Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 141 of 141

Thread: What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

  1. #121
    MegaDoodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    101
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When are you guys going to get to the final act already?

  2. #122
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,076
    Mentioned
    281 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default on and on and on

    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

  3. #123
    Not Sh!t coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,634
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu, if it were that simple, the nature of scientific research would be different. Read your Kant and your Goethe and your Schelling. It's not even possible to blindly agree with all the Romantics on their theories, but you can't argue about these kinds of matters without knowing the first thing about phenomenology even if it's not fashionable and people prefer Cartesian dualism and paranoia.

  4. #124
    Ho Ho Ho! Santa Claus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does a dog bark because it is happy, or because you think it is happy? That is the real distinction. If you show it a biscuit, it wags its tail and salivates. But to a chimpanzee, what use is the biscuit? For a human...you reinforce behavior you see as positive and give others your own opinions. So how can you say anyone truly has their own sense of Self? See what I mean? Exactly my point!

  5. #125

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santa Claus View Post
    Does a dog bark because it is happy, or because you think it is happy? That is the real distinction. If you show it a biscuit, it wags its tail and salivates.
    This is a kind of a joke post, but the point is that the question is seeking either a biological explanation, or a psychological explanation.

    We can fairly easily answer why a dog salivates in a biological way. But if we want to know why a dog is "happy" or why a dog salivates in a psychological way... then it needs the psychological theory of dogs (if it even has one...). I'm sure most dog-lovers would disagree, but I'm sure no one would come up with one because dogs don't likely have psychology, at least on the level of our own.

    It's the same with humans. How do we know that one is "happy", or whether he's just putting on an external mask, but he really is unhappy on the inside? We may be able to associate a dog wagging its tail as an external behavioral marker for "happiness", and that may work because dogs are simpler, but it's not so for humans. We may associate smiling as "happiness", but he may simply be forcing a smile and is really a depressed person.

    Why can we easily answer why someone would salivate in a biological way, but we can't even answer whether someone is happy or not?

    The answer is that we already have a biological theory of why someone would salivate, while we have no psychological theory of why someone would be happy, or even know what happiness is. So somebody needs to come up with a theory explaining what happiness is. And if you don't think that's possible, then the reason why people salivate were quite mysterious before there were theories about it.
    Last edited by Singu; 09-15-2019 at 12:06 AM.

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Santa Claus


    First few hits on google for the very simple keywords "detect happiness". Suppose some version can work for dogs too.


    Real-Time EEG-Based Happiness Detection System https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759272/

    Detecting Happiness Using Hyperspectral Imaging Technology https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2019/1965789/

  7. #127
    Not Sh!t coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,634
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you have to tell yourself you're not real to make life bearable, something is severely wrong with you.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    @Santa Claus

    First few hits on google for the very simple keywords "detect happiness". Suppose some version can work for dogs too.

    Real-Time EEG-Based Happiness Detection System https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759272/

    Detecting Happiness Using Hyperspectral Imaging Technology https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2019/1965789/
    Well this is problematic, because it's just an observational association of "happiness" and "something happening in the brain". But there's no explanation whatsoever of why would someone be happy, or even an explanation of what happiness even is.

    This is just an example of the constant downplaying of the role of explanations, where everything is just turned into correlational statistics, but ignoring causal explanations.

    We don't know what happiness fundamentally is... because there's no theory of what happiness fundamentally is. And no amount of "brain scanning" can come up with that. Somebody has to come up with a theory that can explain what happiness is.

  9. #129
    aka Feathers, Penny Dreadful Baboooshka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind your tonsils
    TIM
    Strigoi
    Posts
    849
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well this is problematic, because it's just an observational association of "happiness" and "something happening in the brain". But there's no explanation whatsoever of why would someone be happy, or even an explanation of what happiness even is.

    This is just an example of the constant downplaying of the role of explanations, where everything is just turned into correlational statistics, but ignoring causal explanations.

