Has anyone considered the concept of reverse probability? Things may logically and experientially be contended to be probabilistic (from greatest to least), but I find that binary relation is strictly limited. The sane mind is highly directed toward only 2 sides to a situation. We evolved that way. Now although I understand the correspondence between logic and reality, and that reality is claimed to dictate logic, it (reality) plays no part in our perception/existence. Not sure how the lyrics go but... "all that we ever see and touch is all we will ever be," - I believe that was Pink Floyd. It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that we, being the highest in command on the food chain, are automatically granted full access to reality, by vanity of intelligence. This is evident in my day to day interactions. Even here on sciforums recently by Invert Nexus (nice guy, a little touchy, but nice. But hey, aren't we all). Human ego is meant to be alienated from truth and reality, but in that same vein bequethed the gift of exclusivity from all things. Instinct is a synonym for individuality, one is the other and vice versa. Without instinct we ultimately become either one of two things - a real-life analog to the Borg, or a monk. Lack of instinct means lack of ego and thus individuality. The sense of identity is bestowed by vanity. Another way to end up in this egoless predicament is through extreme rationality. But while a Borg may not care to/ be able to distinguish between ego and non-ego, the most super-rational human does, and this is where the crippled and fragile ego is developed - through arrogance. It has absolutely nothing to do with interpersonal intelligence, just plain arrogance. A genius like Langan, maybe Invert and a lot of others on these boards can barely identify with normal people. And that is what leads to alienation which causes the incredible arrogance we all know and love. Anyhow, if these people had any inkling of reality, in the sense that it is better than most, they would gain knowledge to not only everything, but everyone and how to relate to them. The true test of a person's ability to relate is his ability to be cool. That a person can get along with anybody by conceding to anything mathematical escapes common sense, which is something geniuses rarely show. These rational sters tend to be fixated so much on thinking that they lose sight of reality, whereas most people don't think and so are more reality respondent. We perceive reality through probability based on all that we have stored up in the noggin. When our senses recognize an object, our mind represents it through probabilistic extraction. We obtain all and only that information we are prepared to percieve/recieve. The idea that it is absolutetly correct (absolute truth) is a mandate of the ego. Our ego could not afford a person the confidence and courage to step forth into the world of perception without this, it would be like groping through the dark. But what if we compromise our perception for our egos? What if, instead of attempting to perceive reality correctly to an unknown end, we accept a limited perception that we deem necessary to us personally (as opposed to grandeur greed) and function in the world and even contribute something outstanding in the long run with just that? What is this need to know and explore? You can't even grasp the most fundamental thing, people... and you want to "contain the universe in your head". Gimme a fuckin' break, eh? Fuckin geniuses.
The ego is a component of the human psyche, just like all the emotions mentioned, as well as our perception of reality, and so much more. People vainly strive for things they don't need, that's what causes arrogance and greed, but what also contributes to it is the aforementioned PERSPECTIVE. Our perspective on ourselves, on those around us, and on society and reality as a whole affect who we make ourselves and how we interact with everyone around us. Once we stop to realize that everything we take to be "absolute truth" (which, in and of itself is an absurdity at best) is based almost entirely on our own personal perception, we better realize our place.
Well done. Remind me to pick you up a six pack on the way over to the annual sciforums gathering. I'll get draqon some Timbits (pass it around though). The term "aprobabilistic reality" refers to the common reality that most people share. The vainly intelligent strive for a more correct or probabilistic reality. But that in no way means that they have things set. Or that they know more than most people. Aprobabilistic reality is very distant to probabilitistic reality. That explains the breakdown in perception between the vainly intelligent and the average person. When the vainly intelligent accept that probabilistic reality is not a true containment of the whole reality and learn some things about aprobabilistic reality, they won't be so vain. The warrior adapts to his surroundings. The coward tries to make his surroundings adapt to him or fails in the process. How can one determine whether a person is being a coward or a warrior though?
Nicholas1m7: Actually, would not the willful character of a warrior persona be more apt to conform reality to his will than the other way around? That is to say, to simply adapt, and not to strive, would seem to be cowardly as opposed to warrioresque. And what is your overall problem with the notion of human knowledge of things? Do you not believe we can have any at all?
