Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Hmmm, well, you obviously see something about evolution that I don't. To me, evolution is quite obvious and is just a result of a large dynamical system. Why it's even limited to ecology is beyond me: the rock is in the river because it lasts a long time in that environment, and nothing is interested in taking the rock away. Evolution is just a simplified explanation of results of many interactions of many complex systems.

You obviously know nothing about evolution.

Oh god, this again?

 

[ryan]

I am saying that there is a perfect model out there and that we uncover some of its perfect "explanations", but sometimes we don't.

For example, assume that a car drives by me at 12:00. If I say that the car drove by me between 11:55 and 12:05, I am perfectly correct. Is this an incredibly amazing coincidence, or did I receive a perfect truth about nature?

If we had perfect knowledge wouldn't we know what dark matter and dark energy are?

We have some knowledge, but to call any of it "perfect" is just a desire to see something perfect.

We have some perfect knowledge. If an apple that releases photons causes us to know that the apple is there, then we have perfect knowledge that the apple is there. Similarly, if dark matter does exist, then the gravity of it gives us perfect knowledge that it's there.

 

[Kharakov]

What is nothing and how do you know what can arise from it?

q1) Nothing is the absence of absolutely everything. q2) Logic.

Why do you ask?

 

[untermensche]

What is nothing and how do you know what can arise from it?

q1) Nothing is the absence of absolutely everything. q2) Logic.

Why do you ask?

Why do you hide your logic so tightly?

Share it.

Show me the logic that shows how "nothing" behaves and what could possibly arise from it?

It seems to me you are saying little more than; "I don't know, therefore it is impossible".

 

[untermensche]

If we had perfect knowledge wouldn't we know what dark matter and dark energy are?

We have some knowledge, but to call any of it "perfect" is just a desire to see something perfect.

We have some perfect knowledge. If an apple that releases photons causes us to know that the apple is there, then we have perfect knowledge that the apple is there. Similarly, if dark matter does exist, then the gravity of it gives us perfect knowledge that it's there.

Our brains create the color red in response to light that reflects off the apple.

Red is not something in the world. It is only something that can be experienced in a mind.

Our brain changes the world to make it easier for us to survive.

The idea of perfection fits nowhere in this endeavor.

Unless you think survival for a while equates to perfection.

 

[Juma]

You obviously know nothing about evolution.

Oh god, this again?

Why dont you read up on evolution to make it stop then? It is very obvious that your knowledge of evolution is severily lacking.

 

[Juma]

If an apple that releases photons causes us to know that the apple is there, then we have perfect knowledge that the apple is there.

But your description doesnt fit with what happens in real life: A better description would be: trillions of fotons enters the eye over some time and from this + previous experience etc the brain !predicts! an apple. But the eye+brain might be mistaken: it could be a very lifelike painting, a hologram etc.

 

[ryan]

We have some perfect knowledge. If an apple that releases photons causes us to know that the apple is there, then we have perfect knowledge that the apple is there. Similarly, if dark matter does exist, then the gravity of it gives us perfect knowledge that it's there.

Our brains create the color red in response to light that reflects off the apple.

Red is not something in the world. It is only something that can be experienced in a mind.

Please read my post again because your response does not address it.

Our brain changes the world to make it easier for us to survive.

The idea of perfection fits nowhere in this endeavor.

Unless you think survival for a while equates to perfection.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post.

 

[ryan]

Oh god, this again?

Why dont you read up on evolution to make it stop then? It is very obvious that your knowledge of evolution is severily lacking.

I understand evolution. I don't understand how it explains the ontological aspect of models.

If an apple that releases photons causes us to know that the apple is there, then we have perfect knowledge that the apple is there.

But your description doesnt fit with what happens in real life: A better description would be: trillions of fotons enters the eye over some time and from this + previous experience etc the brain !predicts! an apple. But the eye+brain might be mistaken: it could be a very lifelike painting, a hologram etc.

Then it is perfect information about the painting. If I think it's an apple, then that's my fault for assuming something about the information I was given.

 

[untermensche]

Our brains create the color red in response to light that reflects off the apple.

Red is not something in the world. It is only something that can be experienced in a mind.

Please read my post again because your response does not address it.

Our brain changes the world to make it easier for us to survive.

The idea of perfection fits nowhere in this endeavor.

Unless you think survival for a while equates to perfection.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post.

You're just trying to shoehorn this idea of perfection into a situation where it has no real meaning.

If the brain is doing things like creating colors whole, what does a perfect representation of the world mean? A phoney representation that includes colors is better for survival.

What is the difference between a model that makes predictions and a perfect model?

If there is no difference this idea of "perfection" is superfluous and meaningless.

 

[ryan]

Please read my post again because your response does not address it.

Our brain changes the world to make it easier for us to survive.

The idea of perfection fits nowhere in this endeavor.