    We don't know what happiness fundamentally is... because there's no theory of what happiness fundamentally is. And no amount of "brain scanning" can come up with that. Somebody has to come up with a theory that can explain what happiness is.
    I feel inspired enough to pull a theory of happiness out of my butthole right now.
    IEI 4w3 so/sx



  10. #130
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,966
    Mentioned
    240 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu

    The kinds of questions you raise re. happiness fall more in the realm of philosophy than psychology, and of course theories have been put forward. Actually, I think all in all, you'd probably be happier venturing more into philosophy in general as that seems to be your mindbent anyway.

    In case this intrigues you, a start with some readings on happiness:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/
    https://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/activitie...oven_paper.pdf
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2001390...o_tab_contents

    In general, I think you're trying to redirect a train when you'd be better off just boarding one on the tracks you want to follow anyway. You're right, socionics doesn't have answers or explanations for your questions, neither does psychology, so try philosophy. . . or better yet, come up with your own theories.

  11. #131

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baboooshka View Post
    I feel inspired enough to pull a theory of happiness out of my butthole right now.
    Well you probably should. People are so afraid of coming up with theories... because "theories" have become a dirty word, especially in countries like the United States (interestingly, "theories" aren't considered to be such dirty words in some other countries). "That's just a theory" "It's all just speculation" have become something of an insult, when that's actually the entire point of science. You even see that in Socionics, because Socionics is just mimicking the popular culture.

    But the entire point is that you come up with a theory, you test it and see if it's wrong or not. But of course people don't really want to be wrong. So they look for certainty, like "BUT I HAVE PROOF!!" "THIS IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!! THIS PROVES IT CORRECT!!!".

    But there's no such thing as certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    @Singu

    The kinds of questions you raise re. happiness fall more in the realm of philosophy than psychology, and of course theories have been put forward. Actually, I think all in all, you'd probably be happier venturing more into philosophy in general as that seems to be your mindbent anyway.

    In case this intrigues you, a start with some readings on happiness:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/
    https://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/activitie...oven_paper.pdf
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2001390...o_tab_contents

    In general, I think you're trying to redirect a train when you'd be better off just boarding one on the tracks you want to follow anyway. You're right, socionics doesn't have answers or explanations for your questions, neither does psychology, so try philosophy. . . or better yet, come up with your own theories.
    It's not philosophy, because "happiness" after all is a physical process that can be explained as having causal power in a physical way. Consciousness and happiness are fundamentally nothing but neurons in the brain behaving in a certain way, which does seem like magic and mind-blowing to us now. But maybe in the future, once we do figure out how it's done... then it would be common knowledge, and maybe we'd be creating consciousness like it's nothing... and that is strange.

    The problem of "AI" is nothing new, back in as early as 1950, Alan Turing, the father of modern computers, envisioned that in the future we'd have programmable AIs with consciousness and thoughts and emotions that is indistinguishable from humans (which is why he came up with the (in)famous "Turing test").

    Or even earlier in 1837, Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace, created the blueprint for "Analytical Engine", which is basically a fully programmable computer that is capable of doing any kind of computations that the modern computers can do. This was never actually built at the time due to the lack of their management skills, but it was rebuilt 200 years later, and it works. They too, envisioned that the Analytical Engine would eventually be capable of playing chess, do algebra, converse, etc, - it was all just a matter of knowing how to program it.

    I mean of course, how to think about science or how science ought to be done is philosophy, and that is just as important as science itself. It does seem like we'd need change in philosophy to answer questions like "What is happiness? What is consciousness?" etc.

    But you probably don't like this idea because you're religious... and I'm not religious.

  12. #132
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,966
    Mentioned
    240 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If a cat likes to sharpen its claws on paper, do you give it a book to read on other uses for paper? Kinda dumb, and so am I. Because that's exactly what I did. Cats and Mad Hatters do not read books. Over and out.

