|
|
Russ,
I
know that we
disagree, but I think there is still some confusion about what, exactly the
disagreement is, and I would like to try to clarify.
Being consistent
with other discussions that have been
had on this list, I am definitely not
arguing that, as you put it, "one conceptualizes, and then one acts." I
am instead asserting that the distinction you are making between mind and
action is bogus.
If you carefully study a series of events and then act
based on what produced positive outcomes in the past, then you are doing in induction. Period. If I
watch you study a series of events and then act based on what produced positive
outcomes in the past, I have seen you doing induction. Period.
If you
act confidently after examining a
series of events, then you have faith
in induction. At these moments, you have faith in induction, whether you
know that is what you are doing or not, and whether you can articulate the
rules of induction or not, and whether you have ever heard the word "induction"
or not.
There is no implication that you can "conceptualize" induction
either before the events or afterwards.* Your faith is your behavior is your
faith is your behavior -- one does not proceed or follow the other, they are
one and the same. (This by the way, is quite compatible with centuries of
christian teaching, in addition to being a cornerstone of American Philosophy,
in addition to being a reasonable understanding of folk psychology.)
Eric
*Surely the great minds of the past formalized the rules of
induction, and given it a name, as a result of self-reflection, but that is a
completely separate issue. Failure to keep those issues separate is at the
heart of the confusion in much of philosophy.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 05:41 PM, Russ
Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Eric,
This is
an important point -- and I disagree with you about
it.
From my
perspective action precedes conceptualization; from yours conceptualization
precedes action.
You say
"To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to
act as if it was the case'." The implication of that perspective is that one determines what
is the case, i.e., one conceptualizes, and then one acts. I don't
think most people spend most of their time like that. For the most part we just
do whatever we do without first devoting much effort to deciding what is the
case. By deciding something, I mean expressing it in predicates that have
true/false values. We don't tend to do that very much.
It's only after we
act and when we step back and look at ourselves and attempt to
explain ourselves, that we come up with the notion of induction. We say,
this is what the term (scientific or naive) induction means. And by
golly, it looks like we act that way. But that's very different from saying
that we explicitly invoke the framework of induction whenever we
act.
To turn it around
would be similar to saying that nature acts according to evolution, i.e., that
nature consults the theory of evolution to decide what it should do next. Of
course that's not true. Nature does not consult a theory to see what it should
do next. It just does what it does. We are clever enough to have developed a
theory of evolution that seems to encompass much of what happens in
nature.
And that's true
for most everything most of us do or expect. We don't consult the theory of
induction to decide what to do next or what to expect next. We do or expect
whatever we do or expect Induction is a good way of explaining how we got to
that result.
The way you want
to put it suggests that we are programmed to follow certain rules -- where by
programmed I mean that there is some actual symbolic software that
executes when we act. (I don't mean by programmed that we are biologically set
up in a certain way. I'm taking the notion of programming seriously because I'm
a programmer and a program is a symbolically expressed recipe for
behavior.) Only very rarely do any of us consult a
symbolic recipe before acting. And when we do, it's generally not the
recipe for induction. We consult symbolic recipes when we want
guidance for what to do next when the decisions is far more complex
than normal naive induction.
-- Russ
Abbott
_____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/" target="" onclick="window.open('https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/');return false;">https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
vita: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/" style="font-style:italic" target="" onclick="window.open('http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/');return false;">http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2@...> wrote:
But Russ, come on now. To
'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it was the case'.
Thus, if we act as if induction is the case, we have faith in
induction. If I see that someone routinely relies on induction when trying to
figure things out, and I have seen that he acts with confidence once the
inductive process is complete, then I have seen his faith. If we act as if the
world will be here tomorrow, then we have faith that the world will be here
tomorrow. If we act as if the bible is true, then we have faith in the
bible.
The issue of self-consciousness, or people's ability to verbalize
basic principles, is a different issue. I am afraid I do not have the same
faith in people's abilities to accurately talk about themselves that you seem
to have. At the least, I have trouble acting as if it were the case ;-
)
Eric
Nick,
As far as
I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) induction and
faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate whereas faith is an
imported belief.
You don't
need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the case. That's
simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit induction to
conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty much as it is now --
at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to care most about. The
principle of induction simply explicates that way of
behaving.
In contrast,
faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to explicitly for
answers.
-- Russ
Abbott
_____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/" target="" onclick="window.open('https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/');return false;">https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
vita: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/" style="font-style:italic" target="" onclick="window.open('http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/');return false;">http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________
Hi doug, and Bruce
I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response.
I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]
is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back
into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.
Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things.
Nick
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.
--Doug
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:
Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it.
I was asking you to expand my experience.
Or not.
Nick
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
<Lilke>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <bruce.sherwood@...> wrote:
Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.
To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.
Bruce
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<nickthompson@...> wrote:
> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
droberts@...
doug@...
<a href="http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins" target="" onclick="window.open('http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins');return false;">http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
droberts@...
doug@...
<a href="http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins" target="" onclick="window.open('http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins');return false;">http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
|
Locked
