One of the things some of us agree on is that the Universe is chaotic, and that order and disorder are illusions.
-One of things the illusion of order offers is the ability to predict things.
However, another thing that some of us agree on is that human behavior on a large scale is essentially predictable; that humans are mostly running on old programs they mostly aren't aware of.
I haven't come up with a clever way to resolve these two things, so I'm offering it up to y'all.
Group dynamics may create conditions for predictability, whereas individual people show a greater breadth of potential and actual repsonses.
I'd say it's a part of the human neurostructure to impose patterns (and the lack of patterns) on the inherent chaos of the universe (whether we impose that structure via early conditioning or whether it's hardwired is certainly debatable).
Human behavior is predictable insofar as the way humans impose order (and disorder) on the universe is predictable, whether by structure or by practice, at least on the broad, communal scale as Cain said. Even on the personal level, I'd argue that while there is greater room for variation there is still the same general imposition of patterns on reality, regardless of whether or not those patterns are really there.
To apply the BIP metaphor, rather than pattern recognition/imposition being one of the bars, it's the floor - that which we build our personal bars upon and that in which they are anchored.
Quote from: LMNO on July 07, 2008, 07:55:19 PM
One of the things some of us agree on is that the Universe is chaotic, and that order and disorder are illusions.
-One of things the illusion of order offers is the ability to predict things.
However, another thing that some of us agree on is that human behavior on a large scale is essentially predictable; that humans are mostly running on old programs they mostly aren't aware of.
I haven't come up with a clever way to resolve these two things, so I'm offering it up to y'all.
Are these two things in conflict? I'm not sure what specifically needs resolution.
The illusion of order is passed from generation to generation.
How we learn to behave is passed from generation to generation.
Newer generations may explore new bits of terrirtory, (in terms of behavior) here and there.
But there is this large chunk, or set, of human behaviors that have solidly been passed from the old to the young.
So I think both are explained by how knowledge by in large is gained, from one set of humans to another.
Long standing and enduring human traditions.
yes, human programming is ingrained from birth to death. To predict human behavior one must look at the specifics of how/where/when the subject was raised.
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 08, 2008, 06:55:37 PM
yes, human programming is ingrained from birth to death. To predict human behavior one must look at the specifics of how/where/when the subject was raised.
In part that's true that environment and society will play a large part in the prediction of general behavior. However, there are some underlying constants inherent in the way the human brain evolved. For example, optical illusions will cross beyond cultural specifics since they play directly on the pattern-recognition wiring of the brain that exist at a more fundamental level than societal programming.
LMNO - is any of this helping? Are we on the wrong track? The right track?
I suppose it's a similar thing in physics, one of scale v. usability - but it kind of flip flops around, in terms of Discord.
I mean, physicists will assert that the universe is built on probability waves*, and that chaos and entropy reign supreme, but they also can accurately calculate where a spaceship (and most objects in the galaxy) will be 20 years from now. So it becomes a matter of which is more pragmatic; the theory that all is Chaos, or the formula F = m(dv/dt)?
Conversely/similarly, Some of us advocate Think for Yourself, while asserting that most of us are predicitable sheep, but that Black Swans happen.
I suppose the Eristic/Aneristic may be illusions, but they are very useful illusions, while the "All is Chaos" idea really doesn't help that much. So why even bring it up?
*I know, I know, I'm making huge generalizations. Shut it.
I think sometimes we get too excited by the word "illusion".
Eristic/Aneristic exist as types of models in which we can see things as ordered or disordered. The ILLUSION, comes when we forget that those are just models, just interesting ways of looking at the available data from the Universe. I don't think the Illusion of Order is passed down from generation to generation... I think the illusion that the model IS the thing being modeled, gets passed down from generation to generation.
All is Chaos or All is Order both seem to fail... at best I think we could say "All is." in some Zen-like fashion. All can be modeled as chaos, all can be modeled as order, but 'all' isn't either, those are just human ways of perceiving, translating and manipulating the data that's currently available. At best, the scientific method has been useful for 200 years or so. That means we have 200 years or so of documentable observation. Presuming that such a small chunk of time will allow us to accurately KNOW anything about a Universe that may be Billions and Billions of years old, seems to fall to the very same flaw in statistics that practically throws out chunks of bread for any passing Black Swans.
Both the Eristic and Aneristic, when understood expose each other for what they are...
Absurd, useful perhaps, but nonetheless Absurd.
