Mode of Inference - how do you interpret raw data?

[Nexus]

Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?

[FDG]

Testicular - my head is my penis

[Nexus]

Testicular - my head is my penis

Haha that was really funny, wait.....................penis! rofl!

[strrrng]

I don't like the question.

[Nexus]

I don't like the question.

The question wasn't 'do you like the question?'

What question do you like?

[Ms. Kensington]

i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.

[Nexus]

i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.

Your entire consciousness is raw data. Statistical analysis is one method you might rely on and there are three statistical ideologies listed above from which to choose (frequentist, bayesian, and stochastic).

[strrrng]

lol

[FDG]

lol

motor synopsis?

Raw meat!

[strrrng]

motor synopsis?

Raw meat!

how could I forget?

MOTOR SPEED

[Ms. Kensington]

Your entire consciousness is raw data. Statistical analysis is one method you might rely on and there are three statistical ideologies listed above from which to choose (frequentist, bayesian, and stochastic).

but i thought the question was how other people see raw data

there was sarcasm there. i'm saying there's one reason to not like how the question is framed. Currently it doesn't allow for someone who doesn't see their conscious perception as data to answer

[Nexus]

but i thought the question was how other people see raw data

there was sarcasm there. i'm saying there's one reason to not like how the question is framed. Currently it doesn't allow for someone who doesn't see their conscious perception as data to answer

Since you are so worried about contradicting your own personal definitions allow me to suggest that you are Nomothetic. However, if you cannot recognize consciousness as raw data because it has never been so before you are Frequentist; if you think there are other reasons which might prevent you from recognizing consciousness as raw data you are Bayesian; if you prefer to check how often consciousness and raw data overlap you are Stochastic; if you think that consciousness is not raw data because it is the byproduct of processing raw data you are Ætiological; if you think that consciousness will result every time raw data is processed you are Fatalist; if you do not recognize that consciousness is raw data because you think that they are really both just illusions you are Solipsist; if you are still skeptical that conscious qualia can be truly considered as raw data you might be Pyrrhonian; if you are still not sure what to choose then choose Inconclusive.

[FDG]

How come my proposal for a disnjuct set of interpretative means has been discarded with such velocity?

[Nexus]

How come my proposal for a disnjuct set of interpretative means has been discarded with such velocity?

What is 'disnjuct'?

[FDG]

What is 'disnjuct'?

typo, i meant "disjunct"

[Nexus]

typo, i meant "disjunct"

My interpretative means came with definitions, are accredited forms of epistemological justification, and are not meant to be mutually exclusive (otherwise I would have used the single-choice method...also, if you are referring to your first post then that is not a set; it is a single option). Assuming that you have more imaginative verifiers I feel I must encourage you to begin your own thread.

[Nexus]

I would also like to thank everyone that is actually voting for doing so.

[FDG]

Btw, I choose "frequentist" and "stochastic"; I think they tend to be indissoluble given that the frequentist interpretation is the 2-d for of the stochastic interpretation.

[FDG]

huh? if you model the probability of an individual decision over time with brownian motion, you've just created a bayesian stochastic process. and frequentism is typically defined to exclude Bayesian inference. however there may be frequentist stochastics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if at t=1 I take an instantaneous picture of the probability distribution of the events that occurred in the interval between t0 and t1, repeat the process n times, then try to infer what will occur n+1 times, am I not using the two approaches togheter? Although at lim t(0)-t(1)=0, it could be said that the approach becomes purely stochastic, maybe

[Nexus]

You can be stochastic and frequentist or stochastic and bayesian, but not bayesian and frequentist. However, if you decide to select both I can interpret this as a preference for statistical methods without a rational/empirical bias.

[munenori2]

Argh

You're killing me, smalls.

Also I didn't realize it was a multi-choice poll (what category does that go under?) but I might have also picked stochastic. Honestly though I don't get this stuff at all.

[FDG]

Honestly though I don't get this stuff at all.

THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

[Nexus]

THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

Better yet let's listen to what your testicles have to say about your penis.

!

[munenori2]

THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

LOL

Where the Jewish duals at, yo?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I suppose to begin with, I have a Pyrrhonian approach. This isn't practical, however, which means I also fit into the Inconclusive category.

I think I use the Bayesian approach by giving different weightings to different things - even considerations which are seemingly complete nonsense should be considered. If there are multiple factors, I consider the impact of each factor if that factor was true. If it is non-existent ot insignificant, it can be ignored, or at least reduced to a secondary factor. This is related to the Etiological approach, I guess.

