Seasons

Me "The starfish is the same whether we say it has five legs or many legs. The starfish doesn't care."

Exactly! That's precisely why the number of legs on a starfish is an objective fact -- it doesn't depend in any way upon how people describe the starfish, or on whether people describe it at all.

NO! You missed the point! It's only objectively 5 if you create a number system that includes 5 and apply that to the starfish. There is no 5 in the starfish. There is a concept of 5 which when we take data from the starfish deductively applies. It is an abstract concept we created to help us understand the outer world and make comparisons and predictions. 5 is a part of the concept we created called numbers, and not a part of the starfish.

Remember last time we debated this an I told you about Peano's axioms from which all math can be logically derived? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms .. If we take the following assumptions as true :

1. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
2. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
3. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
4. For all a and b, if a is a natural number and a = b, then b is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.
5. 0 is a natural number.
6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.
7. For every natural number n, S(n) ≠ 0. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
If K is a set such that:

* 0 is in K, and
* for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K,

then K contains every natural number.

I can tell you that it is logical to derive 5. It is abstract. It depend on those definitions and accepting those postulates. most people just don't think about it that much.

Irina, I think we have two major differences before I go back to my evidence of human limitations and subjectivity.

1) I see a difference between abstract concepts and the physical world and I do not think the two should be treated the same.

2) I see a difference between saying human limitations prevent us from ever really knowing the absolute truth and therefore we can only go by the best evidence we have at the time, accepting what we have as true until further notice but recognizing limits to that certainty and saying there is no external reality and all things are equally true. Qualified acceptance and recognition of cognitive processes does not mean there is no scientific method or logic.

[^%$^^#%$#@*&^*&^%$#!!!!!!!! I got timed out and lost several paragraphs! Sorry, I need some sulk time!]

Back to my main evience that human perceive the outer world only thought limited, filtered, and subjectively reorganized ways. The second quick example i had thought of was background noise. Specifically, we tend to filter it out if it stays at a content level or is predictable. http://psy-101.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-brain-tunes-out-background-noise.html. "The "novelty detector neurons," as researchers call them, quickly stop firing if a sound or sound pattern is repeated. They will briefly resume firing if some aspect of the sound changes. The neurons can detect changes in pitch, loudness or duration of a single sound and can also note shifts in the pattern of a complex series of sounds." While handy in terms of not being bothered by planes when you live by an airport (or the related boon of getting used to bad smells after 7 seconds) the fact remains that even our limited awareness of the external world is filtered at a subconscious level based on previous experiences and perceived patterns. If what you see is not always what was there, neither is what you hear. Similar research could be found for any of the senses.

But our cognitive processes and "mind games" go beyond just filtering and resembling stimulus. We will also alter our perceptions based on our conscious beliefs and the statements of those around us. Take, for example, Ash's conformity experiments from the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments Participants were asked to give information about visual stimuli (e.g. the length of lines) but most of the "participants" were actually in on the experiment as confederates of the researcher. The group was told to announce their answers to each question out loud and the confederates always provided their answers before the study participant. The confederates always gave the same answer. They answered a few questions correctly but eventually began providing incorrect responses. 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKivdMAgdeA There is debate whether the participants perception changed or merely their answer change to avoid conflict, but that fact remains we can't trust ourselves not to conform at times, and we can't trust other not to conform either. If our experience of objective reality is necessarily limited to our ability to perceive the outer world and subject to our interpretations colored by our own belief and those of others, then in matters of the outer world we test and accept logical conclusions from the information only until further notice because we can never be entirely sure that new information will not later be found that changes what we know.

Our ability to perceive and interpret the outer world is only part of the equation. Our self-awareness or consciousness gives us subjective experiences and what some may call internal worlds or personal reality. This persona believe or experience does not change the outer world, but it may color how that person perceives the outer world. For example, a person who comes from a culture that count only "one, two, many" (see previous post for url to article) may say a starfish has many legs and be right. The starfish doesn't change but his perception and understanding of the starfish is not the same as yours. What goes on in his head is different. People are subjective by nature.

