Fidel Scratching His Head
-
Yeah, I hadn't heard of Matthias Jakob Schleiden until I started that post. I was just looking for someone who did something cool with a Zeiss scope and, hey look!
Anyway, thought provoking stuff! Yeah, whatever is happening in the human brain is nuts. How much quantum shit is going on up there? Maybe I can get you to provoke my thoughts a bit further on a few things.
"There's only one place with problems in the known universe: Earth." - Cody
This is a very interesting idea and could be interpreted as being extremely unlucky
. But I'm happy to be here."Without a problem, there's nothing to observe." - Cody
I'm not sure where problems fit into observing a beautiful sunset. (I was going to say titties but those solve the problem of hungry babies.) Maybe you can expand on this?
"An unproblematic state is a state without creative thought. Its other name is death." - Deutsch
Nothing that lacks the capacity for creative thought lives? What definition of 'thought' are we using? What definition of 'life' are we using? ( Now there's a polysemous word! )
-
Titties! lol. Yeah, titties, human titties are objectively beautiful, I think. Probably if we made a non-biological life-form and they didn't even need titties, they'd still find them beautiful. Same with pussies, IMO. Eat your heart out, Georgia Keefe.
The shape, the smoothness, what it provides and how it feels when you come into contact with it. There's an objective explanation.
So, if flowers evolved for the purpose of using bees to carry genetic data from one flower, why do we find them beautiful?
"I'm not sure where problems fit into observing a beautiful sunset. "
Hmmm... I think there are, because objective aesthetic value is a valid problem. There is such a thing as better and worse in art. Despite this being vehemently denied, especially by the Postmodernist movement.
Deutsch argues that it is easy to be misled by the empiricist view that there can be no objective philosophical or artistic knowledge. Empiricism is wrong in that it purports that we somehow derive knowledge from observation, when in fact all observation is theory-laden. Deutsch concedes that we never deduce moral maxims or aesthetic values from scientific theories, precisely because we donât really deduce something from something else in building good explanations of anything. In reality, we conjecture and must seek to criticize our own conjecture, and seek out the criticism of others, thereby creating a new and better conjecture. This is the only route to good explanations that are âhard to vary,â (in which âchanging the details would ruin the explanationâ [p.32]), and therefore approximate reality better than explanations in which elements can be tweaked with little detriment to its elegance or reach. -Rebecca Wells Jopling
"Beauty is not a matter of content, but of form." There are many types of explanation besides words. Take photography. You can take a picture of titties that's shit. Or, you can take a photo of some titties, think about how it could be improved, throw the first picture in the trash, take another and repeat the process until you have a better explanation of the beauty of titties.
But this is all, again, steming from the idea that observations aren't first in the chain of improvement. Once we have a good picture of titties, no one has to see all the bad pictures of titties we threw in the trash to get to the good pictures. But if you think that observation leads to better knowledge, then you can justify making someone look at all the pictures of the titties in the trash before they get to the good oneâso they can appreciate it. We don't need to suffer to appreciate beauty, or any other type of progress in any field. (Consider, school is predicated on the opposite view!)
Our guesses about how to improve our explanations, in whatever form, of the beauty of titties lead to better explanations of the beauty of titties. There are without a doubt infinitely better ways to capture the beauty of titties that no one has ever observed. I guess if I was going to throw my last tit pic out and guess a better way to capture the beauty of titties after having read your post, I might try "titties in a sunset".
--------------------------------------------------------
"An unproblematic state is a state without creative thought. Its other name is death." - Deutsch
Nothing that lacks the capacity for creative thought lives? What definition of 'thought' are we using? What definition of 'life' are we using? ( Now there's a polysemous word! )
I think Deutsch was referring just to people here, and not evolution. But, it applies to other creatures as well. Like, 'if there's no need to respirate, there's no need for a respiratory system', and 'if you don't have the problem of distributing resources and information then you don't need a circulatory system,' 'if there are no problems to solve there's no need for energy'. Or whatever you can imagine. But on a more practical level, I think by "life" he may be referring to consciousness in people and it's unboundedness. For example, I don't think there's a way for evolution to create a solution to the problem of asteroids. So, I think evolution that doesn't accidentally stumble upon consciousness is doomed. So, evolution may be intrinsically bound to a single planetâwhere as people are not. And then, you could say "well evolution created people," sure, but each person is like one entire instance of evolution. Each person is like it's own Earth-biosphere, no it's own universe, worth of creative reach. So the meaning of "life" kind of breaks down.