  13. #133
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ha-penis

  14. #134

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    If a cat likes to sharpen its claws on paper, do you give it a book to read on other uses for paper? Kinda dumb, and so am I. Because that's exactly what I did. Cats and Mad Hatters do not read books. Over and out.
    Uh huh... so you accuse me of not reading what you provided, and yet you didn't read what I said.

    It's because what I clearly said is that what emotions or happiness are, are not a matter of philosophy.

    If I say that they are a matter of philosophy, then I'd have to evoke the supernatural and say that they can't be physically explained. And I clearly detailed the reasons why emotions and consciousness can be physically explained, which you didn't bother to read.

    But it's fine, you're just trying to defend Socionics. LOL. And I've already detailed why Socionics can't possibly be defended, if you're a rational person. At best it's a classification system, and I think that has to be admitted instead of saying "Well it's not supposed to be science... it's not supposed to be philosophy... it's not supposed to be...". Well I'll tell you what it's "supposed to be". It's a fucking classification system. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it's clearly limited in what it can do and can't do. It can't predict relationships, it can't explain any human thoughts and behaviors.

    If you want to take it further, then you're going to have to come up with explanations for it. Saying "It's not supposed to have explanations..." don't help anything.
    Last edited by Singu; 09-16-2019 at 03:52 PM.

  15. #135

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baboooshka View Post
    I feel inspired enough to pull a theory of happiness out of my butthole right now.
    right, lol. That's about the best summary of the nonsense that's been going on here.

    As for the claim on psychology not ever figuring anything about happiness, that's plain bullshit, a 5-min google will disprove it, as there's loads of theories on happiness, if anyone here is interested in psychology further.

  16. #136

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    right, lol. That's about the best summary of the nonsense that's been going on here.
    Ironically, that's been my old criticism of Socionics. Which was based on the Logical Positivist (which is now wrong and defunct) view of science:

    Quote Originally Posted by Logical Positivism
    ... this would-be theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

    This is a very good description of the (correct) "scientific method":

    Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience – fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation.

    Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy).

    When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory, a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

    How do you think we come up with "explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis"? That's right... "out of your butthole". Baboooshka is making the same old Logical Positivist mistake that scientific theories and hypotheses must be something that is "verified". Nothing is ever actually verified.

    It is:

    1. Explanatory
    2. Reproducible
    3. Survives experimental testing

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    As for the claim on psychology not ever figuring anything about happiness, that's plain bullshit, a 5-min google will disprove it, as there's loads of theories on happiness, if anyone here is interested in psychology further.
    You can't come up with anything other than correlation between "something happening in the brain" and "happiness". And we don't even know what happiness fundamentally is.

  17. #137

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay Singu I broke down for a sec here and clicked the "View post" thingy. After your previous awesome snippet, the one that someone else quoted in, I just got to feel I gotta speak for a sec. My rhetorical question. Why is experimental testing even necessary if nothing can ever be verified

    So this is the kind of nonsense that's just a bit too extreme lol

    I personally see it as, we won't reach perfect Absolute Truth, we can only try getting closer, but it isn't true nothing can ever be verified.


    I promise I will not click "View post" again to get your posts to show.

    (not)

  18. #138

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,476
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Okay Singu I broke down for a sec here and clicked the "View post" thingy. After your previous awesome snippet, the one that someone else quoted in, I just got to feel I gotta speak for a sec. My rhetorical question. Why is experimental testing even necessary if nothing can ever be verified
    The purpose of an experimental testing is that it will be one of the most devastating criticisms to a theory (and may completely refute it), but it will not prove or verify anything.