Unless you think survival for a while equates to perfection.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post.

You're just trying to shoehorn this idea of perfection into a situation where it has no real meaning.

If the brain is doing things like creating colors whole, what does a perfect representation of the world mean?

Nobody knows what is actually out there. Ontology is still only philosophy.

A phoney representation that includes colors is better for survival.

What is the difference between a model that makes predictions and a perfect model?

The point is that the incoming information is what is out there. It's a perfect representation of what is out there.

If there is no difference this idea of "perfection" is superfluous and meaningless.

Something from the environment causes things to happen in the brain. This "something" is information about the environment and is the environment. This input helps us create the models.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody knows what is actually out there. Ontology is still only philosophy.

Then how is any of our knowledge "perfect"?

A phoney representation that includes colors is better for survival.

What is the difference between a model that makes predictions and a perfect model?

The point is that the incoming information is what is out there. It's a perfect representation of what is out there.

Color is not "out there". Waves of energy are "out there".

Color is created by the brain. So color is more than incoming information. It is an evolved brain's response to incoming information and that response is not controlled by the incoming information. Brains are not forced to create the colors they create. It is just a chance contingency that they do.

 

[ryan]

Then how is any of our knowledge "perfect"?

There must be an epistemological assumption, as with any claim of knowledge. The assumption is that what changes our minds are things outside of our minds.

Color is not "out there". Waves of energy are "out there".

Color is created by the brain. So color is more than incoming information.

Oh for the love of god, why do you keep repeating this? Yes, I know that our experiences are not what is out there; we have discussed this in the past many times.

It is an evolved brain's response to incoming information and that response is not controlled by the incoming information.

I agree with the first part of this sentence, but I don't fully agree with the last part. The input has some control over what happens. It causes the response, and it also becomes a part of the response.

 

[Kharakov]

q1) Nothing is the absence of absolutely everything. q2) Logic.

Why do you ask?

Why do you hide your logic so tightly?

That something which does not exist can't cause something? Seriously?

I'm not talking about the imaginary concept of nothing- I'm talking about something that does not exist. Which is hilarious.

 

[untermensche]

Why do you hide your logic so tightly?

That something which does not exist can't cause something? Seriously?

I'm not talking about the imaginary concept of nothing- I'm talking about something that does not exist. Which is hilarious.

You're claiming to have knowledge of "nothing".

Where did you get this knowledge, since you have no access to "nothing"?

You can't examine "nothing" and do experiments with it.

Yet you have knowledge of it.

How does this alleged knowledge arise? Or is it just some kind of intuition?

 

[Juma]

Why dont you read up on evolution to make it stop then? It is very obvious that your knowledge of evolution is severily lacking.

I understand evolution.

Obviously not. (Your example of the stone in a stream showed that perfectly well)

I don't understand how it explains the ontological aspect of models.

Anything that predicts behaviour in an external system must model that system. Agents that predicts has much better probability to survive. Thus evolution will select for predicting agents.
Do you get it?

 

[ryan]

I understand evolution.

Obviously not. (Your example of the stone in a stream showed that perfectly well)

Let's say that there is no universal difference between the definition of the living and nonliving. The rock in the river is a perfect example of the theory of evolution.

I don't understand how it explains the ontological aspect of models.

Anything that predicts behaviour in an external system must model that system. Agents that predicts has much better probability to survive. Thus evolution will select for predicting agents.
Do you get it?

Yes, that is a reason why we exist ecologically. But what does that have to do with what a model is?

 

[Juma]

Obviously not. (Your example of the stone in a stream showed that perfectly well)

Let's say that there is no universal difference between the definition of the living and nonliving. The rock in the river is a perfect example of the theory of evolution.

You excel in ignorans.
Evolution require:
1) mechanism of selection
2) sexual reproduction (combination of genes)
3) mutations

Now: how do that apply to your rock???

 

[Juma]

Anything that predicts behaviour in an external system must model that system. Agents that predicts has much better probability to survive. Thus evolution will select for predicting agents.
Do you get it?

Yes, that is a reason why we exist ecologically.

No.. It explains why predicting agents exist. We are not the only predicting agents.
And it explains thing biologically, not ecologically...

But what does that have to do with what a model is?

It explains that there is no direct casual link between each individuals model and the reality that that model represents.

 

[ryan]

Let's say that there is no universal difference between the definition of the living and nonliving. The rock in the river is a perfect example of the theory of evolution.

You excel in ignorans.
Evolution require:

1) mechanism of selection

The river erodes the rock. But other than that, the rock does not have many selective pressures.

2) sexual reproduction (combination of genes)

The rocks reproduce asexually. Mineral deposits from eroded rocks can form new rocks.

3) mutations

Different deposits can form different characteristics of in new rocks. They can combine to form rocks that may or may not be suited for the environment.

Now: how do that apply to your rock???