But to get a bit crazy: My current guess is that evolution has something like thoughts, but it's distributed across the extended phenotype. That is a crazy statement to make, probably, and I could probably write a much much longer post about it, but let's try to keep it simple. Into the philosophical weeds:
So, maybe instances of animals are like parts of a thought. Animals are sets of solution processes ("things aren't really things, they're processes"). So, a propositional 'thought' might be like "wings fly" (in the philosophical sense of the word proposition [another example of a proposition is 'the sky is blue']). That philosophical proposition exists and is encoded as an explanation across all of the instantiations of animals (a.k.a ongoing processes) that can fly, and thus contains access to problems related to flight that weren't there before flight. In order for the proposition of flight to be have been unlocked, a linked prior proposition had to be mutated ('guessed') and shared amongst the existing solution processes of the entire phenotype. But, again this is a vague guess. We don't know how evolution works, really. If we did we could replicate it digitally, or on a non-carbon-based substrate. We have never replicated natural selection. So, if I could, in theory, find a way to do this with a computer, I could test it. But, I may read Dawkins "The Extended Phenotype" first. Anyway, if you've got a better theory of how to replicate natural selection (like start whatever happened in that primordial soup), let me know. lol
One other thing worth mentioning. Sometimes people talk about collective consciousness, romantically, in reference to peopleâespecially on the internet. I think that if you just take a second to think about that you'll realize how terrifying it is. If that were how improvement is made amongst people, like evolution, just like in nature, error correction would require the death of individuals! Because evolution makes progress through the deaths of gene carrying instantiations to falsify bad mutations (guesses/theories/whatever you want to call it). AKA natural selection. Yikes. No thanks. So, yeah, in a way, from a creative potential standpoint, only people are really "alive" and then all of evolution is like one "alive". Which really puts into perspective the value of a human life and our cosmic significance.
-
I guarantee that none of this philosophical jargon stuff is being pondered on the front burner for us if beautiful titties in a sunset suddenly appear
. I just had to ask ChatGPT for a movie scene!!**[Scene: A serene beach at sunset, with waves gently lapping at the shore. Josh and Cody are sitting on the sand, facing the ocean.]
**Cody: You know, Josh, David Deutsch talks about this idea that all our observations are, like, wrapped up in the theories we already believe. Itâs like, our minds are always filtering what we see through this veil of cosmic knowledge.
Josh: (slightly confused but intrigued) So, you're saying we never see things as they truly are? Everything we see is influenced by our existing beliefs?
Cody: Exactly! Think of it like this: when you gaze at the sunset, youâre not just seeing the light. Youâre experiencing it through the tapestry of your consciousness, woven with everything youâve learned and felt about sunsets, colors, and even the universe itself.
Josh: (nodding slowly) I get it. So, it's like our brains are always filling in the gaps based on what we expect to see.
Cody: Right! Itâs like, every observation is a mystical dance between our inner world and the outer reality. Each moment is a hypothesis, a manifestation of our understanding blending with the essence of existence.
Josh: (smiling) Itâs kind of mind-blowing when you think about it. Weâre always interpreting, always theorizing.
Cody: Totally! And that means every time we look at something, weâre co-creating that experience with the universe. Itâs all..it's...it...
[Suddenly, their conversation is interrupted by a stunning sight. Over the horizon, the sky is illuminated by the sunset and two aesthetically perfect titties side by side, casting a surreal, otherworldly glow over the ocean. The colors and shapes are more vivid and breathtaking than anything theyâve ever seen. The entire beach is bathed in an ethereal light.]
**[They both sit in silence, mesmerized by the incredible sight before them.]
****[Fade out as the camera lingers on the sunset and titties.]
** -
Okay, we're up to at least three threads' worth of subject matter here.
**Cody, can you please start a 'fuck school' thread and explain how to get good tittie pics without referencing any of your own previous shitty titty pics?
