Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 8:33 (#12218302) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Ah- you're still in that stage of acceptance of Autism. It works for a while- but in the end result, 956 people out of every 1000 don't have Autism. If you're ever going to truly understand THEIR reality- part of it is what is socially advantageous. To them, it's no less true than facts are to you; it's just based on a different set of axioms and logical rules.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 9:08 (#12218633) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 9:18 (#12218722) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism. And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality. But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world. We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 17:57 (#12221515) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference.
Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:57 (#12226678) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference. Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality.Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"? Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage. Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense. The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe. Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here. I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Reality(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.14 22:39 (#12232943) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality. Which, however, is singular. Thank-you. I have no argument with the obvious fact that we have differing perceptions of reality, and extremely harsh filters upon it.
Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"?Sorry, no.
Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness).
Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.I would rather say that different experiences and ways of thinking about those experiences lead them to a model of the world optimised around a different purpose. Because the concept of "truth" is around and venerated, concepts such as faithfulness in relationships and degree of belief take on the meaning of 'truth'. This isn't so much another truth, but another definition of 'truth' as conceived by a mind that is optimised around different criteria. If Mr. J. Random called what you call oranges 'pears', it would not help communication between us if I referred to them as other than 'oranges'.
The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.Some singular external reality is required in order to embed us all, even if that reality is only the rules of such embedding. To draw an analogy with relativity, I am not claiming that there is an 'at rest' frame, but rather that space exists. If you want to claim that under relativity, space is not singular, then we are using language differently, and probably in fact have no argument. I suspect that we do have an argument 'though: I claim that the universe is larger than the sum of those who you can communicate with. I will go further, and say that ignorance of an external reality is politically deadly, with (for example) the current republican administration in the states deliberately ignoring scientific opinion of a massive range of issues. I'm not saying that the scientists have got it right, but that they're better guessors than the rest of us, and the physical relativism that you are proffering makes everybody equal, and ignores specialism. Such relativism threatens to undo well-verified science by undermining the teaching of biology. Evidence counts for nothing when degree of belief is the criterian for 'truth'.
We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.We don't share a common reality; we perceive reality, and each of us distort it immediately. With time, we distort it futher and diverge in our opinions over what reality is. That our perceptions are distorted, and change with time has no baring, one way or the other, upon the nature of reality.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.Our map can only be incorrect if there is a means of comparison. I am not claiming that we know, or can know reality; I am rather claiming that it exists whether we can know about it or not.
I add (separately) that even with incomplete information, we can make deductions. These deductions may not have wide application, but they are sound given what we know. Maybe that is wrong: I lean upon the existance of self, other, and communication when in truth there might only be self, but I am saved by a nice piece of logic: if there is no other, then there's noone else to mislead! My communication is valid to the extent that it is received.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Reality(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.15 4:21 (#12237235) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I think we're basically agreed- but I'd point out the importance of this little bit:This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness). So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do? And don't you mean more wide, as less wide would cut out all of those pasts where humans never evolved at all?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
No comments:
Post a Comment