http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1557 Negative reinforcement is a pretty powerful thing. Or trial and error. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:43:36 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1557 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1532 [...] kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:15:25 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1532 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1531 Psht, philosophy is ALL about answers. The problem is that so many people have come to so many different valid conclusions that it SEEMS as if there are no answers. And yes, modern and contemporary philosophy has largely been pretty depressing, but philosophers aren't all sad sacks! The existentialists are all about hope and life and such. Even like post-modernists and such are pretty into just living life and having a good time. So there's lots in philosophy for you! Now if it wasn't all just totally useless... I've been thinking about this lately; I have spent a lot of time coming to logical conclusions about the nature of life, the universe, and everything and, more importantly, how best to live in the world. It seems, though, that the vast majority of people have done no such thing, and, by and large, those people act in a way very similar to the way I act. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that I am more (or less, for that matter) happier than those who don't devote large amounts of mental energy to philosophical inquiry. I've always known that philosophy is pretty useless, but I just don't quite understand how those non-philosophical people have managed to live and get through life without this sort of thought. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:03:09 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1531 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1447 You just stated most of the reasons I hate philosophy! Oh, and the fact that it does nothing constructive for society. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Language; Literature; Writing Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:53:53 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1447 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1446 Also, thanks for putting my world view in a category of philosophy that was deemed "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." The more I read on philosophy the more it seems to claim that I don't exist, my thoughts are provably wrong and inaccurate, and my existence is meaningless, and the entirety of the field is dedicated to strengthening those tenets. Also, that there are absolutely no answers. Really makes me want to get out of bed in the morning. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:01:02 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1446 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1442 Reading further, pi may have been a bad example. It's considered a mathematical constant, not a physical one (and I was trying to stay away from physical ones because most of them have to do with space-time). And reading from people who actually know what they're talking about, pi would hold in different universes, and also, in entirely different spaces (hyperbolic space, for example). There's also the fun in that pi is a number, but is irrational, and as such, can only be defined by a series expansion, and not by any numerical representation. (also, pi*radius^2 is area, not diameter) So if I can't use pi, I can still go after things like the gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, the Planck constant, etc. Things that are based both on empirical models of physical phenomena, as well as coming from the realm of pure reasoning and logic. These can change, and have changed their accepted values over the years, and have been posited to be different under certain circumstances (different universes, incorrect physical models, etc.) Anyhow. All I was saying is I think there are objects that make the distinction between rational reasoning and empirical observation less cut-and-dry. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:52:11 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1442 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1440 I'd say you're wrong about Pi. First of all, there is a distinction to be made between the idea of Pi the number (which isn't important, because it is just a number) and the significance of that number. The significance of the number lies in its relation to measuring circles, which we can reason outside of empirical observation. Given the concept of a circle, we can reason that Pi*r^2 equals the diameter, even without actually measuring a circle. The idea that Pi might equal a different number in a different universe is interesting, but ultimately doesn't follow. If you want to argue that Pi equals 3.141... because of the nature of the universe in which we live, that's pretty murky ground philosophically, but I'll let you assert it. The problem is in the "other universes" and "pseudo-universal" parts- by nature of the fact that your perception of space and time is representative of the entire universe, including that which you don't know about but could potentially conceive of, Pi must always be 3.141..., even if it is a different universe. The measurement of Pi, assuming your "other worlds" argument, still relies on your perception in empirical practice, so it's going to be the same no matter what. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:03:14 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1440 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1397 I got one! I got one! Hmm. I'm OK with calling logic and math outside of space time (if we don't consider what time or space it takes to resolve or compute their results or implications). I'm not sure about the line being drawn between rational reasoning and empirical observation. I think of things like pi. Pi can be proven mathematically, and can also be proven (to some degree of measurement) observationally. However, being a pseudo-Universal constant, there's the possibility that the pi we know only represents its current value because of the universe we live in. I'm not saying that we have to prove it's different in other universes. I'm just saying I think there's objects that blur the lines a little bit. (And Neo-empiricism, as a name, sounds awesome. I'm going to find a way to bring that up at my next family function.) kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:28:52 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1397 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1394 You're so good, Josh! You ask all the right questions. First, Kant is what is called a transcendental idealist which is kind of like the via media between empiricism and rationalism. In particular, Kant says that there are some things which we can conceive without any perception of them. Like the example I mentioned before, 7+5=12 is true, and I can formulate that truth mentally, without ever actually having a group of 7 things and a group of 5 things and counting them up. To put it one way, we can rationally conceive of big concepts without particulars, or, as Plato might say, the Forms of objects without their actual physical instantiation. You're wrong about logic and mathematical functions, though- those are part of the world of rational reasoning, not empirical observation. Logic is math, and functions don't happen in sequence in time and space; they both happen all at once, or, to put it more correctly but esoterically, they don't happen at all. The conclusions of every logical discourse are held in the definitions of the ideas themselves, and the truth of the logic is not proved in following the chain of arguments, but rather exists as true or false in the ideas already. This seems a little counterintuitive at first, because in our practice it seems like we have to work through the order of operations in a math problem or puzzle out a function, but regardless of time, or if you even solve the equation, the answer or conclusion to the problem is contained in said problem, regardless of time and space. Modern philosophy treats the conflict between empiricism and rationalism very differently today, largely due to Kant, but I have a feeling you might line up with the neo-empiricists anyway. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:27:38 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1394 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1388 Don't worry, I didn't get you that for xmas ;) Also, this is a test. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:00:20 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1388 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1366 Aaaand I just realized I'm probably getting 10 copies of The Secret for Christmas. Mistake. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:49:24 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1366 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1365 Oh sweet data, I was beginning to despair. All this time it was like the great Philosophical Pantheon looming malevolently over me from on Philosophical Mount Olympus. Kant, like Zeus, was throwing not lightning bolts, but ideas. I'm not sold on our minds being incapable of conceiving the world without space or time. Most things I can think of in math or programming have something to do with causality/time (functions, logic). But there are things that I think are apart from it (a number series, an object definition). I'm sure the argument for us being unable to conceive of things without space or time is a lot more tedious, I'm just saying that if I'm looking at things I think are weak about Kant's world view, I would include the space-time assertion along with eventualities of his phenomena/noumena construct. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:47:00 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1365 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1364 Causality is a part of this because causality is a product of time. Without time, causality is meaningless. So, since time exists not in things in themselves but rather in our own understanding, causality is not a function of things in themselves but rather a function of our own reasoning. Does that make any more sense? It is hard to imagine time as something separate from things, because our minds are literally incapable of conceiving of the world in that way. That's the whole point- time and space are the preconditions our mind needs to understand the world. This distinction is actually a bit of a shortcoming in Kant, because if you can say there is a world that we can't access by way of perception, then you can start to make all sorts of suppositions about it, which is exactly how we get into these weird New Agey theories. If you're going to criticize the theory, go for that part of it, because it is definitely a weak part of the argument. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:47:11 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1364 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1360 [...] kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:15:52 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1360 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1359 "[B]y way of the causality that exists only in our perception." You've already explained this to me a few times. This concept is still illogical to me, and made no better by bringing causality into it. And maybe it's easy to draw a comparison to our folk-quantum-theory level knowledge, but what problems does Kant solve with quantum mechanics? I don't see value in choosing to perceive the value of a qubit more robustly. It's still just the result of a probability function. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:14:40 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1359 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1358 To be fair, I don't think The Secret references Kant at all. This is my own interpretation of both works. But Kant does have a good answer for your apple scenario: Of course the apple is red, and to call it blue means either your senses are faulty or you are willfully disillusioning yourself, to use your words. The Secret wouldn't contest this either; the change that the power of positive thinking brings about is not in the actual properties of things themselves but in their relation to each other in the world around you. So we say that the apple is red, and redness is a property of the apple. How red is it? Well, this particular apple is just a pale red, almost sickly looking. I would rather a robust redness, wouldn't you? The redness of the apple is brought about by its gestation on the tree, which is a function of causality, and causality follows from time, which we've already discussed is a precondition of sense perception, not a property of the apple itself. So, The Secret might argue (but probably not Kant, I should add) since the causality that brought about the redness of the apple in our perception is all in our head, we may have some power in changing it. Clearly, the redness of this apple is already given by virtue of our having observed it in this time and space. But positive thinking could change the redness of apples in our perceived future; the apples don't change, because they exist outside of time and space, just our perception of those future apples by way of the causality that exists only in our perception. Can you already see from this argument how easy it is to now integrate a discussion of collapsing waveforms and Schrodinger? It's all about as yet unperceived causal chains which aren't part of the things in themselves but depend on our own perception. On the subject of trashy self-help books, have you read The Power of Now? It was a big Oprah book awhile ago. In it the author mentions Kant Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:33:15 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1358 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1357 I saw this today and couldn't believe the coincidence. Perhaps all this positive thinking about positive thinking caused Randall Munroe to write this comic? Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:11:49 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1357 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1356 I'm not trying to discard Kant. I'm trying to discard what seems like "The Secret's" interpretation of Kant. And I can treat perception and "willful delusion" as separate things. Perception is you looking at a red apple and saying "That is red." Delusion is looking at a red apple and saying "I want to believe that this is a blue apple, regardless of what my sense and logic tell me." Call it the "there are four lights" distinction. And don't you dare say that transcendental idealism saved Picard from the Cardassians. I'm glad you're at least keeping me honest. If I wasn't regularly told that the problems I'm trying to address are outside my realm of possible thought, I don't know what I'd do. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:41:20 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1356 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1355 Todays xkcd. How topical. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Language; Literature; Writing Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:41:44 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1355 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1354 I really tried to address that issue before you raised it, like when I said "I should be careful to add that our changing perception hasn't changed the universe itself, but it has potentially altered the known world as we perceive it." If our perception of the phenomenal world were to change, that by itself wouldn't change the noumenal world. A change in the noumenal world doesn't matter, though, because we wouldn't be able to detect it anyway. The only thing we have perception of, and access to, is the world of our perceptions, that is, the phenomenal world. If you're calling a change in perception "willful delusion," then you have to call all perception "willful delusion." I actually don't have a problem with that if you do (certainly the Buddhists would agree with you), but I think that such an argument works in my favor, not yours. I'm really not trying to dissuade you from writing essays like your diatribe against pseudoscience, just arguing that in this particular case there's more than meets the scientific eye. If you left your complaint with palmistry and magic crystals I wouldn't have anything to add. The "power" of positive thinking, though, does have some potentially valid philosophical basis, and that's all I'm pointing out. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:31:30 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1354 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1350 I don't think Kant intended phenomena and noumena to be a two way street. From your description, it sounds like he was trying to separate the things we perceive from things we can't. He wasn't trying to say that phenomena affects noumena, which is the intended goal of the whiteboard exercise. If your intended goal is to change the phenomena, that is, your perception of things, for the sake of perceiving something different than what it is, that sounds like willful delusion. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:28:57 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1350 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1348 I don't know why I feel I have to do this, but I'm now going to mount a defense of the science (or lack thereof) in The Secret and its ilk. Settle in, kids, because I'm about to get all Kantian up in here! First, some definitions: empiricist, as in "Josh, as a philosopher, is part of the empiricist school because he believes that things in the universe can be known by way of our scientific perceptions of them and that those observations (and only those observations) inform our understanding of the universe around us." Also: rationalists, as in "others, perhaps Rhonda Burne (or whatever that lady that wrote The Secret's name is) are philosophical rationalists because the believe that things in the universe can be concluded without any external empirical observation. If one were to be born into a vacuum without perception, it would still be possible for that person to rationally draw given conclusions about the nature of the universe based only on the premises they can rationally conclude to be true." As regards your empirical school of thought, it would be difficult indeed to argue for the science of The Secret. You're right, writing positive ideas on a white board is not, in a scientific sense, going to have quantifiable ramifications. The people who come up with this stuff are not, though, empiricists. New definition: transcendental idealism, as in "Kant (and maybe Robbie?) was a transcendental idealist because he believes that there