Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
Attempt #1:
All decisions can be made in seven breaths or less.
All behavior is derived from imitation of others or by extrapolating/mutating known patterns.
Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.
Hell is other people.
The human condition*.
* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.
This needs improving, and I could use an outside perspective.
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Can you suggest improvements? I'm not actually trying to defend the OP, I'm trying to improve it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
This is a big posit, and to have this thread be productive I should probably defend it. My premises are:
The range of human experiences is finite but very expansive.
Language is essentially limitless, and excels at expressing complex ideas in minimal format.
The first premise, though controversial, is based on the fact that we experience reality with no greater than 5 to seven senses, depending on how liberal you are about accepting proprioception or "sixth sense" to be senses. So there is a cap on which kinds of sensory data we can experience. Despite the combinatorial explosion that results from trying to compute the number of possible states, it does not approach infinity.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think. Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things. Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?
Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people
should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think. Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things. Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?
Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.
And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".
Why would you want to encapsulate it?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 31, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
Attempt #1:
1.All decisions can be made in seven breaths or less.
2.All behavior is derived from imitation of others or by extrapolating/mutating known patterns.
3.Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.
4.Hell is other people.
5.The human condition*.
* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.
1. No, some decisions can take forever, in such as avoidant or neurotic people.
2. I think this is the posture of social psychology; but do tell me, what about the behaviour of fetuses?
3. Why? This is theme-associated with "1.", and i dont see why you put so much emphasis on breathing.
4. Homo homini lupus?
5. ?
A better explanation of what you are trying to do would be nice (even do you already gave two).
1. Agonizing over all the possible options rarely makes for good decisions that you might not have made in the heat of the moment. Read "Blink" by Gladwell.
2. Is fetus experience the same thing as human experience? Who can say? I don't have any fetus experiences, and anyone who says they do are full of it. Memories of being a fetus are not preserved by the brain. So I don't consider fetuses part of human experience, except by proximity to them.
3. Breath control is what gives us the ability to use language. Trufact. Without it, we would not be able to make word sounds properly. Breath control demonstrates a level of self-awareness and bodily control that is unique to thinking animals. Dolphins do it too, so it's not *uniquely* human, but it is definitely not common among animals. Breathing is linked to a lot of preconscious systems, such as our moods, level of arousal, and psychological state. Try altering the way you breathe and see how it affects you sometime, there is interesting stuff there. Breath manipulation techniques span the gamut of human experience, from yogic practices, singing, speaking, and even autoerotic asphyxiation. So yes, a huge theme in human experience is breath control.
4 is a reference to existentialism. One can hardly discuss the nature of human existence without a nod to sartre.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think. Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things. Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?
Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.
And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".
Why would you want to encapsulate it?
They don't. The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
I have another one: "It's more complicated than that."
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 31, 2010, 09:02:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
I have another one: "It's more complicated than that."
Yes.
Funny how people start ignoring my posts whenever I have valid points.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 08:06:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think. Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things. Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?
Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.
And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".
Why would you want to encapsulate it?
They don't. The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.
So, you are saying that every situation should be met the same way?
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 10:00:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 08:06:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
Interesting, can you evidence that claim?
It depends on the jurisdiction. :wink:
'k...
So what does that mean, exactly?
That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think. Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things. Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?
Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.
And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".
Why would you want to encapsulate it?
They don't. The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.
So, you are saying that every situation should be met the same way?
That's absurd. I'm saying that schemas are dynamic patterns that we preconsciously apply to model the world we live in. They are cognitive shortcuts that change a little every time they're used; either to become more absolute or different in some way based on new feedback.
That YOU apply to the world we live in. For example, I don't make decisions within seven breaths, nor do I think most decisions should be made that quickly. That's your model, not mine. All or nothing statements are pretty useless when applied to humans, or living organisms in general.
Thus, it depends on the jurisdiction.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 31, 2010, 10:50:24 PM
Different jurisdictions have different cultures. :wink:
And different individuals have different emotional states at different times and every situation has it's own circustances.
