Greg Nyquist replies to Seddon

[Dragonfly]

As far as I can tell, nothing is output through the eye. It is an organ of input. We have been discussing the part, not the system. My contention is that under normal circumstances and with a healthy eye, what is input is perfectly converted data captured from reality.

If we consider the eye as a system that converts photons to nerve impulses (I suppose you'll agree with that?) then the input of the eye is formed by the photons that strike it and the output consists of the nerve impulses to the brain, in other words, the output of the eye is the input of the brain. There is nothing perfect in this conversion, apart from the fact that the photons themselves give no exact information of the object that emits them (for example the sun may appear above the horizon, while it geometrically seen it's still below the horizon, the refraction in the atmosphere distorts information that is carried by the photons). The lens in the eye is far from perfect and the conversion to nerve impulses necessarily introduces further distortions. In general we're not aware of them, but clevery designed optical illusions can bring them to light, for example when we see a circling green spot which doesn't exist in reality, or a picture in bright colors while we are looking at a black-and-white picture, to name a few striking illusions. These errors are the result of adaptation by the photoreceptors to the incoming light, which in general is a useful feature, but which in certain circumstances lead to erroneous information. This is just one typical example of a compromise between conflicting requirements.

We build through abstraction, not through sensory evidence alone. What we abstract is sensory evidence. If that evidence is corrupted, the abstraction loses validity. And here we seem to have different focuses on defining context. I put a great deal of importance on determining the essential nature of a sense organ according to its operation under normal circumstances and in good health. I do not consider the fact that it can become ill and so forth as a part of its essential operation when healthy.

Illness is just a situation where the deviatons become so severe that they form a handicap, but it is an illusion to think that the processing is error free in a healthy organ.

The argument, after cutting off the rhetoric, seems to be that because an eye can become ill (and the other conditions I mentioned several times) and not perform correctly, it might not perform correctly when healthy. In other words, because there are some situations where it will not perform correctly, there are no situations where it will perform correctly.

No, the argument is not that because an eye can become ill it doesn't perform without errors when healthy, illness is merely a situation that can aggravate the errors.

There is an innate defect or margin of error built in to its operation so that it never attains absolutely correct performance.

That is correct.

A man-made system like a car has many variables that are beyond human control.

What about a system that is the result of evolution? Do you think that evolution, in contrast to humans, can control all the variables? That is why I asked about God (and not Daniel; it seems you no longer can distinguish between us...), while I sense some idea of omnipotence in your argument: if it is a living thing it must be perfect - which sounds like a religious but not a scientific argument - but if it is man-made it's fallible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(and not Daniel; it seems you no longer can distinguish between us...)

Dragonfly,

I do admit it gets tough at times...

You guys don't help either.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael:

>Actually, I believe many of our premises are identical—we just use different words for them.

This is what I have said all along. We seem to be in agreement on the facts. The potential problem is that because your usage bristles with ad hoc qualifications, and even oxymoronic, it is potentially highly misleading. Especially if you are about to use it as the basis of a longer chain of reasoning, where all these qualifications and contradictions might slip down the back of the couch.

Here's the issue: What you mean by "100% infallible..in certain circumstances" is the same as what everyone else usually means by "fallible".

So why not just tell it like it is?

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks all, for introducing cars to this thead. Now, all together: More Cars!

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Michael:

>Actually, I believe many of our premises are identical—we just use different words for them.

This is what I have said all along. We seem to be in agreement on the facts.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the issue: What you mean by "100% infallible..in certain circumstances" is the same as what everyone else usually means by "fallible".

Daniel,

Only if you are hell-bent on misunderstanding on purpose. There are lots of "everyones" who know precisely what I mean.

I have even a better suggestion. Why don't we try to find some common terminology so we can get on to Nyquist's thesis about how Rand got it all wrong and is a dangerous influence on humanity?

