An axiomatic paradox?


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Your comment leads me to wonder if similar comments you've made in regard to numbers of emails you received from Linz are similarly exaggerated.

Ellen, that Linz reference was uncalled for. Michael has made nearly 8000 posts on OL alone. Quantity is not his problem, to say the least.

You misinterpreted the comment, Brant. My point was that if MSK was exaggerating the numbers of emails he received from me, then he might also have exaggerated the numbers he received from Linz. Apparently, however, he wasn't talking about emails he received from me.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not let your defenses down and consider that we criticize you on this point because we care about you? What’s with all the ‘trying to control you’ and ‘win a debate’? Please consider that it may just be constructive criticism.

Jon,

I can take constructive criticism. I even welcome it.

I cannot take self-congratulatory blindness on how to communicate with people who are misinformed by the media. I especially cannot take the hostility I have seen lavished on people who question and try to figure things out in a manner that makes sense to them.

If you believe that telling the vast majority of people what you just told me will work (i.e., you care about them but they should not debate this issue with "well-prepared people," meaning they should just listen to you instead), I say go for it. In fact, that's basically what has been happening on a broad scale so far, hasn't it?

Do you like the results you have been seeing? Do you care enough to look?

(Personally and respectively, I don't and I do.)

Not to mention that there are oodles of "well-prepared people" who constantly contradict each other in public every single day.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Here goes some comments on your previous post.

1. The very first thing I want to mention is a nasty little meme that is being implanted and I want to tear it out by the root. That is that I am a dummy in certain issues when I post. If you reread your own post, this is taken as a given, almost in a patronizing manner.

The reality is that I enter discussions often to learn, but I do read (and contrary to the opinion of some people, I do quote well as my high volume of posts with proper quotes attest). Just like everyone, I know some things better than others. But not knowing much is not the same as not knowing anything at all and it certainly does not give me a certificate of dummy.

Michael,

You are a dummy in certain issues when you post. Not because you're uninformed on those issues. Being uninformed is fine. Everyone is uninformed before they become informed. You're a dummy because you pontificate despite being uninformed.

You keep saying that "the reality is that [you] enter discussions often to learn," but your behavior when you enter the discussions does not exhibit that reality, if it is the reality. Instead it exhibits a kind of dare to anyone to tell you you're wrong, and then a defensiveness if you are told you're wrong. Plus a lack of indication that you're paying attention to the responses from people who do know the subject.

The advice you're being given to slow down, take time to frame your response, think about what you're answering, is good advice. You wouldn't be seen as a dummy on the sorts of issues in question if you'd follow that advice.

In regard to quoting, you're changing the issue. Yes, you abundantly quote from sources you find on the web. The point is that you reply to a poster, answering something the poster supposedly said, without quoting the something and often getting wrong what was said. You should quote what you're responding to, so that the person's words can be seen and compared to your reply.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, the premises can be spelled out such that there is no paradox, as follows:

Premise 1: The world external to consciousness exists and is independent of consciousness.

Premise 2: Consciousness exists.

Barbara

In other words, you are saying there is sharp line between what goes on in our brains and what goes on "external" to them. This is similar to what Korzybski says. I would add that knowledge, however, requires consciousness, and in particular, knowledge of objects requires consciousness. A difference between humans and animals is that humans can be aware of their knowledge whereas animals cannot. To Fido, there is no difference between the "bone" created in his consciousness and what is going on external to his consciousness.

Yes, there's a difference between what goes on in our brains and what goes on in the external world. I didn't think that was open to legitimate debate or that it required affirmation by Korzybski. And yes, of course knowledge-- which means "information possessed by a consciousness" -- requires consciousness; that, too, doesn't seem open to debate. I question your statement about Fido, however; whether it's true or false, how do you know it?

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Here goes some comments on your previous post.

1. The very first thing I want to mention is a nasty little meme that is being implanted and I want to tear it out by the root. That is that I am a dummy in certain issues when I post. If you reread your own post, this is taken as a given, almost in a patronizing manner.