Things sorta have to be on a "per individual" basis, except when they aren't, and that again depends on the situation and circumstances, aka the jurisdiction.
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 31, 2010, 09:02:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
Yes.
There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
I have another one: "It's more complicated than that."
Yes.
I often want to scream this at people.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
Funny how people start ignoring my posts whenever I have valid points.
I'll have something as a response in a little bit later - off to class.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.
And you make so many valid points.
I wish I could be like you. I wish I could post a shitty one-liner and claim victory.
Fuck you.
The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.
Quote from: Kai on February 01, 2010, 10:22:30 PM
The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.
I have spent this whole thread defending my claims. That wasn't what I wanted for this thread. This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas. So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".
Your "jurisdiction" argument lacks strength because it doesn't explain anything.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 01, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
Quote from: Kai on February 01, 2010, 10:22:30 PM
The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.
I have spent this whole thread defending my claims. That wasn't what I wanted for this thread. This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas. So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".
I (and I think that a couple of others posting in this thread) think coming up with a simple set of statements that describes all of human experience in a useful way is flat out impossible. Here's something I posted a little while back explaining my position on this.
Quote from: GA on January 12, 2010, 04:52:32 AM
1. Discordianism recognizes that the universe is a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
2. Discordianism recognizes that people are a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
3. Attempts to simplify the world and the people in it can be useful in some circumstances and necessary in others, but one must always be careful to distinguish these simplifications from the world itself (if there is a world distinct from our understanding of it). We can talk about people in terms of Discordians and Cabbages, Perverts and Normals, Wardens and Inmates, or whatever the dichotomy du jour is, but that's just a way of talking - people are infinitely weirder than that. Likewise, there is more to the world than Black Iron Prisions, Horrible Truths, Emergent Systems, Rational Thought, and whatever other superstitions you believe in.
4. ANY attempt to describe or explain any significant part of the world in a countable number of statements is either wrong (e.g., "There are two kinds of people...") or doesn't actually explain anything (e.g., "The universe is composed of Chaos.")
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 01, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
Your "jurisdiction" argument lacks strength because it doesn't explain anything.
This is true. Frankly I'm not sure what Kai is going on about here, other than saying "it depends."
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 08:05:59 PM
3. Breath control is what gives us the ability to use language. Trufact. Without it, we would not be able to make word sounds properly. Breath control demonstrates a level of self-awareness and bodily control that is unique to thinking animals. Dolphins do it too, so it's not *uniquely* human, but it is definitely not common among animals. Breathing is linked to a lot of preconscious systems, such as our moods, level of arousal, and psychological state. Try altering the way you breathe and see how it affects you sometime, there is interesting stuff there. Breath manipulation techniques span the gamut of human experience, from yogic practices, singing, speaking, and even autoerotic asphyxiation. So yes, a huge theme in human experience is breath control.
Is breath control interesting? Yes. Is it a "key" to human nature? I dunno. It's true that breathing differently affects your moods (and the moods of those around you) in ways that are interesting and not necessarily obvious - but I wouldn't count that as "key to a great deal of human nature" any more than any other physiological process is "key to a great deal of human nature." It's certainly an element of human experience, and it informs other elements of human experience (like singing, as you mentioned,) but just from being told about breath control you wouldn't be able to deduce the incredible psychological effects of singing and chanting together - and in fact I'm not sure what you could deduce other than "humans have a way (breath control) to influence their own mental state." Perhaps simply "Humans can influence their own mental state" as a more general statement?
(BTW, breath control isn't required for language use - it may be necessary for spoken and sung communication, but quite unnecessary for signed or written languages.)
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 31, 2010, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 08:05:59 PM
1. Agonizing over all the possible options rarely makes for good decisions that you might not have made in the heat of the moment. Read "Blink" by Gladwell.
1. Ive taken months to make some decisions; that gave me time to research my options, to actually base my decision on knowledge, rather than "intuition".