    As Logical Positivists would say, any statement that is not verifiable by either observation or logical proof is meaningless. This seems like a sensible proposition. Except that it's not. The very statement "statement that is not verifiable by observation or logical proof..." is itself not verifiable by observation or logical proofs! So the very whole thing becomes self-refuting and explodes itself. It actually took a while for very intelligent people to realize this very simple fact (and even refuse to admit it). And so now Logical Positivism or verificationism has fallen out of favor. Now we prefer falsificationism. We don't want "positive" proofs, we want "negative" refutations. There's nothing that says something is True and Verified once and for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    So this is the kind of nonsense that's just a bit too extreme lol

    I personally see it as, we won't reach perfect Absolute Truth, we can only try getting closer, but it isn't true nothing can ever be verified.
    If we need to verify every statements and hypotheses and theories, then we can never put forth any theories for an experimental testing in the first place. That, is more "extreme" more than anything. We need time and patience for hypotheses and theories to grow so that they can become something that is testable.

    --

    Another purpose of an experimental testing is that it will be to choose between two or more competing theories that is explaining the same phenomena. If there's only one theory, then even if it "fails", then we have nowhere else to look for, anyway. We also don't even know what it is that failed, without having an alternative theory that can explain what exactly it is that failed.

    An example is that Newtonian physics was the dominant theory of physics at the time. There were no credible alternatives.

    The problem with Newton's theory was that there was a small deviation in the observation of Mercury. Every year, it was about one ten-thousandth of a degree away from where Newton’s theory said it should be.

    So Newton's calculation was off by about 0.000001%. Of course, this could be dismissed as something that is a negligible margin of error. Or we could even blame the instrument of the measurement for making the wrong measurement, or the experiment itself. We still don't know which is false: the theory, or the instrument.

    Or we could look for the cause for the deviation, which Einstein did. He came up with a completely new kind of explanation which completely refuted Newton's explanation. He said that there was no such thing as a "force" of gravity that magically pulled objects together, but rather it was "pushed down" by the curvature of space caused by massive objects.

    I mean this is funny, since Newton's theory works so well for everything else. So how would Einstein even know, coming up with his theories right "out of his ass" (thought experiments and calculations), that Newton's theory is wrong?

    So people took notice of Einstein's new theory, and eventually his superfan Arthur Eddington devised an experiment which will ultimately prove Newton's theory false and prefer Einstein's theory. In the famous 1919 solar eclipse experiment, Einstein's theory said that light would be deflected slightly due to the curvature of space bending even light. Newton's theory mentions no such bending of light. So Einstein's theory predicted that we would observe light in a slightly different position than the Newton's theory would predict. And which it did appear in a slightly different position.

    The fact is that Einstein's theory explained more, and then some, than the Newton's theory. It explained things that Newton's theory couldn't explain. Without Einstein's theory, this deviation would only be an unexplained mystery or a marginally small error to be ignored. But only a new alternative theory or an explanation could find the cause for such an error, not an experiment.

    Of course, there's nothing that says Einstein's theory is true once and for all. There could be a new theory that would ultimately prove Einstein's theory wrong. Even Quantum physics is in direct contradiction with the Einsteinian physics.

  19. #139

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    804
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And nobody knows WHY massive objects bend space-time, only that they do.

    That's the hilarious part.

    Get singu on the problem, he is obsessed with explanations.

    LOL, just monkeys with super tech thinking we've figured out all there is to know.

  20. #140

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    And nobody knows WHY massive objects bend space-time, only that they do.

    That's the hilarious part.

    Get singu on the problem, he is obsessed with explanations.

    LOL, just monkeys with super tech thinking we've figured out all there is to know.
    Oh right it's the kind of "why" that depressed people obsessively ruminate about

    The same ungrounded, unfocused aimless "why why why" here (by Singu)

    Maybe there is a reason why he got stuck on it like this.

    Anyway yeah I don't want to pick on him any further. (But stays on ignore bc there was too much nastiness that I'm not interested in sry) Just kinda tried to understand what he's hung up on

  21. #141

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    804
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I applaud his search for why at the same time as I am teasing it.

    I'm also curious about whys.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •