Direct versus indirect

[fast]

Bump

Well, here's my 2 cents. You don't ever see Ms. Amber other than seeing the light that came from her; if that's good enough to say you see Ms. Amber directly, then it's certainly good enough to say you see a star directly, even if the star blew up last week and you're seeing old light, assuming it's a naked-eye star and/or you looked through a telescope -- I mean actually looked, and the starlight was concentrated onto your retina. (Any decent modern telescope won't do that, of course -- it will concentrate the starlight onto a camera and afterwards you'll look at a photograph. If a photo isn't indirect, I don't know what is.)

Something about that doesn't sit right with me, but it might be me; not sure. I can't explain it ... it's like an extrapolation error of sorts.

 

[fromderinside]

I thought it very prescient given my last name is williams and my original FORTRAN program printouts back in the sixties were all labeled $willy.

Be yea not apologetic. You are still the fast one here.

There. Feel better.

Still I think you are trying to distinguish fictional, or, fantasy observation from scientific observation and ordinary day to day observation through the equipment we are granted with which to 'observe'. Through scientific inquiry we have learned that all empirical observations must be documented by the operations required to perform them. Still, it is scientifically incorrect to claiam direct for such observation.

Perhaps in philosophy where we are dealing with ordinary human observation can we use direct for one who witnesses the event without instrumental intervention. Add a telescope and even they say the observation is indirect.

This is unfortunates since the telescope is an instrument designed to perform as an aid to far seeing. Actually philosophers went through Instrumentalism, Materialism, and Operationalism, trying to get the right mix of thinking about direct and indirect observation while keeping it separate from imaginary observation or fantasy observation. Unfortunately the imaginary observers muddled up everything in their attempts to keep Astrology on equal plane with Astronomy and religion equally valid to science.

So now here we arguing about direct and indirect observation relative to science when what we are actually saying is validated or concurred and operationalized observations are scientific observation. All other observations from the brain of man are imagined, fantastic, or, not observation at all. Sure we can get a group of zombies to say they saw the same thing but this testimony is not replicable by anyone anywhere.

So there you have the keys to scientific observation, concurred, operationalized, replicable by anyone.

Fortunately this is a science forum so we can dispense with fictional or fantasy or imaginary observation.

 

[fast]

So tracking a star that passes behind the sun is seen to be above the sun and below the sun. Are these direct observations? Or is it because theory predicts such due to gravitational effect of the sun on light that these are direct observations?

That may be an indirect observation. It's tricky. I have to keep in mind that an observation that cannot be observed directly may nevertheless stand good in science as a direct observation.

Recall my mirror example. If I do not observe the person walking up behind me but nevertheless do directly observe the reflection, then the indirect observation (by dictionary standards) is a direct observation in science.

Just how far science considers the scope of an indirect observation, I'm not sure of. If science claims that something exists but has absolutely no direct observation at all and base its claims on the observation of other things, then that's a bit different than your star example because although we may not directly track each movement of the star, we have been tracking it. Using math and knowledge for saying where it's at while outside of immediate detection may (or may not--I'm not sure) be an indirect observation.

It's not like anyone is denying the existence of the star when its position is behind the sun, so our claims of its position when not being able to literally detect it may stand good as a direct observation because of our ability to mathematically calculate its position despite an ability to use instrumentation to detect it at the time.

The major point I've been trying to drive home all along, however, is that the answer is glossary dependent, not dictionary dependent. Whether or not something in science is a direct observation or not hinges on exactly what a direct observation is, and to know that, we should consult a glossary that defines the term. It is a mistake to consult the dictionary and consult the meaning of the terms, "direct" and "observation."

Since some indirect observations, lexically, are direct observations, stipulatively, it's going to be difficult for some to make sense of your claim that "all observations by humans are indirect". Suppose you're right and no human observation is direct. That is not the same as saying all observations are indirect observations (based on glossary standards) even if it is true that all observations are indirect observations (based on dictionary standards).

 

[fromderinside]

Since some indirect observations, lexically, are direct observations, stipulatively, it's going to be difficult for some to make sense of your claim that "all observations by humans are indirect". Suppose you're right and no human observation is direct. That is not the same as saying all observations are indirect observations (based on glossary standards) even if it is true that all observations are indirect observations (based on dictionary standards).