Sure, you
can make just about any decision in seven breaths or less, but should you? I've heard of Blink before, and there is research to suggest many kinds of decisions are made in the first X seconds and that thinking about them longer doesn't do much more than justify the decision you already made... but not all of them. Setting aside the class of problems JohnNyx alluded to (those where just acquiring relevant information takes longer than however many seconds), there are decisions so complicated that just explaining what you've decided takes longer than seven breaths ("We've decided to organize our business model in this fashion...") and a large number where it takes far, far longer than seven breaths just to consider all the reasonable possibilities - or even to recognize them all.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
The human condition*.
* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.
If you accept "the human condition" as a legitimate descriptor of the human condition, why do you need to have the other ones?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 31, 2010, 11:05:24 PM
Maybe impulse control is a broader more relevant category?
Sure, but the only problem there is that impulse control is so variable from one person to a next - some people manage to censor every course of action they come up with, while others go to the other extreme of doing everything that pops into their mind (I'm thinking of some pretty extreme ADHD kids I've met.)
Trying to explain human nature in a few lines makes one of those quantums thingies. They change their behavior as soon as you describe it.
Because they're asshats.
Quote from: GA on February 02, 2010, 12:26:47 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 01, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
Quote from: Kai on February 01, 2010, 10:22:30 PM
The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.
I have spent this whole thread defending my claims. That wasn't what I wanted for this thread. This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas. So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".
I (and I think that a couple of others posting in this thread) think coming up with a simple set of statements that describes all of human experience in a useful way is flat out impossible. Here's something I posted a little while back explaining my position on this.
Quote from: GA on January 12, 2010, 04:52:32 AM
1. Discordianism recognizes that the universe is a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
2. Discordianism recognizes that people are a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
3. Attempts to simplify the world and the people in it can be useful in some circumstances and necessary in others, but one must always be careful to distinguish these simplifications from the world itself (if there is a world distinct from our understanding of it). We can talk about people in terms of Discordians and Cabbages, Perverts and Normals, Wardens and Inmates, or whatever the dichotomy du jour is, but that's just a way of talking - people are infinitely weirder than that. Likewise, there is more to the world than Black Iron Prisions, Horrible Truths, Emergent Systems, Rational Thought, and whatever other superstitions you believe in.
4. ANY attempt to describe or explain any significant part of the world in a countable number of statements is either wrong (e.g., "There are two kinds of people...") or doesn't actually explain anything (e.g., "The universe is composed of Chaos.")
I'm willing to consider that the premise may be too strongly stated. I'll rethink it.
My breath control statements come from my chat dialogues with LHX from 2007 and earlier and a conversation I had with Telarus last year at KCon. It's kind of difficult to describe accurately & convincingly, but I feel strongly that breath control has a lot to do with what it is to be human.
QuoteIf you accept "the human condition" as a legitimate descriptor of the human condition, why do you need to have the other ones?
Because (sigh) it
is more complicated (nuanced) than that.
My inspiration for this was the neuroscientist Dr. Ramachandran, who said
Quote from: Dr. RamachandranIt is ironic that most scientific discoveries come not from brandishing (or sharpening)
Occam's razor — despite the view to the contrary held by the great majority of scientists and
philosophers — but from generating seemingly ad hoc and ontologically promiscuous conjectures
which are not called for by the current data.
I AM MY OWN JURISDICTIONor maybe
"Be your own jurisdiction."
Either way, this:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 02, 2010, 01:16:28 AM
Trying to explain human nature in a few lines makes one of those quantums thingies. They change their behavior as soon as you describe it.
Because they're asshats.
and this:
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
I have another one: "It's more complicated than that."
Asthmatics are not human.
Fact.
Quote from: dimo on February 02, 2010, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
I have another one: "It's more complicated than that."
That's mine not Kai's dammit. :argh!:
On the blink thing, most people do not change their minds but go with initial judgment most of the time.
Its more complicated than people make, most is not all.
People also do this not because it is a good idea, but because they are monkeys. Lots of little biases (notably confirmation and selection bias) override the
tiny pea sized part of the brain that controls rational thought biases that lean in the other direction.