are things which we must perceive empirically to know, and that there are things which we can conclude and reason in the absence of perception." Finally, let's mention what perception means as regards Kantianism: the perceptions of things we have are perceptions of "phenomena," and are only loosely related to the things-in-themselves, which we can call "noumena." The human mind imposes two conditions upon things-in-themselves: space Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:41:47 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1348 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1347 No pots to be stirred, just organizing my thoughts. The article actually started out with listing the "rifts" as a result of the palm reading when I was young, and just sort of developed from there. (As for the conversation, I hear it was something. Sorry I missed it.) The tone changes for two reasons: one being that I wrote the two parts at different times, the other that I wanted a clear premise and frame of mind for people to be in when reading the rest of the critiques. Luring people in with a childish anecdote and a Youtube video and a webcomic might be considered cheating, but, you know, whatever gets the point across. There's also that I state for people to challenge the ideas forthcoming, and to do their own research, which I follow up by immediately linking to the Wikipedia pages on the subjects. I was hoping folks would at least skim the articles to see what peer reviewed (albeit amateur) encyclopedia entries have to say on the subject. That I haven't read the book or seen the movie based on "The Secret" certainly undermines my argument. That Robbie simply states that "positive thinking" is more constructive than "negative thinking" does not. My opinion of the book's ideas is based on other people's interpretations or misinterpretations of the books. I've heard people interpret that putting your needs and positive thoughts on a whiteboard for all to see affects the universe, and exerts your will upon it. That is pseudoscience. Positive thinking does not quantifiably or significantly change the probabilities dictated by the universe, only your perception of them. I'm not advocating being a pessimistic, ogre asshole about everything. You can be pleasant, and happy, and optimistic, and at the same time you can have a plan. And you should have a plan first. And as I said in the article, if all "The Secret" and "What the Bleep" do is get you to think kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:45:21 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1347 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1340 Maybe stir the pot like the old days of idkfa? Interesting read. I think you are getting more aggressive by the entry in these articles. You should have been in our conversation Saturday night, because I think it ties a lot into Robbie's point of negative versus positive thinking. I would have very much liked to hear your input. I guess I think it is kind of interesting to me that you make a big deal of the point: ...question everything, and everyone, and ultimately come to only your very own conclusions. But then the tone of the rest of the article focuses on this perspective being the only correct one: If this isn’t obvious, if at some point you’ve bought into, or paid for the things here, then I’m sorry. I also find it kind of wierd you haven't read The Secret, but are prepared to write a whole section on why it is wrong. Book club entry in the making? I guess I just see opposites when you say be strong and come to your own conclusions and at the same time put such a strong negativity on the opposite point of view. Also, I am part of the universe and I care about you, does that not count for something? You can correct my spelling and call me fat now. Johnny@idkfa.com (Johnny) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:56:31 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1340 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1338 "To appease people like you." I guess I deserve that. My problem is mysticism masquerading as science, and people trying to convince me of their legitimacy without scientific proof, or even worthwhile analysis. That includes parading sophisticated yet arbitrary and irrelevant rules based on random natural phenomena. Why should such things be the basis for "reorienting" one's thinking, if they have no rational basis? My hope in mentioning palmistry was to warn people away from magical thinking by demonstrating potential susceptibility. Also mentioned it in hopes that I wouldn't have to make that argument again. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:34:27 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1338 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1337 I'm not saying that you misinterpreted the point of What the $&*% Do We Know, but I think you may have missed it. I mean, the film built its case on a sort of science which is questionable, but that was all just a thin support to appease people like you. The Secret doesn't really try to do that. The point of both was really that positive thinking is more constructive than negative thinking. I probably shouldn't stick up for them, because I hate them as much as you, but I wouldn't call The Secret especially pseudoscience. I'd also argue with you about palmistry, or tarot or ouija or zodiac, for that matter. Everyone knows that they are vague, and everyone knows that the "science" upon which they are built isn't the point of the exercise. The point is to, as you kind of concluded, reorient your thinking, or at least reframe your worldview to potentially cause you to notice different things. Ionized water, I'll give you, but those hologram things? That is the MOST POWERFUL ENERGY BAND IN THE WORLD. You can't tell me that's not impressive. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Language; Literature; Writing Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:10:35 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1337 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1328 New Escape Characters article, "Pseudoscience", Nov 29, 2010. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Language; Literature; Writing Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:08:03 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1328&msg_id=1328