The reality is that I enter discussions often to learn, but I do read (and contrary to the opinion of some people, I do quote well as my high volume of posts with proper quotes attest). Just like everyone, I know some things better than others. But not knowing much is not the same as not knowing anything at all and it certainly does not give me a certificate of dummy.

Michael,

You are a dummy in certain issues when you post. Not because you're uninformed on those issues. Being uninformed is fine. Everyone is uninformed before they become informed. You're a dummy because you pontificate despite being uninformed.

You keep saying that "the reality is that [you] enter discussions often to learn," but your behavior when you enter the discussions does not exhibit that reality, if it is the reality. Instead it exhibits a kind of dare to anyone to tell you you're wrong, and then a defensiveness if you are told you're wrong. Plus a lack of indication that you're paying attention to the responses from people who do know the subject.

The advice you're being given to slow down, take time to frame your response, think about what you're answering, is good advice. You wouldn't be seen as a dummy on the sorts of issues in question if you'd follow that advice.

In regard to quoting, you're changing the issue. Yes, you abundantly quote from sources you find on the web. The point is that you reply to a poster, answering something the poster supposedly said, without quoting the something and often getting wrong what was said. You should quote what you're responding to, so that the person's words can be seen and compared to your reply.

Ellen,

I have to give Michael this one because of this dummy business which you admit to and your improve the other fellow premise. Sorry. Good night.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there's a difference between what goes on in our brains and what goes on in the external world. I didn't think that was open to legitimate debate or that it required affirmation by Korzybski. And yes, of course knowledge-- which means "information possessed by a consciousness" -- requires consciousness; that, too, doesn't seem open to debate. I question your statement about Fido, however; whether it's true or false, how do you know it?

Barbara

May I suggest a modification: you say knowledge = "information possessed by a consciousness". I propose: knowledge = "empirically corroberated information possessed by a consciousness" which is sometimes rendered as "justified true belief".

I don't consider religious beliefs which are information possessed by a consciousness and totally contrary to fact as knowledge. It is more like wishful thinking in best case and outright insanity and delusion in the worst case. I do not consider that knowledge.

Humans spend a lot of time "living in their heads" and much of what occupies the area behind their eyes and above their chin is balderdash and nonsense. Not that I have any strong objection to the mild but pleasant fantasy taken on for amusement, mind you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there's a difference between what goes on in our brains and what goes on in the external world. I didn't think that was open to legitimate debate or that it required affirmation by Korzybski. And yes, of course knowledge-- which means "information possessed by a consciousness" -- requires consciousness; that, too, doesn't seem open to debate. I question your statement about Fido, however; whether it's true or false, how do you know it?

Barbara

Hmm... who decides what's open for debate? :) As for Fido, he knows something about 'bones' but how can he know that he knows? To know that we know we have to compare our knowledge (experience) with that of others. It is by doing this that we discover that our knowledge is not complete and others may have learned more or different things and of course this is all done through sophisticated symbolism, which animals don't have either. So, to know requires consciousness, to know that you know requires consciousness of consciousness or perhaps knowledge of consciousness, is what I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I suggest a modification: you say knowledge = "information possessed by a consciousness". I propose: knowledge = "empirically corroborated information possessed by a consciousness" which is sometimes rendered as "justified true belief".

Ba'al's modification is a more precise statement of the condition of knowledge about anything that is judged to exist separate to our consciousness of it. We can have mathematical knowledge without empirical corroboration. Although there is a type of corroboration involved in mathematics, it is not empirical. It is corroboration with a reality created in the imagination that is formed from very specific principles. I would suggest that metaphysics is ideally a combination of both types of thinking, and both types of corroboration, if it is to be about anything real.

Paul

Edited by Paul Mawdsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be some explanation of why the two levels of abstraction are remote, though. Physicists will want to say, I think, that first-person psy. terms don't enter into physical descriptions at any level of abstraction. I have in mind a way to answer that challenge.