Well siggy, if you want to get into it, sure.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
While I can see your reasoning (all humans are made up of roughly the same stuff, and live on the same planet, so there has to be a group of "similar experiences" (e.g. gravity) and a group of "impossible experiences" (e.g. breathing underwater); therefore there should be a statement broad enough to capture the former group while excluding the latter), such statements lead us into the familiar territory of "shit happens", "all is One", and "this too shall pass". Which is to say, functionally useless. Because while the range of possible human experience is less than infinity, it is still larger than any meaningful statement can be created. Any statement that is broad enough to cover the entirety of human experience can't be useful.
I'd like to point out that you sort of shot yourself in the foot with your use of the word "All", in that any statement that excludes an aspect of the human experience violates the initial premise. Your premise
might work if you narrowed your scope to a single culture... but even then, there is enough variation that none but the vaguest nods to an experience can be made.
Incidentally, your use of "Blink" is flawed as well, because that discusses decisions made in situations where you already have knowledge and experience regarding the situation; for example, the firefighter who can recognize a dangerous situation without stopping to think it through, the basketball player who scores without setting up the shot, or the art historian who can tell a fake before any tests are made. The premise of "Blink" doesn't work in situations where the subject is completely ignorant or unaware of the nature of their situation. In those instances, it is a
much better idea to try to understand what's going on, because any snap judgment you make will be based upon flawed fundamentals, and could be extremely dangerous.
For example, take a person whose only knowledge of fire prevention comes from camping: At the end of the night, he takes a big bucket of water, and dumps it on the hot coals, effectively snuffing the fire completely and absolutely. One day, he's cooking a whole lot of bacon at home, and the grease catches fire. He runs to the living room, grabs the large vase off the table, discarding the flowers as he dashes back to the kitchen and throws the water at the fire.
Skip ahead to about the 1:55 mark. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5ex0cDTUs)
Would you like me to address your other points, as well?
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 02, 2010, 02:22:49 AM
My inspiration for this was the neuroscientist Dr. Ramachandran, who said
Quote from: Dr. RamachandranIt is ironic that most scientific discoveries come not from brandishing (or sharpening)
Occam's razor — despite the view to the contrary held by the great majority of scientists and
philosophers — but from generating seemingly ad hoc and ontologically promiscuous conjectures
which are not called for by the current data.
Theres a whole lot of cognitive bias in that statement, particularly of the same sort as astrology uses, forget the failures and focus on the few successes. Yes, accident plays a key role in many discoveries, but "ad hoc and ontologically promiscuous conjectures" do not. Example: the discovery of peninicillin required an accidental contamination of bacterial cultures by
Penicillium. This has happened before, but because Fleming was such an excellent observer and kept perfect records of everything that went on in his lab, he saw this as interesting. The observation was, this mold is showing up in my bacterial cultures, and the bacteria seem to be eliminated by it. His question: why and how? Thus followed some wonderfully elegant experiments and isolations which lead to the production of the antibiotic.
Science, all science, requires two parts: induction and deduction. Induction is the movement from specific observations to general rules. Deduction is testing of general rules by predicting and finding specific observations that either corroborate or falsify those rules. The new observations lead back to induction again. The whole process works in a spiralling motion, where the spiral gets tighter and thus the general rules become closer to actual reality. This process is called reciprocal illumination, a series of observing, checking, testing, rechecking, and so on. It can be compared to Hegel's Dialectic. In such a system, ad hoc hypotheses are the WORST thing you can insert, because then you don't know if your results actually show what you claim.
Also, if I understand it correctly, Occam's Razor is not a method, it's a guideline; what's more, it's often misunderstood.
"Simpler answers are better" is not the same as "use as few assumptions as possible". A lot of unusual discoveries have been made because of bizarre "what if" moments, but they didn't come out of the blue, they arrived there because any other way would add to the complexity.
