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

Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Seven reasons why people hate reason

Expand Messages
  • Phil Roberts, Jr.
    ... that the behaviourally cohesive self should be thought of as materially Virtual but behaviourally real. One can subjectively experience both a cohesive
    Message 1 of 52 , Aug 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:


      >>
      >>I think it is always wise to keep in mind the fact that such a
      >>reference to the brain is actually a reference to a postulated
      >>non-observable causal substrate presumed to give rise to our
      >>perception of a brain residing in four coordinates of spacetime
      >>via one route and the apperception of thoughts, feelings and
      >>self-conscious egos residing in a single coordinate of
      >>time via another route. Whether this postulated non-observable
      >>causal substrate is itself a physical entity is hard to say,
      >>since no one has ever actually observed one.
      >>
      >
      > RKS:
      > Behaviour can be observed objectively, which is why I think
      that the behaviourally cohesive self should be thought of as
      materially 'Virtual' but behaviourally real. One can subjectively
      experience both a cohesive self that is uniform over time and a
      fractured self including indecision and even physical opposition
      to decisions, such as when one tries to implement self-discipline
      initiatives.

      Unless, of course, "existence" is a concept we IMPOSE on reality
      rather than a nice little drawer into which various pieces of it
      can be neatly placed, in which case it's all virtual, eh? :)

      Phil
    • Haci-Murat Hubey
      Now we are on to something. ... From where does this belief arise? Is empiricism illegal? Is logical (reasonable, mathematical) reasoning illegal? ...
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Now we are on to something.

        Martin Sewell wrote:
        >
        > A subjective Bayesian (Ramsey, de Finetti) sets the prior according to
        > his degree of belief.
        >
        >
        From where does this belief arise? Is empiricism illegal? Is logical
        (reasonable, mathematical)\
        reasoning illegal?


        > An empirical objective Bayesian (Reichenbach) uses 'non-informative' priors.
        >
        Non-informative here meaning something like "maximizing uncertainty or
        maximizing ignorance?"
        Why would one do that?

        Is it as a guard against subjectivity or charges of subjectivity? But
        then this reasoning again
        may be Bayesian.

        > A logical objective Bayesian (Carnap, Jaynes) believes that a particular
        > prior is logically necessitated by the information available.
        >
        What available information necessitates what prior itself is reasoning
        (couched as logic or
        mathematics) and is itself based on empirical knowledge. No?


        > Cheers
        >
        > Ma
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.