Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Good Thinkers

Expand Messages
  • Peter D
    ... In much the way the People s Popular Front of Judea harshly criticised the Judean Popular People s Front.
    Message 1 of 598 , Mar 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:37 AM, John Clark wrote:
      >
      > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Peter D <peterdjones@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >> In the opinion of someone [Elliot] who thinks Rand was a great
      > >> philosopher
      > >
      > > Like me Rand was a Libertarian
      >
      > Rand was not a Libertarian. She harshly criticized libertarians.

      In much the way the People's Popular Front of Judea harshly criticised
      the Judean Popular People's Front.
    • Peter D
      ... Yep. That gives you your K and your C. Where s your U? There is not the slightest evidence that our finite and haphazardly-evolved brains have the ability
      Message 598 of 598 , Dec 29, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Dec 26, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Peter D wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote:
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >> There's no such thing as this.
        > >>
        > >> Universal knowledge creators can get temporarily stuck, but they are not "unable to circumvent" -- there are many different ways they could circumvent.
        > >
        > > Presumably that is based on theory, since there is no evidence of UKC's in reality.
        >
        > Does anyone else think this reply is contributing to the list or discussion?
        >
        > If so can they explain?
        >
        >
        > There is evidence that humans exist in reality. And there is evidence they create tons of knowledge.

        Yep. That gives you your K and your C. Where's your U?

        There is not the slightest
        evidence that our finite and haphazardly-evolved brains have the
        ability to generate every and any kind of knowledge. It is difficult
        to see how we could even test the claim.

        >Is Peter not counting that? Why not?
        >
        > Theory is used, too, as it always must be. What is this, some generic objection to Popper

        No. I was chiding you for stating theory as if it were fact.


        >(and, more specifically, Deutsch's anti-empiricism arguments in BoI), targeted at whatever the current topic is? And without any details or substance (why does Peter think BoI is wrong about empiricism, what rival epistemology does he want us to adopt, etc?)
        >
        >
        > >
        > >> C&R is a universal knowledge creating process. it's not even possible to do it in a lesser way because you run into issues like judging and understanding arbitrary criticisms which takes (universal) knowledge creation to be able to do.
        > >
        > > There's not the slightest evidence that humans can formulate
        > > or understand arbitrary criticisms.
        >
        > So, again, how is this contributing anything?

        It's a criticism. Don't you welcome them?

        >It doesn't engage with Deutsch's discussion of universality at all.

        No reason it should.

        > And BoI explains this is completely the wrong way to judge arguments

        What? It is wrong to point out flaws?

        >(FoR does too, though it gets less emphasis). Does Peter disagree with Deutsch? Why? What epistemology does he favor? He doesn't say or discuss it.
        >
        >
        > To me, it looks like he's just kinda complaining at me for agreeing with Deutsch. Does anyone else see merit or value here?

        The UKC theory is a bad theory as a theory. I don't care
        who holds it.

        > >>> No. Universality requires positive feedback to overcome obstacles ( what I have been calling ™gfiniteness™h). For a mixture of anatomical and brain function reasons (mostly brain function), dogs are not over this threshold.
        > >
        > > How do you know THAT?
        >
        > I didn't write "THAT". Peter has misquoted me and then yelled at me over it. (I am the only author attributed at the top and his use of "you" seems to still be talking to me).
        >
        > Do others agree with me that misquoting people is disruptive to discussion? It can, for example, confuse and mislead people and create miscommunications and misunderstandings.
        >
        > >> To have a negative opinion about something (pain sensations or anything else) requires having opinions at all.
        > >
        > > To suffer is not just to have an opinion.
        >
        > How is this bald assertion supposed to advance the discussion?


        It is a criticism of the argument that entities without
        the ability to form opinions cannot suffer, which
        seems to underlie the silly dog-torturing claim.

        > > Assuming it is true that UKC is an all-or-nothing thing
        > > like Turing-completeness. But there is not a scrap of
        > > proof of that.
        >
        > And "not a scrap of proof" is supposed to be a bad thing?

        If you sincerely believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.


        >Has Peter still never heard of *conjectural knowledge* or *fallibilism*?


        Yes. The version that says you can just conjecture something
        and immediately treat is as true is not seriously held by any
        Popperian.

        If you wish to explain how the UKC thesis survived testing,
        please go right ahead.

        > What is the value in Peter repeating the same objections he had when he joined the group, simply applied directly to the current topic?
        >
        >
        > When is the part where he carefully reads FoR and comments on which parts he disagrees with or doesn't understand -- using extensive quotes, perhaps -- and begins a discussion to get his issues resolved?

        That would be in the various posts where I have offered
        substantive comments. The vast majority of that
        material has gone unanswered.

        >But he doesn't want to do something productive like that, instead he wants to hit reply to me and make irrelevant and repetitive complaints about my agreement with Deutsch and Popper.
        >
        >
        > >> Which is just impossible (ignoring some irrelevant and very picky technicalities about hardcoding
        > >
        > > Very relevant technicalities, actually.
        >
        >
        > Another bald assertion. I'm very wrong but Peter doesn't care to include a word of topical explanation.


        I did. You snipped it.

        > Can anyone point out some value in Peter's mix of arbitrary assertions and chronic anti-Popperian epistemology?
        >
        > -- Elliot Temple
        > http://curi.us/
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.