For example, Einstein decided that Maxwell's equations for the speed of light were correct, and made the assumption that C wasa constant; in doing so, he had to develop special relativity because otherwise, nothing made sense. Rather than try to develop theories about the "ether" that other scientists were doing, he realized that it would, in fact, be simpler if he treated light as a constant, and re-think the old definitions of space and time. In doing so, he made both the experimental and theoretical data align, without bringing in any new assumptions.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
I would agree in broad general sense.
However sometimes we have very specific experiences which need more space to explain. And modeling all of human experience in a relevant way is going to require a lot of broad statements.
While language is able to compress complex ideas down into very dense symbols, there is data loss when you compress. You have to gloss over some nuances. So I'd say that broad statements about human nature can be accurate and relevant, but not comprehensive.
Quote from: LMNO on February 02, 2010, 02:11:08 PM
Also, if I understand it correctly, Occam's Razor is not a method, it's a guideline; what's more, it's often misunderstood.
"Simpler answers are better" is not the same as "use as few assumptions as possible". A lot of unusual discoveries have been made because of bizarre "what if" moments, but they didn't come out of the blue, they arrived there because any other way would add to the complexity.
For example, Einstein decided that Maxwell's equations for the speed of light were correct, and made the assumption that C wasa constant; in doing so, he had to develop special relativity because otherwise, nothing made sense. Rather than try to develop theories about the "ether" that other scientists were doing, he realized that it would, in fact, be simpler if he treated light as a constant, and re-think the old definitions of space and time. In doing so, he made both the experimental and theoretical data align, without bringing in any new assumptions.
Correct. Parsimony is a guideline for reaching the hypothesis with the least assumptions. It can also be thought of as the maximization of congruence and consistency between data (like Einstein made the experimental and theoretical data align). It's not that the simplest answer is better or more often correct (although the latter may be the case), its that the simplest answer requires the least convolutions in testing. The most parsimonious answer changes depending upon what initial observations are available. For example, if I discovered a previously unknown morphological homologue in a group of interest, this new evidence may change the formation of the most parsimonious tree, because either that character would be inconsistent with the branching pattern, or incongruent with the other previously known characters.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit: All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful.
It may be possible to create a 'generic'' model which can describe most of human experience in a way that may be useful for some things. We can consider most models in psychology as attempts to create such a thing. However, as Freud, Jung, Spock and all the others have shown us, these models are prone to error, based on the neurological system/programs of the models observer/creator.
"All human experience" is a pretty large chunk of information to try to manipulate into a single model. It may be possible, but I'm not sure its practical.
As far as I can tell any attempt at an 'All-in' model of human experience would necessarily require one very important factor:
Any described observation or experience by humans are necessarily incomplete without including the neurological system of the observer (or the individual experiencing) and the person doing the describing. This is true for eyewitness testimony, unverifiable personal gnosis and "objective" observations by scientists. An observation by a psychologist, for example, must include the neurological state of the patient AND the neurological state of the doctor (see Freud).
Revisions:
The theory has to have blurry edges. Outliers to human experience are common. In fact any theory of human experience must account for the high degree of idiosyncrasy.
The goal of any such theory would be to fit the scientific data of human existence, as well as the subjective states we experience. The objective of this theory should be to assemble a coherent picture of the meaning of human experience.
More later, class is starting.
The problem with that is that I see the Gaussian curve as extremely shallow-- not just metaphorically, but in practice. What I mean is that, rather than a huge bump and a small tail, it would have a very small bump and an extremely long tail... The variations of human experience are so large that cutting off the tail at an arbitrary point would not only be, well, arbitrary, but would also exclude a large number of people.
This is one of the reasons that I believe any general statement made about all of human experience must also be too vague to be of use.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 02, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
Revisions:
The theory has to have blurry edges. Outliers to human experience are common. In fact any theory of human experience must account for the high degree of idiosyncrasy.
The goal of any such theory would be to fit the scientific data of human existence, as well as the subjective states we experience. The objective of this theory should be to assemble a coherent picture of the meaning of human experience.
More later, class is starting.
If outliers are common to human experience, how useful are generalizations?
What data? Who's subjective states?