Aneristic or Eristic it's YOU who imposes that experience over the underlying framework. The framework we'll never see or understand.
For me it becomes a choice - Order or chaos. For most people it isn't a choice, they see order or chaos and don't realise they're projecting. That's what makes me different from most people, imo, I decide whether I want to see a pattern and follow it, or if I want to see totally random shit and experience the rush of it.
"Make up your mind" - I love that expression
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 09, 2008, 06:51:37 PM
Aneristic or Eristic it's YOU who imposes that experience over the underlying framework. The framework we'll never see or understand.
For me it becomes a choice - Order or chaos. For most people it isn't a choice, they see order or chaos and don't realise they're projecting. That's what makes me different from most people, imo, I decide whether I want to see a pattern and follow it, or if I want to see totally random shit and experience the rush of it.
"Make up your mind" - I love that expression
:mittens:
I wouldn't say that the Eristic/Aneristic paradigm is solely illusionary. Both exist in proportion within "Chaos" at all levels, in varying ratio depending on the level being observed. To correlate, the Yin-yang (or the sacred chao for that matter) illustrates this nicely, in that the two parts are both extant within the whole (although not necessarily in equal proportion). I've never considered the yin-yang or its derivatives to be a static thing, but rather an icon that demonstrates this concept, albeit while projecting a potential "ideal" balance between the two component aspects of the whole.
All things (at least as far as I've observed) contain elements of both order and disorder. Depending on the perspective of the observation of a given thing (for example, moving from a microcosm to a macrocosm, or examining the parts that make up the whole device/system/society/etc. then comparing it to the whole thing itself), those same elements will remain throughout, but the proportion between them can shift radically as the observational perspective changes and their relative influences assert themselves to a greater or lesser degree at each observational point.
However, the human mind has to isolate things to one level at a time (or at best a handful of levels at a time) in order to process information, and that limitation can lead to an extrapolation of that restrictiveness to all levels, rather than the specific levels being isolated to the observer and the specific level of interaction being observed at the time. That leads to, as Rata said, the illusion that the model IS the thing being modeled, since that's how the human brain has to reduce things in order to process them. It's possible to recognize and work around that limitation, but that requires not only conditioning (the scientific method is designed to encourage this work-around IMO) but recognition, neither of which generally are present in a given society, at least on the broader general/macrocosmic level.
Also, as Pent says, we're the ones that impose that ratio on the system being observed, not just on an individual level, but on the broader societal level. I think it's that history of imposition that allows the prediction of behavior, in that it is possible to predict how an individual/society/etc. will impose that ratio based on the extrapolation of prior imposition by the individual/society/etc.
Order and Chaos seem to operate on the same principle as that other old chestnut - good and evil.
Purely subjective but seductively objective to the untrained eye.
The human mind is, in essence, one of the most advanced pattern recognition algorithms on the face of the planet. It's so high-level it's even convinced itself it has a soul, just by processing random shit. You show it some clouds, it'll see faces and animals and all sorts of shit. You show it a universe and ... well ... this is what happens :lulz:
Mathematical chaos is there, just as surely as the idea of "number" is there. It is well defined, and can be studied. Like many other things in mathematics, this does not carry over to reality easily. It may also be different from your conventional definition of chaos.
I suggest reading "Chaos and Fractals, the Mathematics Behind the Computer Graphics, Proceedings of Symposia in applied Mathematics, Volume 39. ISBN 0-8218-0137-6 It should be accessible to anyone with a reasonable grasp of intermediate math (calculus, Riemann geometry, etc.) and provide an accurate introduction to the theory, unlike most volumes written for laymen.
random order is still an order.
in terms of chaos and relation to scale. could the situation be similar to "snow" on the TV screen? from a distance, taking in the whole picture, it looks like a bunch of chaos, but when you zoom in really close, all you see is a dot that is sometimes black and sometimes white (quite orderly and fairly predictable).
It's the Garbage-In-Garbage-Out effect. Most people are predictable because they live predictable lives and believe predictable things. Their world is predictable, so they behave in a way that fits that world.
The All-is-Chaos view is essentially useless on its own, since it basically negates the use of analysis and pattern-recognition. If you assume everything to be chaotic and meaningless, then you won't be able to make much sense of things.
The useful (IMHO) outlook is rather to recognize the chaos that exists in a system (or among systems) as well as the predicable nature of the systems in question. That allows you to make useful predictions and draw useful conclusions about events and circumstances, from a wider range of situations than you would have access to if you subscribed solely to a single Aneristic system. It also allows you to deal with the unexpected by making room for chaos before something unexpected happens.
