Philosophy of Science

[hatchback176]

1) Causality is never communicated or perceived. It's internally constructed as a spatial structure. thinkers implicitly know this. People weak in like Singu have to be told the same concept over and over again using the right word in the right consensus group in the right field.


Apperception --->Categories--->image Schema--->Causal Calculus--->Causal Graph--->Parietal lobe--->Introverted Logic


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transc...l_apperception (How self-images are possible)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._of_categories (What can be done with self-images)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema...nitive_science (Connection to Cognitive Science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_..._image_schemas (Types of self-images)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Causal_calculus (Very popular formulation of causal reasoning)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_graph (the basis image schema for the Causal Calculus)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory (graphs are very general)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariet...l_significance (Neurology has a notion of graphs ['spatial relationships'])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constr...d_Koeing_model ('categorical relations', there's that word category again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory (there's that word category again, graphs are very general)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socion...with_memetics) (Introverted Logic--->'categorizations', there's that word category again)


2) The reason Causality is a spatial structure is because observables, measurements, datasets, words, rules, facts, etc. require a hypothesis that relates expectations as dependencies. It doesn't matter how fluid and unscientific your field is (yes, including the social sciences) because even randomness and quantum uncertainty have structure that informs expectations at some level so thinking can still occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Pearl#Research
"His work on causality has "revolutionized the understanding of causality in statistics, psychology, medicine and the social sciences" according to the Association for Computing Machinery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#In_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Recommended books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(book)
https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/ju...9780465097609/


3) The funny thing about Singu's computer metaphor is that there is a guy who literally wrote the books "Programmer's Guide to the Mind" Volumes I and II over 22 years ago using MBTI and Neurology. You can easily relate it to Socionics with sufficient IQ (interestingly, also hypothesized to center around parietal function). So pardon me if I still don't think you're missing much from Singu.
https://web.archive.org/web/20030308...2/Book_057.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20021224....htm#Perceiver
https://web.archive.org/web/20021224...h9.htm#Objects


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuros...gration_theory

[Protozoa]

I pray for all of your heathen souls. ✟
May Allah use his infinite love to strike down all the non-believers. 👳

[Singu]

WHY IS SCIENCE ABOUT EXPLANATIONS?

It's uncontroversial now to say that science is about explanations. So why is that?

The best way to explain it (heh) would be that you can't figure out how the iPhone works, by just observing it. Sure you may be able to observe and categorize millions of similar and related apps... but that tells us absolutely nothing about how the OS works, or how the phone works. It just tells us how to categorize things.

In order to understand how the iPhone actually works, then you're going to need explanations for virtually anything (in the form of explanatory theories). It's going to need theories of physics, theories of computer science, theories of programming... in order to understand exactly how the iPhone works. And it's this understanding that will create new theories and hence new knowledge.

[ooo]

I mean, allelujah

[hatchback176]

WHY IS SCIENCE ABOUT EXPLANATIONS?

It's uncontroversial now to say that science is about explanations. So why is that?

The best way to explain it (heh) would be that you can't figure out how the iPhone works, by just observing it. Sure you may be able to observe and categorize millions of similar and related apps... but that tells us absolutely nothing about how the OS works, or how the phone works. It just tells us how to categorize things.

In order to understand how the iPhone actually works, then you're going to need explanations for virtually anything (in the form of explanatory theories). It's going to need theories of physics, theories of computer science, theories of programming... in order to understand exactly how the iPhone works. And it's this understanding that will create new theories and hence new knowledge.

Except you stupidly think categorizing doesn't include Causality and Functions when this is obvious to thinkers who are the ones that categorize in the 1st place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._of_categories (Causality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory (Functions)

[Singu]

Except you stupidly think categorizing doesn't include Causality and Functions when this is obvious to thinkers who are the ones that categorize in the 1st place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._of_categories (Causality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory (Functions)

...What? You obviously don't come up with any causality by just categorizing things. At best, you can have correlations.

Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, etc., are just categorizations that don't really mean anything (i.e. not explanations). Get over it.

Anyway, you're just regurgitating a bunch of "facts" without ever understanding what any of them actually mean.

[ooo]

lol @ GOD

[Tonatiuh]

@Aylen: Gonna read up on the story!

[timber]

Priest *do you singu, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?

Singu *well I don't believe there is data either way.

Also singu *I do.