Subjective experiences are an important part of the human experience. Many of our bonding practices and attempts to create individual and group identities are based on experiences and attempts to share part or version of our inner world with others. We have abstract concepts such as "love, justice, good and evil" that came from our abilities to think and share bits of our abstract ideas with each other. Just because these are abstract concepts and not objectively real like a starfish does not mean they are not valuable. Being in love, for example is subjective, and yet most people enjoy it (if it is requited of course). Honor is an abstract idea, but a nice one. Do not dismiss thought experiments, abstract ideas and personal experiences because they are not concrete and testable like the "real world" or you loose al arge part of what people are.

Of course ,when it comes to physical matters, like I said, I think science is the best tool. When it comes to abstract idea, many systems of philosophy with lots of healthy logic rule. When it comes to love, or poetry or art, well then there are some time world fail but somethings get shared sideways. As a rule, I don't want my poetry to run airplanes nor my mechanics to write verses. The proper tool for the job.

I got timed out once too. Evil bastard popups.

Anyway, we are repeating ourselves at each other again.
I will try very hard to give you the last word (you know that is hard for me) and agree to disagree.

Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled,

Yes, at least there was a guy operating a large panel of switches and stuff built into the electric "cart" that he docked with at the end, and was driven out of the hangar on. I assume this was the control unit.

running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement?

On slightly more speculative assumption (because I sadly couldn't abduct the operator and all the machinery for detailed interrogation and examination,) I assume that the show was built up from "preset routines" that could be activated with the press of a button. I saw quite a few repeats of individual sequences that appeared identical (and still appear identical when I compare video.)

Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!

Definitely pre-recorded sounds - even Loquendo voices can't sing, and I'd recognize Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong (that's my favourite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQavMnrbVCA - though my video of this song wasn't very good, being at the back of the crowd,) anywhere.

Some of the clips posted on YouTube (there are LOTS of clips there if you search!) have comments attached, claiming he is just an exoskeleton with a human inside. And there was an earlier model that might have been so (the videos from ~2006 are clearly of a more primitive model.) But I'm pretty sure the motor joints and hydraulics (which can be seen working in the videos,) would make it impossible for a human to fit inside the Mk.2 (unless horribly mutated and randomly amputated.)

And more to the point, the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQavMnrbVCA shows the top half demonstrably works entirely independently of any direct human control. I'm also pretty sure there's no room for a human pelvis in this model - the waist/leg-rotation angles and proportions look all wrong, and there are visible motorised joints and pistons in the legs, just like the arms - which would obstruct (and quite probably injure!) a human forced into the shell.

Bev writes (message 5677):

Back to my main evience that human perceive the outer world only thought limited, filtered, and subjectively reorganized ways.

But why do you present evidence for that? That is something we agree on. I never claimed that human beings were infallible or omniscient. I claimed that there is a reality is an objective reality that we are trying, not always successfully, to grasp, at least approximately and in some measure.

In fact, evidence of human fallibility is much more favorable, it seems to me, to my view; because you can't be fallible unless there is a truth that transcends your belief.

For example, to say that the human cognitive apparatus filters something is to say that there is something to be filtered. What would that be, if there is no objective reality?

If someone fails to see color in a rose, because of filtering, this can only mean that something in the rose, namely color, has been filtered out. If the rose had no color, what would have been filtered out?

More generally, if there is only truth 'for X', and X sees no color in the rose, then the rose has no color 'for X', so nothing has been filtered out.

X can never be wrong about what is true 'for X', nor can he miss anything about it.

Likewise for peer-pressure experiments such as you mention. Suppose I am very timid and only believe what agrees with my peers; why would there be a problem? What makes the experiment interesting is that people were willing to go along with their peers even in situations in which the conforming opinion was false in a way that one would think would be obvious. But if there is only truth 'for X', it makes no difference whether X arrives at his opinions through peer agreement, consulting a ouija board, or scientific method. What he concludes is 'true for him', and if there is nothing more to be said, well, there is nothing more to be said.