You assume there exists a coherent picture of meaning. Who's meaning?
Quote from: LMNO on February 02, 2010, 07:11:17 PM
The problem with that is that I see the Gaussian curve as extremely shallow-- not just metaphorically, but in practice. What I mean is that, rather than a huge bump and a small tail, it would have a very small bump and an extremely long tail... The variations of human experience are so large that cutting off the tail at an arbitrary point would not only be, well, arbitrary, but would also exclude a large number of people.
This is one of the reasons that I believe any general statement made about all of human experience must also be too vague to be of use.
well, there are other distributions than Gaussians. one is even named after it's "long tail".
remember that Gaussian distributions are (usually?) formed by the Strong Law of Large Numbers, that is, if the random variable is the result of adding up loads of independent tiny other random variables. this is not always the case.
And thus, people become statistics.
Quote from: Kai on February 02, 2010, 11:10:42 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 02, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
Revisions:
The theory has to have blurry edges. Outliers to human experience are common. In fact any theory of human experience must account for the high degree of idiosyncrasy.
The goal of any such theory would be to fit the scientific data of human existence, as well as the subjective states we experience. The objective of this theory should be to assemble a coherent picture of the meaning of human experience.
More later, class is starting.
If outliers are common to human experience, how useful are generalizations?
What data? Who's subjective states?
You assume there exists a coherent picture of meaning. Who's meaning?
The meaning of the phrase "the human experience.", is what I think he meant there.
Who's meaning of the phrase human experience are we talking about here?
Quote from: Kai on February 03, 2010, 01:27:00 AM
Who's meaning of the phrase human experience are we talking about here?
English speakers?
Felix, I think you may be approaching the point where you're just being obstinate because you like the theory, regardless of whether it is actually intellectually useful or not.
Just my 2 cents. I know what it's like to have what strikes you as a really cool train of thought leading to a profound conclusion, but sometimes they're perfume-covered crap and you've just gotta recognize that and get on to the next idea. This is likely to be one of those times.
Quote from: Kai on February 02, 2010, 11:37:22 PM
And thus, people become statistics.
What do you mean by that?
Just that statistics is one of the many useful angles for looking at people doesn't mean that people "become" [only] statistics.
So you must mean [correct me if I'm wrong], thus people are sometimes viewed as statistics. What's so bad about that?
First of, it completely depends on the
context in which they [we] are viewed as statistics, and second it depends on whether we are
only [ever] statistics.
This is also the part where I [strongly] disagree with Nicholas Taleb. He disregards [and makes fun of] all the "statisticians", especially if they are wearing a suit and a tie. I was personally surprised that when I looked them up to check, I couldn't believe it when he just told me in the book [his citations have been utterly wrong before, after all], that indeed the formulas for predicting economic flows
are constructed from at their base a
Gaussian distributed random variable. I thought, well, only a dumb shit idiot can do that, someone who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary,
wants the world to be predictable (a true greyface?), because financial random variables, like the inbound degree of social graphs, are the fucking
classroom example of exponential distributions, where everything in nature is based on Gaussians*.
Statistics is a science, Kai. There's a right and a wrong way to go about it. Just the fact that the statistical analysts in financial institutions are morans doesn't mean the science is invalid. In fact, they're not entirely to be blamed either, just like a scientist's pay shouldn't be based on the correctness of his hypotheses [after all, disproving a hypothesis, a negative result is a result too], statisticians shouldn't be paid based on the correctness of their predictions, because with enough survivorship bias you get bullshit.
*just an interesting thought I had. you know how basically humans are also part of the ecosystem, the ecosphere, etc yeah? and how they are really just another part of Nature. yet we still wonder about where the difference lies. because we feel something is different about us. I say look for the exponential probability distributions. They are fairly rare in the rest of Nature most of it is Gaussian, but humans seem to be producing them in their world all over the place. I think it's tied to us having Language, somehow, but I dunno.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 03, 2010, 09:20:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 02, 2010, 11:37:22 PM
And thus, people become statistics.