Well, the rather physical and physiological description in terms of neurons, synapses etc. is in fact also a level of abstraction, but a low level compared to that of the psychological level. By going to higher levels of abstraction you ignore the physical interactions of individual atoms and electrons and consider aggregates of such interactions and aggregates of aggregates etc. To use the computer metaphor: you no longer consider voltages and gates, but first aggregates like bytes and memory, then an abstract description of the changes in those bytes in terms of machine language instructions (mov, clr, jmp), higher language instructions, subroutines, procedures etc. and finally the terms of the user interface (making pictures on a screen or playing chess etc.). Each level of abstraction can be seen as built on a lower level. So roughy you have the lowest level, the physical level (atoms, electrons, forces etc.), the chemical level (molecules), the biological level (from aggregates of organic molecules to the behavior of living entities), the psychological level (the intentional stance found in humans). Of course this is only a rough classification, there are overlapping areas like physical chemistry, molecular biology and psychofysiology.

The next, and burning question is what is different about certain physical/neurological processes such that they are what conscious processes are?

It is a form of information processing, but we still have to learn a lot about the details. There is the relatively simple form that we find for example in insects, which have rather rigid (even if very clever) programs, and the most complex form is the human brain, with its faculty of considering its own processes, making models of the world that can be extrapolated in the brain, so that we can reason and make predictions, in which the emergence of language probably plays an important role. Now I think it will take decades before we reach some good understanding of the process, as it is extremely complex, so be patient...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be some explanation of why the two levels of abstraction are remote, though. Physicists will want to say, I think, that first-person psy. terms don't enter into physical descriptions at any level of abstraction. I have in mind a way to answer that challenge.

Well, the rather physical and physiological description in terms of neurons, synapses etc. is in fact also a level of abstraction, but a low level compared to that of the psychological level. By going to higher levels of abstraction you ignore the physical interactions of individual atoms and electrons and consider aggregates of such interactions and aggregates of aggregates etc. To use the computer metaphor: you no longer consider voltages and gates, but first aggregates like bytes and memory, then an abstract description of the changes in those bytes in terms of machine language instructions (mov, clr, jmp), higher language instructions, subroutines, procedures etc. and finally the terms of the user interface (making pictures on a screen or playing chess etc.). Each level of abstraction can be seen as built on a lower level. So roughy you have the lowest level, the physical level (atoms, electrons, forces etc.), the chemical level (molecules), the biological level (from aggregates of organic molecules to the behavior of living entities), the psychological level (the intentional stance found in humans). Of course this is only a rough classification, there are overlapping areas like physical chemistry, molecular biology and psychofysiology.

The next, and burning question is what is different about certain physical/neurological processes such that they are what conscious processes are?

It is a form of information processing, but we still have to learn a lot about the details. There is the relatively simple form that we find for example in insects, which have rather rigid (even if very clever) programs, and the most complex form is the human brain, with its faculty of considering its own processes, making models of the world that can be extrapolated in the brain, so that we can reason and make predictions, in which the emergence of language probably plays an important role. Now I think it will take decades before we reach some good understanding of the process, as it is extremely complex, so be patient...

Yes, no disagreement, but I meant specifically that the physicists aren't going to support psychological language, etc.

Then, as to the second part, I certainly will not be patient! But that's my problem.

What I meant is in what terms that describe neurophysiological processes, such as transduction, projection, adaptation, etc., are we going to be able to find the unique new way matter can be gotten to behave, which is, at least dualistically, consciousness.

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there's a difference between what goes on in our brains and what goes on in the external world. I didn't think that was open to legitimate debate or that it required affirmation by Korzybski. And yes, of course knowledge-- which means "information possessed by a consciousness" -- requires consciousness; that, too, doesn't seem open to debate. I question your statement about Fido, however; whether it's true or false, how do you know it?