[Singu]

Priest *do you singu, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?

Singu *well I don't believe there is data either way.

Well actually that's exactly the opposite of what I said and the exact opposite of what I'm advocating.

[Number 9 large]

Singu type 6 the loyal skeptic

[Metamorph]

[End]

As his campaign slogan so eloquently put it: "Why vote for the lesser evil?"

[Metamorph]

As his campaign slogan so eloquently put it: "Why vote for the lesser evil?"

People who like Pathfinder and horror books are Satanic now according to End, who conspicuously never makes any statements beginning with "I" and barely makes any definite statements about anything at all. What a good thing 16t is almost dead now.

[End]

People who like Pathfinder and horror books are Satanic now according to End, who conspicuously never makes any statements beginning with "I" and barely makes any definite statements about anything at all. What a good thing 16t is almost dead now.

As Voltaire so eloquently put it, he had but one prayer. "Lord make my enemies ridiculous" and God granted it. I must ask what you're on because damn that's gotta be some good shit. So long as it doesn't cause physiological withdrawal symptoms I gotta try it.

You're talking to a dude who lived through that period of time my deluded millennial/boomer clone. I played D&D and laughed at those poor fuckers. How they missed how utterly rooted in Christianity horror and Pathfinder/D&D were back then was a constant source of amusement for me. It's obvious if you know how this all works. I mean fuck, it even crosses cultures. Try reading "Trigun" or "Battle Angel Alita" with the background of "this is some Christian shit" inside the back your head. Did they believe? Questionable. Do those themes and story structures speak to pretty much every human on this planet hard enough that they just ran with it? Undeniably. Did they notice that at some point and say "ah fuck it" and just lean into it hardcore? Yeah, they did, and their story was made all the more glorious for it.

Jung was right, and it backs up my assertion that God is Truth. Humans resonate with the truth, our reason qua reason leads us to it, and ain't it just the darnedest of coincidences that the more you deny the Christ and try to argue against his truths the more you approach the conclusions of his faithful?

[Metamorph]

As Voltaire so eloquently put it, he had but one prayer. "Lord make my enemies ridiculous" and God granted it. I must ask what you're on because damn that's gotta be some good shit. So long as it doesn't cause physiological withdrawal symptoms I gotta try it.

You're talking to a dude who lived through that period of time my deluded millennial/boomer clone. I played D&D and laughed at those poor fuckers. How they missed how utterly rooted in Christianity horror and Pathfinder/D&D were back then was a constant source of amusement for me. It's obvious if you know how this all works. I mean fuck, it even crosses cultures. Try reading "Trigun" or "Battle Angel Alita" with the background of "this is some Christian shit" inside the back your head. Did they believe? Questionable. Do those themes and story structures speak to pretty much every human on this planet hard enough that they just ran with it? Undeniably. Did they notice that at some point and say "ah fuck it" and just lean into it hardcore? Yeah, they did, and their story was made all the more glorious for it.

Jung was right, and it backs up my assertion that God is Truth. Humans resonate with the truth, our reason qua reason leads us to it, and ain't it just the darnedest of coincidences that the more you deny the Christ and try to argue against his truths the more you approach the conclusions of his faithful?

I think you have me confused with someone else, because I never said any of the things you attributed to me and I told you to read Boethius's account of the Good while you insisted on Kierkegaard's eternal folly, but OK.

[Metamorph]

LINGUISTICS AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

This is good for showing science vs. pseudoscience in various contexts. I'm not tagging everyone who might sort of be interested.

I would also argue that string theory and Freudian psychoanalysis aren't completely pseudoscientific either, just horrifically insular to the point large numbers of prominent "researchers" have built careers entirely on pseudoscience just by appealing to sentimental ideals.

[Metamorph]

In Defense of "Pseudoscience"

Here's an article where what they really mean is fringe science. Between this one and the last, we see the difference between social normativity regarding the idea of science and the results of the scientific method.

[Metamorph]

I can't find your Poe thread now so I'll just post here instead . . . but I read part of his essay while in a waiting room the other day, and my impressions from what I read were that I think Poe is expressing the same sentiment that I expressed in the climate debate when I said, "I think one day people will look back on all of this as foolishness."

The "future person" is talking about contemporary ideas in the same manner that contemporary people talk about past ideas. It's all in the vein of "we know so much more now, how ignorant those in the past were with their silly ideas"

The arguments themselves are for the pedants, for those who are debating the philosophies, full of pride at how smart they think they are. He's showing them the holes in each of their arguments and telling them that some day people will look at them the same way they look at others now.