What do you mean by that?
Just that statistics is one of the many useful angles for looking at people doesn't mean that people "become" [only] statistics.
So you must mean [correct me if I'm wrong], thus people are sometimes viewed as statistics. What's so bad about that?
First of, it completely depends on the context in which they [we] are viewed as statistics, and second it depends on whether we are only [ever] statistics.
This is also the part where I [strongly] disagree with Nicholas Taleb. He disregards [and makes fun of] all the "statisticians", especially if they are wearing a suit and a tie. I was personally surprised that when I looked them up to check, I couldn't believe it when he just told me in the book [his citations have been utterly wrong before, after all], that indeed the formulas for predicting economic flows are constructed from at their base a Gaussian distributed random variable. I thought, well, only a dumb shit idiot can do that, someone who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, wants the world to be predictable (a true greyface?), because financial random variables, like the inbound degree of social graphs, are the fucking classroom example of exponential distributions, where everything in nature is based on Gaussians*.
Statistics is a science, Kai. There's a right and a wrong way to go about it. Just the fact that the statistical analysts in financial institutions are morans doesn't mean the science is invalid. In fact, they're not entirely to be blamed either, just like a scientist's pay shouldn't be based on the correctness of his hypotheses [after all, disproving a hypothesis, a negative result is a result too], statisticians shouldn't be paid based on the correctness of their predictions, because with enough survivorship bias you get bullshit.
*just an interesting thought I had. you know how basically humans are also part of the ecosystem, the ecosphere, etc yeah? and how they are really just another part of Nature. yet we still wonder about where the difference lies. because we feel something is different about us. I say look for the exponential probability distributions. They are fairly rare in the rest of Nature most of it is Gaussian, but humans seem to be producing them in their world all over the place. I think it's tied to us having Language, somehow, but I dunno.
The issue is of averages. If I just go up and talk to a person on the street, I'm not talking to a statistic, I'm talking to an individual, and my actions should be suited to the individual. That is it, simply.
I would like to take this opportunity not to shit on one of Felix's ideas:
"Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature."
The biology of all humans (this is one of those rare instances where we are well inside the realm of human experience) includes the need for oxygen to ensure proper function of all organs, from the circularory to the nervous system. The primary way of obtaining oxygen is through the lungs, using many core muscles working in specific combinations, depending on the amount of need for oxygen. For example, a body sleeping breathes in a different way than a body which is panicked, or exhausted.
Through the poorly-defined yet anectdotally powerful concept of body/brain feedback, the way you breathe can affect your state of mind. The mind can also be affected by the amount of oxygen the brain receives.
So, you can say with a fair amount of safety that if more people were aware of how they are breathing, and how to alter their breathing in response to certain anxiety states they encounter, they would act differently.
This may not be the meaning you intended, but that's the meaning I took away.
Okay, maybe the idea is poorly formed, but I think I'll keep revising it because I'm tired of my habit of getting an idea, liking it, and dropping it after I find out it needs work.
The breath control thing is supposed to show a codependent link between mind and body, and how they can profoundly influence each other, and unless the mind is actively influencing breath control, the body will use it to take control of parts of your mind. To me this is a seriously heavy concept in the framework of understanding human experience, because so much of what it means to be human is built on top of the notion that if you're actively being aware and in control of yourself, you get a much richer experience of reality, but if you're passive about your own thinking, you can hardly claim to have ever existed.
My original idea completely failed to account for its limits. It can't include everything, and it can't describe everything. Whoever said that was absolutely right. Human experience is staggeringly broad, yet it is composed of a number of types of experiences. As far as I'm concerned**, the list of things a human can experience are:
Smell
Taste
Touch
Sight
Sound
Proprioception
Recollection
and a few types of cognition, such as visceral*, rational, social, and meta-cognition.***
* (strong cognitions with a physiological counterpart, such as emotions and "gut" intuition)
If you're willing to go with the notion that cognitions are experiential phenomena. My newest revision of the original idea is that any theory of human experience need only describe experiences within the list I've made, but due to combinatorial explosion, it cannot account for high degree multi-modal experiences. For instance, it is within reason to attempt to convey or model an experience in terms of recollection and visceral cognition, but it is beyond anyone to accurately model any experiences that combine our 5 sensory apparatus and several modes of cognition.