Does anyone else sense the appearance of shells here? For any observation the detector must be the reporter. Is it possible for the same entity to both detect and report? Seems to me that uniqueness applies here. place/time detect/report nuf sed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We use logic here? How so exactly?
EB

What you observe is that one of the shoelaces is not matched by the other shoelace. How does that indicate that it is longer?

So how exactly do you use logic to conclude that one is longer?
EB

 

[fast]

Since some indirect observations, lexically, are direct observations, stipulatively, it's going to be difficult for some to make sense of your claim that "all observations by humans are indirect". Suppose you're right and no human observation is direct. That is not the same as saying all observations are indirect observations (based on glossary standards) even if it is true that all observations are indirect observations (based on dictionary standards).

Does anyone else sense the appearance of shells here? For any observation the detector must be the reporter. Is it possible for the same entity to both detect and report? Seems to me that uniqueness applies here. place/time detect/report nuf sed.

Maybe coming at this from a different angle will help. Every scientific observation is a direct scientific observation. There's (usually) really no point, therefore, in even using the word, "direct." Why (then) refer to them as direct? Well, generally, we don't--unless we want to differentiate between a discovery in science where there is no actual observation of the object in question. Yes, there is a scientific observation, but it's never of the object in question. We have never truly observed (not even scientifically) a black hole. When we refer to a black hole as an indirect scientific observation, the word, "indirect," serves as a a denial that it's an observation at all while the term "scientific" lends credence to the discovery of its existence as it's the detections of other objects that were scientifically observed supporting the assertion that black holes exist.

 

[Juma]

What you observe is that one of the shoelaces is not matched by the other shoelace. How does that indicate that it is longer?

So how exactly do you use logic to conclude that one is longer?
EB

The shoelace A is longer than B if not every part of A is matched by B.

What we do:

we observe each part of B is matched by A but that there is still som part of A that is unmatched. Thus A is longer.

If we are smart we keep them straight (which make the part-matching easy since why only have to check the ends)

Still. A lot of logic going on.

Try to program a "shoelace comparer" and see if you get by without logic...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, sounds good to me if it's how your brain does it. It should work.

In my case the job is done entirely by my brain and I remain unaware of the actual logic of the process involved. But I'm sure one could devise a more natural way of doing it. Brains are not digital computers where logic is built into the design. Brains are more analog machines and all sorts of things happen in there that cannot be regarded as any kind of logical process. Potentials add up and decisions are made as a result, that sort of things. It's physical, not logical.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Are you deferring logic to the physical because the machine used in creating it is physical? Isn't such a piece of bad logical processing. Mechanical activities aren't thought. They can be instruments through which thought takes place though.

 

[fast]

Are you deferring logic to the physical because the machine used in creating it is physical? Isn't such a piece of bad logical processing. Mechanical activities aren't thought. They can be instruments through which thought takes place though.

I'm not objecting to the point you're making, yet at the same time, you seem to be referring to the brain as a machine. That which has machine-like characteristics isn't therefore a machine. My guess is that you would stretch the scope of (what it means to of something that it's a machine) to an extreme end.

 

[Juma]

Are you deferring logic to the physical because the machine used in creating it is physical? Isn't such a piece of bad logical processing. Mechanical activities aren't thought. They can be instruments through which thought takes place though.

I'm not objecting to the point you're making, yet at the same time, you seem to be referring to the brain as a machine. That which has machine-like characteristics isn't therefore a machine. My guess is that you would stretch the scope of (what it means to of something that it's a machine) to an extreme end.

1) What do you mean by "machine"?
2) what propery does the brain have that a machine doesnt?
3) How do you know this?

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not objecting to the point you're making, yet at the same time, you seem to be referring to the brain as a machine. That which has machine-like characteristics isn't therefore a machine. My guess is that you would stretch the scope of (what it means to of something that it's a machine) to an extreme end.

1) What do you mean by "machine"?
2) what propery does the brain have that a machine doesnt?
3) How do you know this?

Mind and thought are inventions to explain brain function as a dulaist. There is actually nothing physical added after all squirts and tweaks are described. Man is a machine!!!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you deferring logic to the physical because the machine used in creating it is physical? Isn't such a piece of bad logical processing. Mechanical activities aren't thought. They can be instruments through which thought takes place though.

No, I'm Ok with logic being performed somehow somewhere in human brains. I certainly use logic myself quite a lot, and consciously. It's just that juma's assumption that comparing two shoelaces involves logic is neither obviously true nor necessary. And of course the fact that we might be able to design an algorythm to decide from what we observe whether A is longer than B doesn't say anything about how the brain itself does it. Me, I think it doesn't use logic.
EB

 

[Juma]

Are you deferring logic to the physical because the machine used in creating it is physical? Isn't such a piece of bad logical processing. Mechanical activities aren't thought. They can be instruments through which thought takes place though.

