Comments

  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    Therefore, neither can precede the other in development. Both have developed simultaneously.spirit-salamander

    Then would either anticipate the need for the other?
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    This is the sort of question I begin to ask. How did the eye-brain connection take place? Why would either one communicate with the other - especially if one didn't know the other existed. Is there a reason why nerves would grow from one to the other? The eye didn't have a brain, and the brain didn't have an eye - so, which one grew the nerves first? Or, as Dingo says:
    Your eye IS your brain.DingoJones
  • Descartes didn't prove anything
    I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake.Qmeri

    Good Question! It would also seem a better question if it was asked: Is there a paradox - or do I believe there is one?
  • Interesting concept - monkeys playing "pong" on a computer.
    Of course those experiments were in the cortex, and this is in the cerebellum for motor control but just being reminded of it still freaks me out.ernest meyer

    Yes, it is freaky. Make one wonder just what else is going on. I didn't even know monkeys could understand the concept of Pong.
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    Philosophy is a thoughtful act, of course, and so is functionally dependent on having a working thinking-machine, i.e. on having a mind. Something's got to do the thinking to do philosophy. But not just any act of thinking is psychology; only particular kinds of thinking about thinkers is psychology. When doing philosophy, we don't appeal to specific facts about the mind, not as empirically observable in the third person, at least, because that would be circular, those facts depending for their justification on empirical methods that are one of the things at stake in a philosophical investigation.Pfhorrest

    Thanks for the insight.
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    But asking what "knowing" is in the human case is very difficult, it's still very much debated. But I don't think looking at AI helps much at all, it's better to continue studying people for these matters.Manuel

    I believe I understand what you are saying. I also believe we should study "both". Both AI, and people.
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    So there's going to be some connection between the two fields.Manuel

    I agree. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_psychology .
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    What we choose is more likely a reflection of the time we live in.Tom Storm

    I agree. But, that may be a given and can't be changed.
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    Psychology conversely is supposed to be an empirical, scientific investigation, which therefore depends for its justification on the validity of the scientific methods, and arguing about the validity of such methods is a philosophical matter, so to that extent psychology is logically dependent on philosophy.Pfhorrest

    An extension of that thought seems to also validate that philosophy is dependent on psychology. Doesn't one (think) about justification (justified true belief) ? The "thinking" part seems to be based on psychology.
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    Having always being interested in both psychology and philosophy, especially the way in which the two overlap, I have been thinking recently that the whole philosophy of mind is such an interesting area in this respect. I am also aware of vast areas arising in between the two disciplines during the time I have been using the site, especially phenomenology.Jack Cummins

    Thanks Jack! You and I seem to be running a parallel course.

    Psychology - especially experimental psychology - is looking now, at the relatiohip between psychology and philosophy. It's interesting (to me) how human minds plays a part (psychology) in what we believe to be reality and truth (philosophy). Kind of like the way Plato thought?
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    This is the subject of a lot of commentary, I will leave it at that.Wayfarer

    Thanks! Yes, I realize it's a subject with a lot of thought, and commentary. One way to address something that is as complex - is to discuss it - get other opinions. Thanks again for your commentary.
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    You should be able to figure it out. You're the one who compared computers to children. Children are sentient beings, computers are devices. If that is a distinction that eludes you, there's probably nothing I can say.Wayfarer

    In spite of the attitude, I still don't see how that has to do with intelligence?
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    If I dropped my computer into a pool of water and destroyed it, I would have committed no crime.Wayfarer

    I'm really not sure what "being a crime" has to do with being intelligent. Could you offer more details.
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    what programming language did you use to engineer your kids? Computers only understand 1s and 0s. Kids have a creativity that isn't reducible to an algorithm.emancipate

    That's like saying a person doesn't understand "air vibrations" - only sound. A computer converts the 1's and 0's into something it can use - just like we convert air vibrations into something we can use.
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    They can emulate some aspects of it, to great effect - I actually use SIRI a fair bit, and I notice that Google gets more useful all the time, sometimes spookily so. But I agree with the above comment, it doesn't amount to sentience or actual knowledge. It's different in kind, and there's a difference in kind between beings and devices.Wayfarer

    We train our kids to emulate us - and we program our computers to emulate us. Really does't seem to be to be too much difference. We even congratulate our kids for being intelligent. Do we "expect" our computers not to be intelligent because they are machines?
  • Does Siri, or Cortana, actually know anything - and, can they remember what you asked?
    Everything you ask a voice activated program can be stored on a hard drive, in a database, for later recall (querying). If you want to think of that as memory..emancipate

    Is "everything" stored on a hard drive - or, can flash drives, cloud storage, or other things - be used as storage of information? How does the method of storing information limit whether a machine knows anything or not?
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    And also for those of us who have been here for years, every thread, especially started by someone new, ought to be approached as if you yourself were talking about it for the first time and explain your reasoning clearly.ssu

    Clarity, and intent. Often the intent is not too clear:... From my earlier quote:
    This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.

    Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.

    Did you punch him?

    No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).

    The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear.
    Don Wade

    Yesterday, on this Forum, I asked the question: "Are politicians really magicians in discuise/". Politicians become Masters at using "Miller's Law" but, it's not for our enlightenment or entertainment.
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    I would suggest that we already follow the idea of miller's Law, or at least, the majority of us do. We, generally, do not read an op and instantly assume it is a lie, or seek only to disprove it as false, although I do recognize that frequently we do point out flaws, or disagree with a posted opinion, not out of an assumption that the other is based on an untruth, but that we may have found a flaw in the logic. This, to me, is healthy and appropriate debate and discussion of a topic. Most of us do this. A few respond with insults rather than healthy debate, but that is true for all discussions, sometimes you just have to write off a response.Book273

    I would sugest we also just pay attention to what is being said. Example: Discussion
    The reason this law is something of an 'aha' for many people is that we often speak to others as if they think in exactly the same way that we do, so when something seems wrong we assume they are thinking wrong and are a wrong person who needs to be corrected. It also helps us understand why others criticize us, because they are also not following Miller's Law.

    While it is true that we have much in common with others in how our minds work, our actual thoughts and underlying beliefs, models, preferences, values and so on can vary quite significantly. As a result we often take the reverse approach to Miller's Law, assuming that when people say things that do not make complete sense to us, then they are wrong.

    This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.

    Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.

    Did you punch him?

    No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).

    The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear.
  • Are politicians really magicians in disguise?
    The closest I could come was "Conniver."James Riley

    To me, a conniver is someone that has learned to survive in this world but does it in ways that are not moral, or nice, to others. Can they teach us thing? Maybe.....probably not - except maybe to not re-elect them.
  • Are politicians really magicians in disguise?
    Usually, they pretend to be leaders, but turn out to be followers. the trick is to push to the front of wherever people are already going. Populism is the name of the game.unenlightened

    Could be true. Many believe "money" is the driving force...
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    In other words, if you think a topic is stupid or beneath you, then don't even engage in it, not even to tell someone you think as much. If you truly have a disagreement, comment, question, or just want to engage in productive dialogue, that is when you participate.schopenhauer1

    A good example. How do you think I would perceive your own statement? It seems antagonistic...but is it? I need to know more before I delete it, or ignore it. This, to me, is communication - not a rumble.
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    Perhaps it would be useful in allowing us to understand something about the person telling us something (e.g., he's an idiot, under the influence) but not the statement being made.Ciceronianus the White

    That's probably true. It makes sense to know the status of the "source of information" as well as understanding the information itself.
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    This way any statement is necessary for acceptance for truthfulness, since human imagination is endless.god must be atheist

    Which could be why we need the law. We need to start somewhere, and someone's statement might be the starting-point. We would first need; to understand what the person is saying. Yes, we may make "first-hand" judgements of a statement, but that generally doesn't mean that judgement is true. You would need additional information - but you may not get it, if you make instant judgement of what you first perceive.
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    Interesting quote and question.javi2541997

    Thanks! Thanks also for the comments.
  • Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
    I'm all for Miller's law, but then if the site accepts it this law to be enforceable, I'll refer posters to this law, those posters who are pissed off with me for sticking to my guns on wording, and the law shalt prevail.god must be atheist

    As in many things "the devel is in the details". I appreciate your comments.
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    I've never heard of a model that posits contraction that doesn't accelerate to some kind of crunch singularity. Doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist, but I've never heard of it.noAxioms

    The big bang and the big crunch kind of go hand-in-hand in some models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch . However, the jury is still out as to which models are more acceptable. Trying to get a grasp on the fundamentals of the different models is what makes cosmology a fun science - and is especially great for philosophy.
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    Unsatisfied in the case of uniform distribution everywhere. The level of compression has nothing to do with it. The current density of the universe (about 6 protons per cubic meter) is enough to prevent expansion if it was that mass expanding into empty space. None of the material would have sufficient recession speed to exceed the escape velocity of the bounded mass that comprised the occupied part of the universe.noAxioms

    Good thought. Add to that, if you would; What does the vision of "multiple" contractions and expansions do if we focus on the velocity of (light in space) during these periods. Then the question of; how far does the universe contract before it starts to expand. Lots and lots of questions about the model.
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    Science is confident about the minimum size of the universe today in absolute terms. It is also confident about what the speed of light can achieve in normal circumstances today. Clearly the maths which T Clark pointed out is self explanatory if you believe in the Big Bang. The universe must, in absolute terms, have expanded faster than the recognised maximum speed of light.Gary Enfield