**
"But if you think that observation leads to better knowledge, then you can justify making someone look at all the pictures of the titties in the trash before they get to the good oneâso they can appreciate it. We don't need to suffer to appreciate beauty, or any other type of progress in any field. (Consider, school is predicated on the opposite view!)" - Cody**********
**Let me start a thread related to this.
**
"error correction would require the death of individuals [...] evolution is like one 'alive'" - Cody**********
**As for things I think we should continue with in this thread...
**
"Empiricism is wrong in that it purports that we somehow derive knowledge from observation, when in fact all observation is theory-laden." - Rebecca Wells JoplingMkay. Got the last part. How exactly do we derive knowledge? I guess I missed something.
"objective aesthetic value is a valid problem" - Cody
This isn't illuminating anything for me. I definitely see numerous problems with getting good photos - even ones of objectively beautiful things like sunset-laden titties. But I still don't see any problem without which there would be 'nothing to observe.' I could see that, without having evolved the tools that we needed to solve certain problems, we wouldn't have the means to observe other things that are non-problematic. Am I missing the point?
-
Fidel, This is Gold. You're producer, nail the funding and start scounting locations. We can use my a7r to film this in 8k. I'll act, I only need 50% of expected proceeds up front, lol. But, you have to take out the line "wrapped up in the theories we already believe," because Deutsch doesn't think anyone believes anythingâit's a bad explanation of explanations.
**********
We've already got a 'Fuck School' thread, and I recently posted in it
https://the-flying-dutchmen.herokuapp.com/forum/threads/taking-children-seriously?page=1#forum_post_416How exactly do we derive knowledge? I guess I missed something.
That's the whole thing. What is creativity? What is curiosity? What does a theory even look like (hence the last part of my last post)? If you figure that out, like come up with a good theory or explanation of how we make guesses and what that looks like, then we could replicate it digitallyâwhich means we could create digital selves. We could live forever. Create digital children. No one would ever need to die. And so on. Here's a question inspired by this thread that I asked a philosopher researching that topic. (also shared a screenshot of a part of my response that I thought was relevantâmaybe the dude will look at it and debunk me, heh, that'd be nice)
**********
But I still don't see any problem without which there would be 'nothing to observe.' I could see that, without having evolved the tools that we needed to solve certain problems, we wouldn't have the means to observe other things that are non-problematic. Am I missing the point?
Took me awhile to parse those first two sentences. There is no non-problematic observation. Observations aren't solutions. Observations are a way to falsify solutions, the never confirm anything. There is no justified true belief, and science is certainly not that. Likewise, solving problems leads to bigger problems. And when I say "bigger problems" I am also referring to the philosophical idea of emergence.
-
_"Without a problem, there's nothing to observe." - Cody
_
Although I pretty much understand everything that you've posted in response to my questions about this statement, none of it actually gives any explanation of this statement. Is there a different way to put this statement in case I'm just misinterpreting the meaning? -
'Without a problem, there's nothing to observe.'
[Eyes] originally came into existence to solve a problem, which they are in the process of solving, but they can be used to solve other problems, too.
You can replace [eyes] with anything. I think literally anything. Physical things, like eyes and optic nerves and so on. But also you could put any word in there in general, because words are abstractions and had to be created with a problem in mind.
If an abstraction comes into existence somewhere (whatever that looks like?) but there's no people in the entire universe to use it, is it still an abstraction? My guess is no. There's something intrinsic to the process of the abstraction that requires interaction with reality in the sense that a problem is in the process of being solved.
So even patterns that we create that we think of as universal/multiversal, like say "gravity," we had to create for them to exist. The thing that "gravity" refers to exists, but the abstraction "gravity" is not that thing and never can be. A representations is a lossy compression of what's actually happening throughout the entire universe, This is an analogy, to be clear, I haven't thought much about compression as a literal explanation for abstractions. There's no "gravity" without peopleâbecause the thing that exists without people, that we refer to with the word "gravity" isn't theory-laden, and we can only capture the stuff we've already falsified with the word "gravity". Whatever the force or particle of gravity is and how it works is, we can only make guesses about it and refute them, and even if we had a "perfect understanding" of it we couldn't be sure of that because we only have the other imperfect theories that we used to get there to try and capture it.