No, I'm Ok with logic being performed somehow somewhere in human brains. I certainly use logic myself quite a lot, and consciously. It's just that juma's assumption that comparing two shoelaces involves logic is neither obviously true nor necessary. And of course the fact that we might be able to design an algorythm to decide from what we observe whether A is longer than B doesn't say anything about how the brain itself does it. Me, I think it doesn't use logic.
EB

Then how do you do it?

 

[Malintent]

1) What do you mean by "machine"?
2) what propery does the brain have that a machine doesnt?
3) How do you know this?

Mind and thought are inventions to explain brain function as a dulaist. There is actually nothing physical added after all squirts and tweaks are described. Man is a machine!!!

I think that is called the Fallacy of Composition...

1) What do you mean by "machine"?
2) what propery does the brain have that a machine doesnt?
3) How do you know this?

Brains have an emergent property called Mind.
Machines will always produce the same output, given the same input. Brains do not, necessarily.
Machines are intentionally constructed for a purpose. Brains grow as a consequence of biology.

Brains are machines like birds are airplanes... as in, they're not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, I'm Ok with logic being performed somehow somewhere in human brains. I certainly use logic myself quite a lot, and consciously. It's just that juma's assumption that comparing two shoelaces involves logic is neither obviously true nor necessary. And of course the fact that we might be able to design an algorythm to decide from what we observe whether A is longer than B doesn't say anything about how the brain itself does it. Me, I think it doesn't use logic.
EB

Then how do you do it?

It's obviously an unconscious process so I can't possibly know and maybe nobody knows yet. But I already hinted at possibilities. For example, if you are looking at two broadly parallel strings then you have two sets of neurons that correspond each to one string and it's conceivable that another set of neurons can directly detect which of the two first sets is longer. That would be the simplest way to do it but maybe it's not really feasible for other reasons. But I think it's more likely to be that sort of thing.
EB

 

[Juma]

Then how do you do it?

It's obviously an unconscious process so I can't possibly know and maybe nobody knows yet. But I already hinted at possibilities. For example, if you are looking at two broadly parallel strings then you have two sets of neurons that correspond each to one string and it's conceivable that another set of neurons can directly detect which of the two first sets is longer. That would be the simplest way to do it but maybe it's not really feasible for other reasons. But I think it's more likely to be that sort of thing.
EB

Is this some kind of irony?

 

[fromderinside]

Mind and thought are inventions to explain brain function as a dulaist. There is actually nothing physical added after all squirts and tweaks are described. Man is a machine!!!

I think that is called the Fallacy of Composition...

1) What do you mean by "machine"?
2) what propery does the brain have that a machine doesnt?
3) How do you know this?

Brains have an emergent property called Mind.
Machines will always produce the same output, given the same input. Brains do not, necessarily.
Machines are intentionally constructed for a purpose. Brains grow as a consequence of biology.

Brains are machines like birds are airplanes... as in, they're not.

Please justify emergent property from the starting point of something that winds down, that serves as a basis for self organization that results in such as life. That phenomenon, the third law of thermodynamics, is explained as entropy of things results in realization of things that come closest to optimizing use of available energy.

Emergence, on the other hand as I read it, is a convenience to sustain dualism in the Sperry form: we are more than machines therefore we have mind.

Birds are airplane. Now there is a fallacy. Airplanes are man made machines designed using engineering principles and adaptions of scientific knowledge whilst birds are the result of random events on living things resulting in survival of those most fit for the moment. Not the same thing at all.

On the other hand, what is wrought by each process is a machine. We just aren't able to detail all the operations of leading to decisions so we use devises like thought, mind, consciousness, as place holders for swathes of such, as yet, unrealized detailing of operations. Right now the best we can do is some oxygen uptake measurements to illustrate where ongoing activity in some structures is taking place when we do certain reasoning and thinking stuff. Eventually such operations will lead us to detail thought at which time we will resort to using that detailing to describe what humans do.


So both of us have waved our hands. Which set of waving do you think will be more like what will be the end result of these processes? I'm voting for what I just described. I've tried mind and consciousness and linking sensation to precept to thought for over 50 years and come up with space about as empty as that Freud fashioned.