Barbara

May I suggest a modification: you say knowledge = "information possessed by a consciousness". I propose: knowledge = "empirically corroberated information possessed by a consciousness" which is sometimes rendered as "justified true belief".

I don't consider religious beliefs which are information possessed by a consciousness and totally contrary to fact as knowledge. It is more like wishful thinking in best case and outright insanity and delusion in the worst case. I do not consider that knowledge.

Humans spend a lot of time "living in their heads" and much of what occupies the area behind their eyes and above their chin is balderdash and nonsense. Not that I have any strong objection to the mild but pleasant fantasy taken on for amusement, mind you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't think your distinction holds up, Baal. Her information is empirical, or derived therefrom.

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I posted this morning without reading all this. Now I'm catching up I find myself thinking, "What a waste of energy, time and intelligence." But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not so deluded to think my opinion carries much weight here but here's a couple of thoughts:

2. Michael is not a dummy. Ellen, you are wrong about Michael for the same reason you were wrong about what I was saying previously. There is more than one epistemic method at work here. You seem to be blind to Michael's, just like you seemed to blind to what I was trying to communicate. Michael is not a dummy and I was not being accusatory. It was an epistemic approach that goes from experience, to intuitive model building, to expressing it for the purpose of reality testing. It is not being dumb. It is a means to increasing knowledge through creative model building and error elimination. It is not the academic method of studying the wisdom of those who shaped a given field, and grounding it in one's personal rational framework. However, it is the essence of the creative method that generates such models as those that become wisdom and is studied academically.

I am not saying that Michael or I are the bearers of great wisdom everyone should study. I am just saying we operate by the same epistemic method that generates new, often strange and even naive, ways of looking at things. A lot of wrong starts are required before you get it right. It is reinventing the wheel for the sake of learning how to invent wheels.

Kuhn talks about revolutionary science being when anomalous results build up and new ways of integrating the evidence are generated that create perspectives that step outside of existing paradigms. This requires a different empistemic method than the standard academic method of learning the wisdom of those who know better. It is a method that asks: how can we create something that fits the existing and new anomalous facts? Michael and I seem to be very skewed toward this creative, think outside of the box approach. It is fundamentally resistant to learning the received wisdom in conventional academic fashion. Look throughout history, many who were radicals in science had some difficulty with authority, the establishment and the existing paradigm as taught. Problems with authority, the establishment, and existing paradigms, that's me.

2. I don't think Ellen is trying to run me or GS off this forum. This doesn't fit my sense of her character any more than "dummy" fits my sense of Michael's character. I wouldn't be surprised if Ellen thinks we are misspending what intelligence we have. And there is no doubt that she finds us frustrating to try to understand. But this speaks to me of her attempts to understand, not of her attempts to run us out.

Ellen is one of the reasons I first came to OL. She was a sign this was a good place. I am attracted to her writing partly because it is not like mine. She is very well read, very structured, and presents a very strong account that reflects extensions of existing paradigms.

On the other hand I have also picked up sparks here and there of where she can step outside of existing paradigms and think on the edge of visualization. Here is a post Ellen made over 2 years ago that has stuck in my mind as being an anomaly in her online character ever since: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...post&p=4356

While I enjoy reading Ellen's posts in general, its this side that I find most interesting. It's a step out on the wild side, outside of the regular structured thinking and existing paradigms, that sparks my interest most. It seems to be this side that occasionally gets what I am talking about in my "jargon."

I pay attention to characters. It's like reading a novel. I take the information at hand and try to piece together a picture of who people are. This becomes part of my judgement when I assess what someone is talking about. It becomes part of my understanding of their context. Ellen is no bully. Nor is Michael a dummy. You both just need new lenses.

Paul

PS-- Ellen, I notice when you express your visual images in words, you use a lot more words than otherwise. So do I.

Edited by Paul Mawdsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] Michael is not a dummy. [....] Michael is not a dummy[...]. [...] any more than "dummy" fits my sense of Michael's character. [....] Nor is Michael a dummy.