I always say that to people. People always say "In the past we were so dumb and there were so many problems, but now, with modern science, we know everything and there are no problems!" I tell them we've never had a good record being right about everything so I suspect we won't now either. We do have a quite good record in some ways though. Alchemists invented gunpowder and distillation among many other things, for example, and phrenology at least taught us thoughts weren't in our hearts or stomach. The people with more primitive theories were much more right than not within bounds of what they did. Optimism as a philosophy is kind of evil. Things don't get better and better just for existing and if you let them just exist they'd get worse and worse.

[End]

I think maybe instead of being an internet Marxist and blaming everyone for being oppressed, you should study and be the Catholic scientist of your dreams. I've created things while you've only sat back and criticized other people. Criticizing people is the easy thing.

Any "Catholic" who agrees in any way with Marx is akin to them saying that maybe Lucifer had a point. Again, I implore you, read a work or two from the likes of the "doctors" of the faith. They saved me, they will save you as well if you do not truly hate the one true God. Ya just might though, given what I've been observing of your post history. Damn near about to hard ask you to pass a Witch Test dude because I'm becoming pretty damn sure you couldn't say the words even if you were waving dueling middle fingers in my face as you stressed every sarcastic bone in your body to make sure anyone with half a brain knew you were not in any way serious about a solitary syllable of the creed.

You can, I want you to, and yet you will not. Prove me wrong dude, make me question my own worldview here and now. I have the utmost confidence in my convictions, do you?

I always say that to people. People always say "In the past we were so dumb and there were so many problems, but now, with modern science, we know everything and there are no problems!" I tell them we've never had a good record being right about everything so I suspect we won't now either. We do have a quite good record in some ways though. Alchemists invented gunpowder and distillation among many other things, for example, and phrenology at least taught us thoughts weren't in our hearts or stomach. The people with more primitive theories were much more right than not within bounds of what they did. Optimism as a philosophy is kind of evil. Things don't get better and better just for existing and if you let them just exist they'd get worse and worse.

I agree to an extent. We cannot denigrate children for ignorance as they truly had no way of knowing a thing until it was presented to them at the proper/appropriate time. However, it is not as if there is no value in the viewpoint of a "child" as it were. I have pointed out in the past that, sometimes, you need a "dumber" or "simpler" perspective. That there is value in "idiots" and their perspectives as we may see them. I mean, I have a cousin with many a cognitive disability. The things he has helped me discover. I am truly blessed even though he is not. I pray I can repay him the many favors I owe him somehow.

I refuse to believe that thinking things will get better over time is wrong though. You seem to be a soul who has given into despair. There are 7 deadly sins but I hold there's one that was missed, Despair. A most insidious sin to be sure, for to lose all hope before a final divine judgement just seems to be a thing for heathens, fools, and SJW's (but I repeat myself). For if God is real than why would one ever truly Despair? You will get what you deserve, and you will accept that judgement as it will have the ultimate backing of truth incarnate in one form or another...

[Aylen]

Any "Catholic" who agrees in any way with Marx is akin to them saying that maybe Lucifer had a point. Again, I implore you, read a work or two from the likes of the "doctors" of the faith. They saved me, they will save you as well if you do not truly hate the one true God. Ya just might though, given what I've been observing of your post history. Damn near about to hard ask you to pass a Witch Test dude because I'm becoming pretty damn sure you couldn't say the words even if you were waving dueling middle fingers in my face as you stressed every sarcastic bone in your body to make sure anyone with half a brain knew you were not in any way serious about a solitary syllable of the creed.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I took the "witch test" and passed. Now what? Is there a prize?

[Metamorph]

Any "Catholic" who agrees in any way with Marx is akin to them saying that maybe Lucifer had a point. Again, I implore you, read a work or two from the likes of the "doctors" of the faith. They saved me, they will save you as well if you do not truly hate the one true God. Ya just might though, given what I've been observing of your post history. Damn near about to hard ask you to pass a Witch Test dude because I'm becoming pretty damn sure you couldn't say the words even if you were waving dueling middle fingers in my face as you stressed every sarcastic bone in your body to make sure anyone with half a brain knew you were not in any way serious about a solitary syllable of the creed.