Quotemaking room for chaos
I really like these words. I like all the other words too but making room for chaos, for me, seems to grab the basic meaning of everything else (& is that vague enough?)
If you want people to "get" an idea, metaphors & stories really work for me I'm thinking. Involving as many of the senses as you possibly can also works too. You can see this happen with people. Tell them something, then involve one of their senses, then just watch them. Many times you will see people look up a little (often their eyes wander either to the right or left as they look up). They are remembering something. You may have triggered a past memory & now they are there! Not even with you anymore. Then, when they come back, they usually tell you a story.
The words, making room for chaos, for me, did just that. I'm gone. The associations include memories of when all I wanted from a situation was space (& not a lot to ask I'm thinking, so much of what is, is just space) & freedom to think & to have the time to do it in. To be able to slow down time so I could make a choice or a decision or even just giving me enough room to escape. I've had experiences where time seemed to slow down. These experiences were not drug induced. I'm also not sure how they were induced.
Perhaps some of you have had these experiences too? Several times it's happened to me while driving. I mostly drive in very busy places. Most times the driving part is pretty much automatic on my part, automatic responses to the signals of the road. Sometimes tho something odd will happen while driving that is completely unexpected & out of my control. Another driver or drivers will do something that very definitely should cause an accident involving my car. Something kicks in then. It is as if I see it coming. Time seems to slow down for several (I dunno what measurement or length of time to say here) & then seems to speed up for several (again I dunno what length of time to say here). Immediately after I am able to recapture what just happened. While time seemed to slow, my mind picked up on what was happening. Then, while time seemed to speed up, my body did what it needed to do to avoid the accident. Then, after, time returns to I guess what you would say, is the normal perception of the passage of time.
This is an easy example to explain even though I may not have done such a good job describing. The other experiences I've had, similar to the 1 described, are not so easy to describe but involve the same kind of process or mechanism or whatever. I don't know how to do it "at will" although I've tried different ways & they sometimes work but not consistently.
Are order and disorder illusions? Yes, imho they are useful illusions.
Is human behavior on a large scale essentially predictable? If you could understand what is happening in the present perfectly or even essentially, imho, you could probably predict essentially what would happen in the near future. There are so many variables tho (some essential & some non-essential to whatever goal it is you're trying to make sense of). & we all have blind spots which prevent us from seeing the essential parts of what is happening all around us. Even with peripheral vision. Is this a human limitation? Is it related to the way we perceive & yes experience time? Is there a way to alter the perception of how we experience time? Is there a way to alter how we experience time? I know research has been done in these areas. I try to verify findings whenever I can.
Order and disorder are useful illusions because I just thought of an analogy (and we all know that if you can make a clever enough analogy, it must be true).
Does anyone remember those murder-mystery games that would include a little booklet with the story and the solution would be "hidden" behind a bunch of squiggly red dots? You couldn't read the solution unless you looked at it through the red-tinted glasses, because the mess of red and white made the text nearly impossible to read.
Sometimes, we need to look at the world through a tinted lens, to filter out the noise and make the signal clearer. The trick is remembering when to take the lenses off.
Quote from: Cainad on July 12, 2008, 04:32:58 PM
Order and disorder are useful illusions because I just thought of an analogy (and we all know that if you can make a clever enough analogy, it must be true).
Does anyone remember those murder-mystery games that would include a little booklet with the story and the solution would be "hidden" behind a bunch of squiggly red dots? You couldn't read the solution unless you looked at it through the red-tinted glasses, because the mess of red and white made the text nearly impossible to read.
Sometimes, we need to look at the world through a tinted lens, to filter out the noise and make the signal clearer. The trick is remembering when to take the lenses off.