What makes all these experiments interesting is the fact that they lead to false opinions of the part of the subject.

"one, two, many" (see previous post for url to article) may say a starfish has many legs and be right.

Again, (1) this is something I would agree with, and (2) it's evidence for my view.

(1) I agree with it because, yes, a starfish does have many legs. Five, to be precise.

(2) So, yes, a person is right who says that a (normal) starfish has many legs, because it corresponds to the objective reality. If there were a tribe who all believed that all starfish were 1-legged, they'd be wrong. But if there is no objective reality, then 'right" and "wrong" are trivialized. If someone believes that a starfis has 77 and 1/2 legs, that is 'true for him', and if that is all that can be said, everyone is always right and never wrong.

Similar remarks can be made about the other examples you present. Human cognition can be wrong (distorted, prejudiced, filtered, biased, etc.) only if there is something to be wrong about.

I now proceed to message 5675. You wrote:

Irina, I think we have two major differences before I go back to my evidence of human limitations and subjectivity.

1) I see a difference between abstract concepts and the physical world and I do not think the two should be treated the same.

2) I see a difference between saying human limitations prevent us from ever really knowing the absolute truth and therefore we can only go by the best evidence we have at the time, accepting what we have as true until further notice but recognizing limits to that certainty and saying there is no external reality and all things are equally true. Qualified acceptance and recognition of cognitive processes does not mean there is no scientific method or logic.

1) I agree, there is a difference here. I consider that all of our concepts, regardless of how abstract, are part of the physical world. Since you say we disagree, I take it that you are a dualist in this matter; concepts and other things according to you must belong to a non-physical world.

I'd be interested to know how that world interacts with the physical world. Let's say that light strikes my eyes, giving rise to conceptual activity "Ooooh, what a handsome bloke!"). I take it that the light striking the retina and setting off rods & cones & whatnot is a physical process; at what point does the physical process effect the non-physical concepts? Likewise, my conceptual activity appears to affect my actions (I'm going to stroke him"). How do these non-physical things affect the physical motions of my hands?

I'd say that light bounces off the shapely fellow, hits my retinas, and causes a complicated chain reaction of brain cells, neuromodulators, etc., which ultimately results in my hand reaching out and stroking. It's all a physical process.

2) CRIKEY!I believe we agree on this one (oh, no!)! That is, I agree that the two things you said are different, are different. But I don't agree with either of them, though the differeneces are subtle.



I wouldn't say that "human limitations prevent us from ever really knowing the absolute truth".

Yes, we are fallible, but we are not totally incompetent. It's like bear hunting: sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. We are often mistaken, but we are not always mistaken. Sometimes a person thinks he sees a bear in front of him, and, by Jove, there is a bear in front of him, and he does see it, and there is no malfunction and no good reason for him to suppose that he doesn't see it. In such a case he knows that there is a bear in front of him.

It is important to avoid the epistemological fallacy that knowledge is entirely a matter of what goes on in conscious experience. [I'm not saying that you have committed this fallacy, I mention it because it is so common.] If there's no bear in front of him, it doesn't matter what his inner experiences are, he doesn't know that there's a bear in front of him.

People often argue like this: "You don't know X because I can tell a story (often involving dreaming or hallucination) according to which you have exactly the inner experience you've actually had (which convinced you of X), but according to which X is false."

Since the above X could be anything, we conclude that we can't know anything at all. But the argument is fallacious because it assumes that the inner life is everything. Suppose I meet a beautiful lady at the Opera and kiss her. Suppose someone says, "No, you didn't kiss her, because she could have exploded just as you were pursing your lips." This is obviously a fallacious argument. Just the fact that she might have exploded before I could kiss her doesn't mean I didn't kiss her. Yes, she might have, but she didn't! In the same way, if a person thinks he sees a bear in front of him, and, by Jove, there is a bear in front of him, and he does see it, and there is no malfunction and no good reason for him to suppose that he doesn't see it, then he knows that there is a bear in front of him; it is irrelevant (though correct) to point out that if things had gone differently, he might have been hallucinating.