Paul,

THIS is what I wrote:

[bold emphasis added]

You are a dummy in certain issues when you post. Not because you're uninformed on those issues. Being uninformed is fine. Everyone is uninformed before they become informed. You're a dummy because you pontificate despite being uninformed.

THIS is what I was responding to in using the wording I used:

[emphasis added]

[Michael was addressing William Scherk.]

1. The very first thing I want to mention is a nasty little meme that is being implanted and I want to tear it out by the root. That is that I am a dummy in certain issues when I post. If you reread your own post, this is taken as a given, almost in a patronizing manner.

Michael is a dummy, period, is not what I said, though it's the statement you address, as if it were what I'd said. Your response not only alters the meaning but fails to discuss the characteristic of Michael's ways of posting which I was talking about.

I continued:

You [MSK] keep saying that "the reality is that [you] enter discussions often to learn," but your behavior when you enter the discussions does not exhibit that reality, if it is the reality. Instead it exhibits a kind of dare to anyone to tell you you're wrong, and then a defensiveness if you are told you're wrong. Plus a lack of indication that you're paying attention to the responses from people who do know the subject.

The advice you're being given to slow down, take time to frame your response, think about what you're answering, is good advice. You wouldn't be seen as a dummy on the sorts of issues in question if you'd follow that advice.

Michael talked quite a bit in his posts yesterday about a particular thread which is an especially good example of his penchant for not slowing down and taking some time to think, not "listening to" the responses.

Here is a link to that thread, "Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle."

The thread is 225 posts long. If you were to read through it, you might get a sense of why attempting to have a discussion with Michael on certain topics (not on all) becomes enormously frustrating, even infuriating. A number of people who once posted on this list no longer post here precisely because of the experience of trying to have something like a reasonable conversation with Michael on such threads.

THAT is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's a recurring problem. It's a problem which has gotten me to the place of wanting to throw in the towel about posting here. The issue is not that of Michael's -- or your or anyone else's -- wanting to explore ideas. The notion that the issue is wanting to keep people from exploring ideas is a red-herring.

Ellen

PS: A little query, btw: Suppose that, instead of picking up on Michael's own use of "dummy" in his reply to WSS, I'd substituted the word "boneheaded." Would that have been ok? (The question is to indicate that particular words prick particular people whereas other comparable words wouldn't. Michael uses the description "boneheaded" liberally. To me "boneheaded" sounds more unflattering than "dummy.")

___

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. I don't think Ellen is trying to run me or GS off this forum. This doesn't fit my sense of her character [...].

I'm not trying to run either of you off the forum. The idea that I might be trying to is absurd. I'm glad you didn't "bite" at that one. It's another example of a type of thing Michael throws into the mix. Once something like that is thrown in, it has to be answered. I doubt that he'd have made the statement if he'd stopped to think about it. (Or at least I hope that he'd have known better if he'd stopped to think about it.)

Regarding your appreciation of my "on the edge of visualization" thinking, I engage in a great deal of that sort of thinking. Writing about it takes time, however. Posting results in pain. When my supply of posting stamina is used up with going over and over trying to get even basic issues of terminology clear enough so that a coherent conversation can be had.....there isn't going to be stamina to spare for "wild side" posts.

A caveat to you, Paul, about Kuhn. I recommend looking into the history of debates about his thesis. It has a sound which appeals to you, but is it accurate...?

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korzybski coined the term semantic reaction. Basically it means a physiological reaction of an individual to words in connection with their meanings to that individual. So sometimes when you say something with a certain intended meaning someone else reacts to a different interpreted meaning of the same words. To avoid having negative semantic reactions one should ask "what do you mean?" if unsure about the intended meaning. :) Also it should prepare the speaker for possible mis-interpretations and so speak more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's a recurring problem. It's a problem which has gotten me to the place of wanting to throw in the towel about posting here. The issue is not that of Michael's -- or your or anyone else's -- wanting to explore ideas. The notion that the issue is wanting to keep people from exploring ideas is a red-herring.