I like your analogy, though I don't know those games. The game that came to my mind was the Jumanji game. But that's neither here nor there. It also made me think of the phrase "looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses". People who wear those don't generally know they wear them, though, so they cannot take them off. Those glasses have to be ripped off.
it's like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz - the city is green, because everyone wears green glasses. it's absurd to suggest that the city isn't really green. the evidence is right there in front of their eyes, as far as they're concerned. most people look at the world through fear-tinted glasses, and they're justified in wearing them, after all they believe the realities they subscribe to are absolute, and there are real consequences in those realities for removing your spectacles.
once you realize that there's nothing fundamentally, naturally requiring you to care about your dead-end job, it's hard to keep caring. but that doesn't stop you from wanting the material benefits that dead-end job can provide you. a lot of people get to that point and immediately turn back, because if you just up and walk away from your bullshit responsibilities, nobody will give you a line of credit to live the life you think you deserve to live.
the biggest and strongest bars in the BIP aren't what you beleive about other people or how you think the world works, they are aspirations and fantasies about where you think you're going. most of that depends on your acceptance of the daily-grind game. maybe that would translate in this metaphor to the shackles that keep you from ever getting as far as the actual bars of your cell in the first place.
Why are people predictable is the basic question we are grappling with here, right?
If we accept the proposition that the brain, while containing a certain amount of hardwiring, also has some software ie; reprogrammable segments (through repitition, deprivation, drugs etc).
The hardwiring would tell us the limits of the software programming. It seems that inbetween those limits there is a wide amount of variation. For example, two humans. One fearlessly sacrafices itself for the good of its tribe, in accordance with its customs. The other, is an abject coward who is willing to kill its own children for its own continued survival. Same species, radically different worldviews.
The programming, therefore, seems to be fairly flexible. While some people, such as Pinker, have made a case for there being something akin to human nature, it is weak and limited.
So we can look at the programming. Cultural, sociological and personal factors are all going to have impacts. Like Vex stated, GI-GO. The more homogenized the inputs are, the closer in terms of worldview and identity people are going to become. In the past, this was limited at the more cultural level by a lack of mass media. Today, this may be offset by the ability to mostly choose your own media. But by and large, people have the same experiences. They go to the same sort of schools, learn the same sort of things from similarly trained teachers, before going to the same sort of homes to eat the same sort of dinners while watching the same sort of shows.
The inputs are the same. The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.
Cain's got hold of something here. I think I'll try pulling on it tomorrow.
Quote from: Cain on July 16, 2008, 08:43:26 PM
The inputs are the same. The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.
In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.
Quote from: Cain on July 16, 2008, 08:43:26 PM
Why are people predictable is the basic question we are grappling with here, right?
If we accept the proposition that the brain, while containing a certain amount of hardwiring, also has some software ie; reprogrammable segments (through repitition, deprivation, drugs etc).
The hardwiring would tell us the limits of the software programming. It seems that inbetween those limits there is a wide amount of variation. For example, two humans. One fearlessly sacrafices itself for the good of its tribe, in accordance with its customs. The other, is an abject coward who is willing to kill its own children for its own continued survival. Same species, radically different worldviews.
The programming, therefore, seems to be fairly flexible. While some people, such as Pinker, have made a case for there being something akin to human nature, it is weak and limited.
So we can look at the programming. Cultural, sociological and personal factors are all going to have impacts. Like Vex stated, GI-GO. The more homogenized the inputs are, the closer in terms of worldview and identity people are going to become. In the past, this was limited at the more cultural level by a lack of mass media. Today, this may be offset by the ability to mostly choose your own media. But by and large, people have the same experiences. They go to the same sort of schools, learn the same sort of things from similarly trained teachers, before going to the same sort of homes to eat the same sort of dinners while watching the same sort of shows.
The inputs are the same. The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.
Indeed, also, the rise of mass media has made it commonplace for all of us to see people that have different tribal views... and the monkey hates them.
Quote from: singer on July 17, 2008, 01:42:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 16, 2008, 08:43:26 PM
The inputs are the same. The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.
In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.
I demand you make a post in the introductions fread, this instant! :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 17, 2008, 02:02:03 PM
Quote from: singer on July 17, 2008, 01:42:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 16, 2008, 08:43:26 PM
The inputs are the same. The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.
In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.
I demand you make a post in the introductions fread, this instant! :argh!:
singer is O.K.
It also seems that while the choices narrow, the perception of choice expands.
A grocery isle with 20 brands of cereal. Ingredients: corn, sugar.
Our choices today consist of cosmetic things. We think we are different because my T-shirt says Adidas, and yours says Nike.
Meanwhile, the fundamental choices we can make have become limited through various social, political, and economic means.
Truth. For example - how many times have you been at a lower-end department store looking for a shirt or something, and finding nothing because everything has to have some logo or advertisement or one-liner all over it? I know that happens to me quite a bit. People are generally "individuals" within an increasingly narrowing definition of what is acceptably unique.