I have no special love for Objectivist jargon (as I do have for the concepts). Are you so committed to semantics that you will ignore all of the "everyones" who know what I mean and insist only on your own terminology?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The lens in the eye is far from perfect and the conversion to nerve impulses necessarily introduces further distortions. In general we're not aware of them, but clevery designed optical illusions can bring them to light, for example when we see a circling green spot which doesn't exist in reality, or a picture in bright colors while we are looking at a black-and-white picture, to name a few striking illusions.

Does this stem from the incorrect transformation of fact into a non-representative nerve impulse, or does it have something more to do with how the actual impulses are interpreted in the brain?

These errors are the result of adaptation by the photoreceptors to the incoming light, which in general is a useful feature, but which in certain circumstances lead to erroneous information. This is just one typical example of a compromise between conflicting requirements.

I am not convinced that this is an example and that we are on the same page in our meanings. Are you really saying that the integrated mental unit is the correct view of reality and the nerve impulse feeding it is in error?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Does this stem from the incorrect transformation of fact into a non-representative nerve impulse, or does it have something more to do with how the actual impulses are interpreted in the brain?

This is the result of the adaptation by the photoreceptors, so it is in fact a non-representative nerve impulse.

I am not convinced that this is an example and that we are on the same page in our meanings. Are you really saying that the integrated mental unit is the correct view of reality and the nerve impulse feeding it is in error?

If the impulse feeding it is in error, the integrated mental unit can't have a correct view of reality: we "see" something that doesn't exist in reality (green dot, colored picture).

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael:

>I have even a better suggestion. Why don't we try to find some common terminology so we can get on to Nyquist's thesis..

It's not me that's using oxymorons and other dubious usages to get my point across.

Thus I can't see why I'd need to have a "terminological" discussion with you. I've never asked to use any words in a special or unusual sense in this debate so far. Not once! If I need to diverge from ordinary English usage, I'll let you know.

You, on the other hand, have based the whole of your argument on an oxymoronic, self-contradictory special usage, to which you've added various ad hoc qualifications as you've gone along!

As a result, if you feel you need to produce a list of other special meanings you have for ordinary words so others can understand what you're talking about, go right ahead.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not me that's using oxymorons and other dubious usages to get my point across.

No. You merely ignore the fact that in the dictionary, words have more than one meaning and you fixate on one definition only, somehow imagining that this obliterates the other definitions.

Thus I can't see why I'd need to have a "terminological" discussion with you. I've never asked to use any words in a special or unusual sense in this debate so far. Not once! If I need to diverge from ordinary English usage, I'll let you know.

Well you have denied some very ordinary English usages according to the dictionary so far. That seems like a divergence to me.

You, on the other hand, have based the whole of your argument on an oxymoronic, self-contradictory special usage, to which you've added various ad hoc qualifications as you've gone along!

This is just plain wrong, so there is no need to refute it. My previous posts are refutation enough.

If you don't find the habit of defining your terms to be useful in a discussion, then what do you wish to achieve by a discussion? You have thrown understanding out the window.

My value is understanding.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael:

>Well you have denied some very ordinary English usages according to the dictionary so far.

Nonsense. Where???!!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Oh, please. Starting with the original 22.

You didn't say X is wrong. You merely said Y only means Z.

That means that X is wrong.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael:

>Daniel, Oh, please. Starting with the original 22.You didn't say X is wrong. You merely said Y only means Z.That means that X is wrong.

Are you going to give us all an actual verbatim example of me using a word in a way that diverges from the dictionary, or are we only going to get your vague abstract interpretations of what I said??

Edited April 30, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you going to give us all an actual verbatim example of me using a word in a way that diverges from the dictionary, or are we only going to get your vague abstract interpretations of what I said??

Daniel,

I can't do all your reading for you, but let's do one. There are others, but I am not going to waste my time doing your own work for you.

Michael, in addition to the usual oxymorons like the above (approximately perfect!) one of the problems you have is that "perfect" means something that cannot possibly be improved upon.

per·fect

–adjective

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.

6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.

7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.

8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.

9. expert; accomplished; proficient.

10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.

11. Botany.

a. having all parts or members present.

b. monoclinous.

12. Grammar.

a. noting an action or state brought to a close prior to some temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or incomplete action.

b. designating a tense or other verb formation or construction with such meaning.

13. Music.

a. applied to the consonances of unison, octave, and fifth, as distinguished from those of the third and sixth, which are called imperfect.

b. applied to the intervals, harmonic or melodic, of an octave, fifth, and fourth in their normal form, as opposed to augmented and diminished.

14. Mathematics. (of a set) equal to its set of accumulation points.

15. Obsolete. assured or certain.

–noun Grammar.

16. the perfect tense.

17. a verb form or construction in the perfect tense. Compare future perfect, pluperfect, present perfect.

–verb (used with object)

18. to bring to completion; finish.

19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.

20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve.

21. to make fully skilled.

22. Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

Your meaning does not stand for Definitions 9 and on (mostly) and (getting into the argument) there is nothing indicating the exclusion of context for the first 9 (on the contrary, right in the first, there is the phrase, "description or definition," indicating context).

Also, in my original post, I stated:

But something approximately 6 inches long can fall perfectly between 5 and 7.

I did not use the phrase "approximately perfect" as you claimed.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

I wrote:

>Michael, in addition to the usual oxymorons like the above (approximately perfect!) one of the problems you have is that "perfect" means something that cannot possibly be improved upon.

The dictionary says:

>2.excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:

Michael, as you can see, my usage doesn't diverge from the dictionary usage, or any general usage at all!

That you're claiming this somehow shows it does - when it clearly doesn't - is frankly incredible!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

(sigh)

The dictionary also says other things. You have argued as if the meaning you adopt is the only one that exists. It isn't.

Words have more than one meaning. I find it incredible you don't admit that (despite an ocassional lip service).

Anyway, I have to take a couple of days off from this subject because it is sucking up all my time (and I am behind in some other things). Also, the discussion is not really all that productive anymore like it was at the beginning. We are doing "I said, you said" and that bores me. (I don't mean that to be snarky, either. It literally bores me.)

I will be back.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael:

>The dictionary also says other things. You have argued as if the meaning you adopt is the only one that exists. It isn't.

Hang on, Mike. You were saying I was diverging from the dictionary. I've shown you're wrong. Now you're saying something else again. I'm having trouble keeping track of what my supposed error is?

Plus, let's not forget the dictionary didn't mention your meaning at all. No definition of "infallible" included anything like "can err in some circumstances."!!

It's your oxymoron, not mine.

>Anyway, I have to take a couple of days off from this subject because it is sucking up all my time (and I am behind in some other things). Also, the discussion is not really all that productive anymore like it was at the beginning. We are doing "I said, you said" and that bores me. (I don't mean that to be snarky, either. It literally bores me.)

I've been trying to get you to move on past arguments over mere words for several posts. You seemed to keep wanting to drag it back. I don't blame you for finding it boring, I completely agree.

[Martin Radwin]

What exactly does it mean to claim that induction is not valid?

Martin

A finite or limited set of instances for which a general proposition holds, does not imply the general proposition is true over the entire domain of applicable entities. Example: I show you a billion black crows. This is not sufficient to prove that all crows which, were or every will be are black. It could be I have not yet found the exceptional crow, say a crow with the gene for albinism.

So induction cannot prove the truth of a universally quantified proposition -unless- the applicable domain of the proposition happens to be finite and the inducer has exhausted this domain. For example I can prove that all the coins in my pocket are quarters by emptying my pockets and showing each and ever coin from my pockets were quarters

On the other hand induction can prove that a universally quantified proposition is false. All one needs is a single instance for which the general proposition does not hold.

One can also establish an existentially quantified proposition by producing an instance for which it holds.

Bob Kolker

I suspected that this was the intended meaning. But it seems strange to me to say that "induction is not valid" because it cannot establish the absolute truth of a proposition. That's like saying that our vision is not valid because it cannot see microscopic organisms without a microscope or distant galaxies without a telescope. Induction is an essential cognitive tool for making sense of the world. It is a primary method of reasoning used by scientists for developing new theories. It is certainly valid within its domain of applicability, even while it is not a valid means of establishing the absolute truth of propositions.

Martin