The Nomothetic approach is good for making rules of thumb and quickly making something of use - the understanding of how precisely everything works comes later. The Stochastic approach I use all the time to avoid getting killed.

[Nexus]

I suppose to begin with, I have a Pyrrhonian approach. This isn't practical, however, which means I also fit into the Inconclusive category.

I think I use the Bayesian approach by giving different weightings to different things - even considerations which are seemingly complete nonsense should be considered. If there are multiple factors, I consider the impact of each factor if that factor was true. If it is non-existent ot insignificant, it can be ignored, or at least reduced to a secondary factor. This is related to the Etiological approach, I guess.

The Nomothetic approach is good for making rules of thumb and quickly making something of use - the understanding of how precisely everything works comes later. The Stochastic approach I use all the time to avoid getting killed.

You can also use frequentist methods to weight things, but you must use empirical weightings (fanatical frequentists might be opposed to this, but since experimental conditions are never perfectly replicated anyway some guesswork is required).

[Nexus]

Common methods of justifying novel premises epistemologically tend to favor one of two ideologies:

• Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances

• Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity

These are the two ideological premises from which the six poll methods (with the exception of inconclusive) can be derived: Ætiological, Nomothetic, and Solipsist arguments can be seen primarily as assertions of determinism, whereas Bayesian, Frequentist, and Pyrrhonian frames of reference always adhere to a statistical approach. There is also another undercurrent running in this poll: Frequentist and Ætiological justifications tend to employ an exclusively empirical underpinning; Nomothetic and Bayesian inferences depend heavily on a priori convictions (solipsism is also usually defended using the a priori because a posteriori attempts at verification are not widely credited; Pyrrhonism may seem like an analytic proposition at first but it actually only indoctrinates an inductive negation of premises, including the self-negation of any premise that might eventually support a rationalist Pyrrhonian criterion, and so is actually an [anti-] empirical enterprise - I have taken great pains to clarify this in the past; you can hear my detailed arguments here). I think it would be interesting to see if statistical empirical methods are favored by sensing irrational temperaments and deterministic rational frameworks by rational intuitive types (or the opposite in a subconscious response to the limitations of the dominant form of information metabolism)...

[crazedrat]

I had to choose five of them, and I almost had to choose 6. How many did other people choose

[Nexus]

I haven't taken the poll yet. I don't really understand much of this, so I'm not sure if my answers would be accurate.


It seems the best fits are:

Pyrrhonian
It is in my nature to question. If it is worth investigating, then I might say "I don't know". If it is not worth investigating then I might say "I doubt it". I don't tend to doubt.

Nomothetic
I tend to put emphasis on expertise (sources) rather than knowledge (bases). My particular area of expertise is in diagnostics and facilitation. My immediate awareness is of my perspective and my problem (i.e. the particular kind of solution that is needed), so most of my efforts are directed at gathering relevant empirical data.

I would describe my methods of investigation as predominately "exploratory". The tendency is towards "abstraction" (translating empirical evidence into concepts) and "generalization" (arranging material so that it focuses on structures/invariances). The latter tendency is what I would refer to as a nomothetic approach.

Pyrrhonists never stop doubting; they employ a very extreme form of skepticism, so if you ever come to definite conclusions you are probably not one of them. Nomothetical ideologies are abstract taxonomies that are arranged a priori mainly for inductive use (and also deductive use, indirectly). Once you have gathered the data, do you separate the elements by what they are generally expected to do independently or do you combine some of them under the conditions in question to see if you can get a holistic, synergistic manifestation? I agree that for determinism, nomothetic approaches tend to favor generalization and abstraction. If this description elucidates your position then feel free to vote (Thanks in advance for your contribution!).

[implied]

i'm pretty sure i'm a pyrrhonist but i'm not certain.

[Nexus]

i'm pretty sure i'm a pyrrhonist but i'm not certain.

lol

[Mr Saturn]

Solipsist, until I discover more.

It gives me complete power over everything in my life.

[Nexus]

Solipsist, until I discover more.

It gives me complete power over everything in my life.

I tend to feel that way as well, especially when I want to clear my mind...

[Mr Saturn]

I tend to feel that way as well, especially when I want to clear my mind...

Yeah, exactly.

I find at the cost of egoism you gain so much.

[Nexus]

Yeah, exactly.

I find at the cost of egoism you gain so much.

I concur...why would anyone deny that they are responsible for their own concept of reality?