What holds up the Earth? Some ancient societies said it was a giant turtle. So, what holds up the turtle? Another turtle? Nah. The thing that holds up the Earth is the thing we use, it's the theory of the turtle. It wasn't good so we improved on what a turtle is and renamed the aspect of the turtle that we thought was holding up the Earth "gravity." Then we kept improving that. It's not "turtles all the way down," It's problems and our best guesses all the way up.
Deja vu is the illusion that you are observing something you have never seen before for the second time. I love the concept of jamais vu, which is the realization that you are seeing everything for the first time. Every observable is different and happens for different reasons --Joscha Bach
We donât need âDefinitionsâ, at best, what we call definitions are actually just explanations that use common connections to inexplicit knowledge.
We have knowledge encoded in language, but not as definitions. They're encoded as ideas expressed in language. And the way children learn language is by guessing what words and grammatical structures mean. And when they guess wrong, they correct their guess. And when they guess right, they use the word and then perhaps correct it again. No two people end up with the same meanings of all the words. - David Deutsch (I encourage checking out the full quote and if you have time the source video).
More from that quote which I think REALLY informs Fidel and my back and fourth:
As soon as you get into any kind of detailed discussion of anything, you find that people have a different idea of what it means to exist, or what it means to be true, or just basic things like that. People have radically different intuitive ideas about which, if they are naive, they think that everyone else has them too, and are just being obtuse.
-
Well, that post was a slice of fried gold!
"_A representation is a lossy compression of what's actually happening" - Cody
_
I think this is an excellent analogy for observations/theories/knowledge/language."We donât need 'Definitions', at best, what we call definitions are actually just explanations that use common connections to inexplicit knowledge." - Cody
So your definition of 'definition' is 'an explanation that uses common connections to inexplicit knowledge'? Sounds fine.
What is the fundamental difference between a definition and a theory? Every word that you observe me uttering is laden with your theories about what I'm saying and my theories about what you're interpreting. Just because words and definitions are lossy compressions of concepts doesn't mean we don't need them.
**********
Anyway, about this...
"Without a problem, there's nothing to observe."I'm just going to take it to mean something like 'Without a problem, the means to observe and therefore solve the problem could never have emerged.'
The means to observe a problem is a solution to the problem of not being able to observe the problem. This doesn't mean we can't use those means to observe other problems. This is what gives solutions 'reach', no? I just don't think everything in the observable universe is a problem. Isn't Earth the only place in the observable universe where problems exist anyway?
About that, I'd say Elon Musk sees a lot of problems when he looks at Mars. But he's still dealing with all the problems that exist in the vaccuum of space between Earth and Mars. Or is it that the problems are in his mind? All problems are in the minds of people and all people are on Earth (or in orbit around it). After all, gravity is not inherently a problem. Nor is the scarcity of oxygen molecules in interplanetary space.
Closing thought: How's this for optimism?
Without a solution, the means to observe and therefore solve the problem could never have emerged. -
Josh, I'm wondering if you've reached the point to where you can confidently summarize Cody in 100 words or less, where you steel-man him as best you can, for a 10 year-old to understand? (I've been following the thread but I think I'm just not equipped with the prerequisite philosophical tools with which to get it. So treat me like a 10 year-old.)
-
I can't really "steel-man" anything because I don't see an argument. We're all on the same page reading the same words trying to get as close as we can to the same understanding of what's going on. Here's 100 words I'd expect a 10-year-old to understand but I wouldn't expect anyone to understand anything very well in 100 words.
My friend tells me, âClose your eyes and put out your handâ. I do it because I expect something good. I already have some idea what itâs going to be: probably an object I can hold with one hand that Iâll be happy about. Itâs heavier than the origami mantis I imagined. I open my eyes. Itâs in a nicer package than the peanut butter jar I imagined. I open the package. It smells nicer than the coffee mug I imagined. Each time I observed the object in a new way, I already had some idea what it could be.
-
"My friend tells me, âClose your eyes and put out your handâ. I do it because I expect something good. I already have some idea what itâs going to be: probably an object I can hold with one hand that Iâll be happy about. Itâs heavier than the origami mantis I imagined. I open my eyes. Itâs in a nicer package than the peanut butter jar I imagined. I open the package. It smells nicer than the coffee mug I imagined. Each time I observed the object in a new way, I already had some idea what it could be." - Josh
I'm comfortably on that page. Thanks.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đ
Register Login