Ellen

PS: A little query, btw: Suppose that, instead of picking up on Michael's own use of "dummy" in his reply to WSS, I'd substituted the word "boneheaded." Would that have been ok? (The question is to indicate that particular words prick particular people whereas other comparable words wouldn't. Michael uses the description "boneheaded" liberally. To me "boneheaded" sounds more unflattering than "dummy.")

Ellen,

Whoever wishes to not post here anymore, including you, is fine with me. My policy is whatever is good for the person is good for me. It is not changed by this person or that. Especially not by you.

Another policy is that neither I (nor anyone) will be bullied into mouthing any party line. If bullying people into party lines is what you call "reasonable" just because your hubby works in a particular field in a partisan manner, we have a serious obstacle. The people (the enormous quantity of one I know about) who left gave all the signs of trying to bully and ended up deciding that he (or this "number of people") wanted agreement, not discussion. He (or they) made a very good decision for his (or their) life. That was good for OL, too. I don't want bullies here. They are a distracting problem.

On a personal level, you have stated your views about me. You are on record here, and that's enough. Let's move on. There's a limit to the amount of disrespect I will tolerate to my face. This is a forum about ideas, not a forum devoted to your poor opinion of me. You have the rest of the Internet to complain to your heart's content. Do that crap elsewhere.

I mean it.

Michael

EDIT: I just remembered another couple of people who left for disagreement with me. I was thinking of the global warming issue when I said "one." Those who left later did not try to bully, but they did show signs of wishing to be in an environment of agreement, not serious premise checking. I wish all of them well and I stand by my statement that what is good for them is good for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when I disagree with Michael I deal with it then and there and that's that. I don't later make negative public generalizations and complaints about him. I will rastle with him. I've somewhat imperfectly adopted this standard: If I were talking to someone face to face instead of on this Internet forum what would I say to what he might say and how would I say it? I'm going to be more conscious and diligent about adhering to this.

Michael has treated me very badly twice in the two years I've been here. I dealt with it then. I think in both cases he might have been tired and too quick on the draw. I think he's the kind of person who perpetually has too much on his plate and I thought I was a victim of reactive sloppiness, not malice.

Ellen, since Michael irks you so much, why not use the Dan Ust approach to dealing with him?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, everyone...

Just so you know:

I won't be posting here any longer.

I do have the thought of possibly setting up a small website after New Year's -- if the world and the economy and my personal health hold together enough -- where I might get into depth on the issues of most interest to me. Said small website would not be used as a place for bashing Michael.

Cheers to all,

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, everyone...

Just so you know:

I won't be posting here any longer.

I do have the thought of possibly setting up a small website after New Year's -- if the world and the economy and my personal health hold together enough -- where I might get into depth on the issues of most interest to me. Said small website would not be used as a place for bashing Michael.

Cheers to all,

Ellen

___

When you set up your blog, please let us know the URL:

Good luck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, nuts.

See what happens when we rastle with the rong retch, Brant?

Dang cliques and their bullying intimidation party-line demonizing, and their vanity and their, well, whatever. They were mucking up OL with their controlling urges to get rid of other posters. Or something.

As Michael noted, if a Stuttle departure is good for Stuttle, it is good for Michael and good for OL, and maybe good for the economy too. She was a fine and valiant discussant, as far as I could tell, but then I guess I am in her clique. Too bad she gave Michael so much 'crap,' and he had to gently tell her that she had gone too far this time. Mistakes were made.

Those of you who feel some chagrin at her departure, or feel a chill in the air, it's the best of all possible outcomes, right?

I can almost feel the emails humming.

Actually, I think I might also take a break from posting at OL and think about whether the chill I feel is due to the weather up here near Fort MacMurray, or to the breeze from the humming emails. Or whatever. Since it doesnt' matter to Michael Stuart Kelly much one way or the other. Or so it seems.

See you all around. Don't poke the bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now