You can, I want you to, and yet you will not. Prove me wrong dude, make me question my own worldview here and now. I have the utmost confidence in my convictions, do you?

Kant invented scientific racism so I thought you'd be a fan. Kant is just wrong enough to cause problems. He still believes in Cartesian dualism which is bad. Simulation theory is Kant's fault. At least you hate Marx though. We have some sense here!

Why would anyone say the creed and not be serious? The definition of God is supposed to be love. You don't go off and reject love just because you don't like church or religion. I think you should damn yourself on the Internet since you seem bored enough, and the whole Golden Rule thing. Jesus Christ, get a life and go work at the food pantry like, well, Jesus Christ or something instead of seething at "R-selected negroes" and people you don't even know who vent about Catholicism because they only see modern Roman Catholics acting like hypocrites and racists.

By the way, what do you think of Dante? R-selected degenerate giving Catholicism a bad name? Is Hildegard of Bingen horrible for being a scientist and a nun rather than a whore?

I agree to an extent. We cannot denigrate children for ignorance as they truly had no way of knowing a thing until it was presented to them at the proper/appropriate time. However, it is not as if there is no value in the viewpoint of a "child" as it were. I have pointed out in the past that, sometimes, you need a "dumber" or "simpler" perspective. That there is value in "idiots" and their perspectives as we may see them. I mean, I have a cousin with many a cognitive disability. The things he has helped me discover. I am truly blessed even though he is not. I pray I can repay him the many favors I owe him somehow.

I refuse to believe that thinking things will get better over time is wrong though. You seem to be a soul who has given into despair. There are 7 deadly sins but I hold there's one that was missed, Despair. A most insidious sin to be sure, for to lose all hope before a final divine judgement just seems to be a thing for heathens, fools, and SJW's (but I repeat myself). For if God is real than why would one ever truly Despair? You will get what you deserve, and you will accept that judgement as it will have the ultimate backing of truth incarnate in one form or another...

I'm not saying things never get better. I'm saying thinking things magically get better while you sit on your butt is bad. No, things rot if you let them. That's not despair, but a call to action. You seem to have given into sloth. Maybe you're racist because you were replaced by a Mexican at your job. Would make sense.

[End]

Your response is exactly what I expected @coeruleum, so now I must implore you to pass a witch test before I even bother to invest yet more of my precious time. You need not mean a single syllable or letter of it. Just type out these words: "Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead". Say and mock the lord all you want afterwards in that post, just have those exact words typed in that exact order and properly spelled out in it. I'll bet actual money you will not, because of reasons I know and your response to this may well confirm .

[Tonatiuh]

Your response is exactly what I expected @coeruleum, so now I must implore you to pass a which test before I even bother to invest yet more of my precious time. You need not mean a single syllable or letter of it. Just type out these words: "Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead". Say and mock the lord all you want afterwards in that post, just have those exact words typed out in it. I'll bet actual money you will not, because of reasons I know and your response to this may well confirm .

Witch* and she will not pass it.

[Grendel]

Your response is exactly what I expected @coeruleum, so now I must implore you to pass a witch test before I even bother to invest yet more of my precious time. You need not mean a single syllable or letter of it. Just type out these words: "Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead". Say and mock the lord all you want afterwards in that post, just have those exact words typed in that exact order and properly spelled out in it. I'll bet actual money you will not, because of reasons I know and your response to this may well confirm .

Witches were legit just girls who used ergot. It's medieval war on drugs bullshit. Look it up.

[Aylen]

Your response is exactly what I expected @coeruleum, so now I must implore you to pass a witch test before I even bother to invest yet more of my precious time. You need not mean a single syllable or letter of it. Just type out these words: "Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead". Say and mock the lord all you want afterwards in that post, just have those exact words typed in that exact order and properly spelled out in it. I'll bet actual money you will not, because of reasons I know and your response to this may well confirm .

You want her to say it to claim some kind of victory over her? How can you ask people to say it then mock god or praise satan after? It doesn't give the impression you have a strong belief in your faith since that would be worse than not saying the words, wouldn't it? It looks like you are the one mocking it by this silly "witch test". This isn't the inquisition. I remember similar games as a child where someone wanted me to just say something so when I would refuse they had to walk away with the feeling they couldn't break me.

Your posts remind me of people new to a religion that don't fully understand the faith. This might not be your case. It looks like it to me.