[Mr Saturn]

I concur...why would anyone deny that they are responsible for their own concept of reality?

Bingo.

However it contradicts one of my cinema philosophy I am working on - that films themselves are a thinking mind.

[Nexus]

A definite conclusion seems inevitable.

The question I had largely revolved around the concept of "doubt". Ask me what I feel at any given moment and I inevitably express uncertainty regarding sensory experiences. If by "doubt" you mean feelings of uncertainty, then it is a good fit with regards to what is apparent to my senses (i.e. "reality"). But for me, the concept of "doubt" carries connotations of distrust. And trust is simply not relevant in my world.

I think holistic and synergistic. The analysis is generally in terms of flow and flow equilibrium. What I am immediately aware of are fluctuations in the flow. These fluctuations are the primary data. And the objective is to minimize them.

Well if you are certain that you have feelings of uncertainty (or distrust), then you are definitely not Pyrrhonist. Pyrrhonists are never certain of things like that. Because you are referring to discrepancies that are abstract and passively determined, your second statement seems like it would depend mostly on Nomothetic arguments.

[Nexus]

From "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" by Sextus Empiricus, translated by R.G. Bury:

The Skeptic Way is a disposition to oppose phenomena [things perceived] and noumena [things reasoned or assumed] to one other in any way whatever, with the result that owing to the equipollence [balancing of arguments] among the things and statements thus opposed, we are brought first to epoche [suspension of judgment] and then to ataraxia [freedom from worry] - Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1:9, translated by Mates 1996

[Nexus]

OK. But what's the relevance?

I don't see this as requiring that I not have certain feelings about my feelings to qualify.

In the translations below, the items in bold highlight differences in interpretation. I would respond differently to each. In the first I would say it fits well. In the second I would say it fits given that I would treat both as equally irrelevant. So it still comes down to what you or your source mean.


Anyhow, after going through several books and sitting down with a dictionary I started an outline. Please keep in mind that I am not a philosopher. But I did find it an interesting exercise.

*Perception is to potentiality as actuality is to certainty.
*I am focused on potentiality. If there is no reason to assume it should not be true, then I have no problems assuming it is.
*If it cannot be observed directly in such a way as to preclude alternative interpretations, then I tend to be skeptical (skeptikos: inquiring, reflective)
*I live in a phenomenological world. It is not subject to interpretation.





1:4 (Bury Translation)


1:4 (Patrick Translation)

As you said you are not a philosopher, but if you are going to be a skeptic I suggest that you not rely on dictionary definitions (I would be skeptical of them). According to the tenet of Equipollence, the notion that you are not certain that you are uncertain should be given equal weight to the notion that you are certain that you are uncertain.

[Nexus]

I have no desire to be anything, skeptic or otherwise. I specified the conditions under which I am likely to express skepticism.

Words are symbols. They have no inherent meaning. The dictionary was just a sampling of common usage among philosophers. It was a tool to facilitate communication, nothing else. I can't even begin to imagine how skepticism is even remotely relevant.

By focusing on Aristotle's "potentiality" rather than my "uncertainty" I had hoped to clarify my meaning and thus circumvent this nonsense:



Sextus at least grants me my feelings. Someone asks how I feel. I express feeling uncertain. The question of whether or not I actually feel uncertain is irrelevant.

But this is your poll. You can define your terms anyway you want. If "Pyrrhonian" requires that I question my feelings, then I am obviously not what you would call a "Pyrrhonian".

What could I even hope to gain from this line of inquiry? The result would be feelings about my feelings, which would be subject to questioning. The result would be feelings about my feelings about my feelings, which would be subject to questioning. And so on.

Ruling out "Pyrrhonian" leaves me with no viable alternative, since the "nomothetic" relies almost exclusively on speculation regarding subconscious processes.


Back to this:


With regards to "phenomena" (things perceived), if it cannot be observed directly in such a way as to preclude alternative interpretations, then I tend to investigate. If it is not worth investigating, then I tend to doubt.

With regards to "noumena" (things assumed), if there is no reason to assume it should not be true then I assume it is.

Whether or not this satisfies the means ("equipollence") or the ends ("epoche" and "ataraxia"), I don’t know. It's your poll. Your criteria are what matters. My issue revolved largely around "doubt", which I would not consider a legitimate form of skepticism since it makes no effort to resolve the questions it presents.

Thank you for attempting to preserve the legitimacy of the poll, even if you do not feel bound by its terms.