meme doing its work of trying to
shield an idea from creativity and criticism.
No Popperian will say that he's absolutely sure that he doesn't have
any anti-rational memes left. So he's always on the look out for
finding his anti-rational memes. This is why a Popperian wants
external criticism. Its so that others can point out that he is
evading (which helps him discover his anti-rational memes).
I realize that my rationalizing article doesn't say this, but I
purposefully didn't mention memes so that it wasn't jargony. If you
understand that I'm saying I (and Popperians) don't have anti-rational
memes, or that its not possible that I have any memes that could cause
shame, then I need to rework that article.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Rami Rustom
2012-11-05 16:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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?
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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?
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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).
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
I don't
think it's about evading because I don't think it's a very conscious
process.
Most evasion is subconscious.
Post by a b
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
a b
2012-11-11 22:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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.
I would agree with you that it can be changed. But something I
currently question is whether the popperian mindset helps or hinders
making such changes. In your case, denying concepts like ego,
self-image and so on....I see this as a really useful conceptual
framework for identifying such behaviours in oneself.
With that said, you strike me as someone who has done a lot of work on
himself. You've mentioned that this process goes back way before
coming along to the popper philosophy. You also mentioned that many of
the popper positions, you actually came to on your own. I'm interested
in that. Perhaps you would consider doing a separate post to the group
telling your story. I would be interested anyway. Another point of
interest is that you've characterized your internal learnings - and
popper/deutsch's - as a 'network' or at least used that word. I'm
certainly like to hear more about that.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
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?
I think during this dialogue I have mentioned your post/s in which you
say you have moved beyond, for example, shame. As well as other
personal growth events. I was just saying that, your composure under
fire has impressed as a trait I would expect to see in someone who had
accomplishments like that.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Yes...not responding has many meanings. In fact could I ask you
something about this? Something I've noticed in some of your posts is
the way you talk about people stopping responding. I could be wrong
but it seems as though you are assuming they have no further
criticisms? Is that the case? If it was, I'd probably think that
fairly unreliable. I for one, will only respond if several boxes are
ticked. The most important is that I think the other person is making
an effort to understand what I have said. It's not that I am making
them responsible for what can be awful communication on my part...I'm
more than happy to take responsibility...but the bottom line is still
that the other person has to be getting it at least to some extent.
Good motivation is another key for me. There are lots of others. I'm
sure it's the same for most people.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
That's the aspiration, but is it the reality?
Post by Rami Rustom
People that consciously evade, are not Popperians. They have goals
that are inconsistent with Popperism.
To be popperian wouldn't it be enough to want to think better and be
making progress at thinking better? Are you saying consciously evading
is a hurdle someone has to get over before they can even be considered
on the path? What if they are really trying but have some whopping big
irrational memes in that area? I'm not sure what you are saying works.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
We're talking about something that does at the individual level
involve choices, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily talking at
this time....about individual choices.
Just logically speaking....if smoking pot leads to a decision point
that the person would not otherwise have come to, or would have had a
much lower probability of coming to, then that is enough to start
defining smoking pot as a gateway to that decision point. The reason
why we are doing it is undefined in this example, and does not need to
be defined in the logic being proposed.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Explaining causality would certainly be an essential end-product. But
knowledge creation is step-wise and evolves - as you know. There are
all sorts of devices (thought experiments, say) that might be
deployed to support the knowledge creation process. All that is
important in the popperian sense - I think - is that each step is
subject to the explanation/criticism process. In terms of using an
abstract container such as 'gateway' one explanation would presumably
be along the lines of "this is why using this abstraction is useful to
the process of ultimately explaining what if any link connects pot to
smac and whether that link is useful/interesting"
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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?
Well....I don't know precisely where the mainstream debate has got to
on this, but in my example above the causality would still be a work
in progress but could be stated so far as, people who obtain and
consume pot are X more probable to come to a decision point about Y
(say heroin) than people who do not obtain and consume pot. The nature
of the link would not yet be understood, but the use of the gateway
concept would be explained as a container for things like the
statistics, the testimonies, the proposition of a link...and all
useful if, and only if, the process is brought closer to identifying a
cause.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
It might. But what it simply cannot be seriously proposing is "100% of
people who smoke pot go on to take heroin". That can't be the
proposal because that just isn't at all sensible.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
I don't think that is a fault, although I do think sometimes
Popperians misuse it. But that is for another discussion since that is
not what you did. What you did was define the mainstream gateway
conjecture effectively as "100% of people who smoke pot go on to take
heroin". That is what you then refuted.
Post by Rami Rustom
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?
I don't think has been said, at least not in this thread.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
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.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
You might be right....but if you're willing I think you'll have to run
this past me one more time. Perhaps one way to help me understand is
by explaining the distinction between where you are going in this
component, and the following statement which can't be popperian

"Someone who criticizes Popperianism cannot understand Popperianism".
Post by Rami Rustom
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).
I would have to be interested in the problem, and believe that you
were able and willing to work with me to put my idea into a reasonably
strong form, such that we'd both come away satisfied by either an
agreement or a refutation.

I appreciate what I say above is not necessarily according to the
understanding of popperian deployed in these lists, but:

- it is consistent with my criticism of, say, the way you set up the
gateway conjecture

- on the face of it, it is also consistent with something popper
himself said which was something like, before criticizing an idea, one
should first improve it, improve it again....and then criticize THAT.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
OK Rami that's very cool
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
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.
Post by a b
I don't
think it's about evading because I don't think it's a very conscious
process.
Most evasion is subconscious.
Post by a b
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.
Cool
Post by Rami Rustom
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
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David Deutsch
2013-01-18 01:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
I've posted a new version, revised and augmented in response to the criticisms of referees. The URL is unchanged.

-- David Deutsch
a b
2013-01-19 22:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Deutsch
Post by Alan
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
I've posted a new version, revised and augmented in response to the
criticisms of referees. The URL is unchanged.
-- David Deutsch
I don't know if it was part of the update or I am just noticing it
more clearly this time, but I really quite like the way the
constructor is being constrained in terms of what can be a
constructor. It's the sort of definition that naturally creates
situations of intense analysis of objects for the purpose of
determining if they are constructors, or whether they are collections
of constructors and so on.

Is a gene a constructor? If so a constructor of what? Is the complete
genome a constructor of the individual? If a gene and a genome are
constructors, then constructors can contain constructors. In which
case wouldn't that be moving things toward the more networky setup I
mentioned before?

Loading...