    Gary, I really like your post! In my opinion, It reflects a lot of insight.
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    It is thence a rather misleading characterization to say that the universe "started" with the Big Bang, as it always existed beforehand, just in a state so unlike anything we can conceive that one cannot speak of it meaningfully.Vessuvius

    I admire your effort in expressing your thoughts. I'm trying to grasp the the image, but there seems to be a "leap-of-faith" in the transition of events as you progress from a "tightly bound singularity". Maybe I'm missing it when you state "one cannot speak of it meaningfully". I'm looking for a continuous cause and effect but I'm just not visualizing it - and, maybe that's what you were pointing out?
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    The universe isn't an object in space like a star.noAxioms

    Then what is the universe? That is, something other than it started with a big bang. Does the universe exist in space, or does space exist in the universe? Which came first, space, or the universe?
  • Is vagueness a philosophy?
    I also like to (try) to visualize what others believe they can perceive. I realize my perception is not always right - even though I may believe it is.
  • What is working memory?
    Some may question "what is the difference between just plain memory - and working memory?" https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401/full
  • What is working memory?
    You're welcome! Hope it helps you as much as it helped me.
  • Is vagueness a philosophy?
    I can picture four grains without a problem. I merely point out the psychological machinery involved. It helps to have the simplest and most regular global arrangement in mind, even if that geometry of relations is then also suppressed to a large degreed to emphasise the distinctness of each grain.apokrisis

    I believe, that you believe, that you can perceive 4 (or more) seperate grains of sand at any specific time, but I don't know if you're basing your belief on a knowledge of "working-memory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory .
  • Is vagueness a philosophy?
    What? Visualising four grains seems easy. Especially if they are arranged as four corners of a square.apokrisis

    I applaud your effort, but visualizing a square (one shape - or (1) item) is not the same as (4) distinct grains. One can also physically count grains as they are placed, and count many grains. But, that same person cannot "imagine" the four seperate grains without some form of added aid - such as what you just demonstrated. Again, I refer to the example of the Rubin Vase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase . Another example of something there but not visualized is: "Gorilla in the room" experment: https://gorillaitr.com/2018/08/21/update-to-the-original-gorilla-in-the-room-experiment/#:~:text=Update%20to%20the%20original%20Gorilla%20in%20the%20room,they%20miss%20a%20lot%20of%20intuitive%20%28non-conscious%29%20information.
  • Is vagueness a philosophy?
    But that is where a logic of vagueness comes in. It can add a third metaphysical-strength ingredient to the story. It says that both poles of any such categorical dichotomy must arise - by reciprocal constraint - out of the common resource which is a vagueness.apokrisis

    It is my opinion that the solution to the sorites paradox is not in the assumption of "vagueness" - as has been suggested. The solution lies in the method of analyzing the problem.

    Try this thought experiment: The brain can visualize (1) grain of sand. The brain can also visualize (2) grains of sand that are (side-by-side), or close together (gestalt). Add another grain in the same manner and the brain can still visualize the image of (3) grains of sand - as long as the distance between them is not too great. The problem comes in by adding just one more grain of sand. The brain cannot visualize (4) grains of sand that are close to each other. In order to visualize four grains of sand the brain must employ a trick - that is, it will visualize two groups of (2) grains each. The brain can actually visualize up to (9) grains in this manner by visualizing three groups of (3) grains each. However, the brain cannot visualize (10) grains, or more. The brain can also visualize (1) pile of sand - in much the same way as visualizing the single grains of sand. However, the brain cannot visualize removing a single grain of sand from a pile and somehow changing the image of the pile. This thought experiment demonstrates why the paradox is not based on "vague predicates", but is based on how the brain visualizes images.
  • Did the "Shock-Wave" of Inflation expand faster than the speed of light?
    I think the shock wave you are talking about is space.T Clark

    If it was space before the big bang, and space after the big bang - then what changed? Plus, light still only travels at a defined velocity in space. Then did light travel faster before the big bang?
  • Is vagueness a philosophy?
    I agree that vagueness (and/or ambiguity) is integral to our thinking. Look up a word in the dictionary and you get other words, which you can then look up, and get still other words. Without a rough sense of what basic words mean (including words like 'mean') you can't get anywhere. And this point ignores the intrinsic limitations of dictionaries. A market is perhaps a good metaphor for language. The sounds and scribbles have various somewhat predictable effects when used skillfully, without, however, even becoming perfectly clear.T H E

    I believe "Levels" will clear up a lot of the vagueness.