**Meaning I'm probably mistaken, but there is definitely a finite number of types.
***I count dream experiences in these same categories, because in a dream we hallucinate vivid experiences while we are less likely to scrutinize them. The only way our brains are able to fool us about these sensations is by what amounts to stage magic. Only creating things for us to look at in the direction we are going to be looking. Ever notice how, as soon as you start to think about reasons and reality the dream starts to break down? It's because the charade is ruined. It's as if the camera pointed away from the recording stage.
The "seven breaths" clause came from the Hagakure, I admit. I wanted to include something from it because it seems to me a book that dignifies and crystallizes so much of what it means to be a human. In retrospect, it doesn't really fit into what I want to do with this idea, so I'll cover it some other time.
tl;dr I'm abandoning the notion of expressibility in the OP, in favor of a more limited means of description. The breath control thing is meant to illustrate a mind-body utility, which can be seen as one of many instances where human experience is delimited by subjective/objective constraints.
You lost me. The only thing I picked up on is that you anthropomorphized the body as an entity that is conscious and separate from the brain, and works against it, which is...
...wait for it...
...A Cartesian Duality.
Not what I mean.
The body isn't a conscious entity, it's just a reactive organism. It reacts to a situation, and if you're not at the helm when it turns on the increased breathing rate and quickened pulse, you might get caught up in a program you may not like.
I'm not positing that the mind is separate from the body, I'm positing that they are an interdependent whole.
I do agree with the idea that breath control, as complex a process as it is, is responsible for and intricately linked to what causes us to separate "man" from "animal".
Possibly even to the point of being equally as important as opposable thumbs.
Definitely "more". Try saying words without consciously controlling your breathing sometime. It sounds a lot like when dogs try to "talk".
well, I'm not sure where we'd be if we were a bunch of yammering bipedal primates who couldn't use complex tools, but we're in basic agreement anyway.
Hmm.
I still feel the need to improve the idea.
Maybe I should look for ways to put it to use.
I'd suggest moving away from the speech/breath thing. It's not the ability to communicate that's so great, it's the time-binding ability of writing shit down that makes a bigger difference.
yeah, but surely you're not suggesting that we'd have developed written language without a spoken analogue to base the writings on?
I think the theory needs to touch on synesthesia, and how low levels of it are present in everybody- we look at the word "hello" and we hear it in our heads.
Quote from: LMNO on February 04, 2010, 02:19:46 AM
I'd suggest moving away from the speech/breath thing. It's not the ability to communicate that's so great, it's the time-binding ability of writing shit down that makes a bigger difference.
I'd say language in general.
Even without writing, oral tradition had decent time binding ability as well. Not as much as writing, but still.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 04, 2010, 02:24:02 AM
yeah, but surely you're not suggesting that we'd have developed written language without a spoken analogue to base the writings on?
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 04, 2010, 12:34:19 PM
I'd say language in general.
Even without writing, oral tradition had decent time binding ability as well. Not as much as writing, but still.
No, I was saying (poorly, because it was on a cell phone) that the idea of breath control being important is good, and the idea of language is good, but the idea of breath control being important
because of language isn't so good.
I just had a thought:
If you "could" develop a series of statements that encompassed all of the human experience, would that pass a Turing test?
I agree that breathing is much more important to mental faculties than the average person really believes, but if we are going there so does what we eat, what we drink, how much we eat, how much we drink... and possibly what we think about?
This thread seems to be coming down to psychosomatics.
Quote from: Kai on February 04, 2010, 09:48:32 PM
This thread seems to be coming down to psychosomatics.
What's the big deal about psychosomatics? You seem to get excited about it a lot, and I don't understand why it's so much more interesting than everything
else we don't know about the brain.