The warrior adapts to his surroundings and through doing so, his surroundings adapt to him. The strength is in persistence. The coward on the other hand is too shy to adapt. The coward waits and hopes that his surroundings will bring something he can adapt to. Knowledge is perfectly fine. It's the arrogance that comes with it that isn't. The arrogance is when one mistakes their knowledge for absolute truth or even probabilistic reality. It is defended accordingly as though no other opinion mattered. Logic should be a non-issue, because when it comes down to it, both sides will be asking one question, "which is the mutha fucka and which is the coward," by which time the argument will have been settled. Logic can be used by either side to justify any crap, which is why it should play no part in perception. Probabilities of various types should be the main perceptual language.
Logic should not be depended on. Only probability. An arrogant person mistakes probability for logic. You see the way I worded the warrior/coward definitions and you mistook it for something completely different to what it actually is? Well, that's perfectly fine, you were thinking logically, like most people. But you put it in the form of a question, that open mindedness demonstrated probabilistic thought, something that more geniuses should practice. This suggests that the ability to relate to people, not just understand them, but relate to them, should be placed ahead of one's personal convictions. It does not matter whether the coward understands the warrior or has a more logical argument, because the value of the coward's life is more precious to him than winning any argument. The warrior does not have as much an issue with mortality than the coward, he does not even value his convictions. The true warrior acts for the sake of acting, and does for the sake of doing. The actions themselves are not what is in question, it is the courage and the strength in taking the action which is.
I didn't want to wade into this thread predominantly due to the lack of clarity concerning its subject, but there have been some errors in reasoning here of note so... Unfortunately, both these statements are contradictory. "Aprobabilistic" means not amenable to probability, i.e.: non-variant. This clearly contradicts the notion of a 'common' and 'shared' reality. The second statement runs counter to all empirical evidence. Nearly all schema of reality, from the most esoteric of philosophy to the most current models of physics, strive for the least probabilistic. Again, contradiction is evident here. All probability theory is entirely predicated upon, and indeed derived from standard logic. In fact, probability cannot obtain at all without a number of primary logical axioms.
When I say "probabilistic" I mean "most probable". This is likely a misdefinition on my part. In that case, your referrence to "least probabilistic" means the same as my "most probable" - they want an accurate model that probably corresponds to reality as much as it can. The thing is that their model cannot be applied to the shared reality of most people, and to attempt this might require understanding of the human subjects, which is not necessarily the ability to relate oddly enough. Perception is probabilistic. Logic attempts to fill in the gaps and acheive aprobabilistic reality, but this is impossible because human behavior is probabilistic in nature. This goes back to determinism versus free will. I can get that logic is thankfully the premise for probability. I get that. But which reality's logic are we talkin about here?
Nicholas1M7: As I've said before, I'm down with your warrior pragmatism. It's a good system for a man to adopt. But as we're both into samurai stuff, I thought a good analogy would be this: You're a Sengoku samurai. I'm an Edo samurai. But we should both be Meiji samurai. That is to say, whereas perhaps you're too pragmatic, and I'm too rational, we would do well to be a mix of types and adopt the best of both worlds Meiji samurai inspection. For whereas the Sengoku was too much chaos, Edo was too much order, and whereas one produced instability, the other produced stagnation, and both were eventually equal plagues that lead to the reform of the Meiji, which was when Japan was at her most powerful. As is the case in almost all instances: The Middle Way is the proper one. Thus in contrast to both a pure rational or pure pragmatic approach, I propose the "middle way" approach, where a mixture of the types produces the well-rounded superior man. Consider Kipling's "If" as the ideal of a middle-way http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.html "In order to master nature, we must first learn her rules" I am reminded of. I agree, this is a warrior's way: To see reality, to adapt to it, and to control it. Only a coward waits and waits and ends up never acting ever, for the world will never be anything but what one makes it once one has thrown the dice. But if adaption does not come with an aim to steer, then it is all for naught. That is truly a coward's way: To give into the flow and not strive to make one's impact. In matters of human discourse, I agree: There are more fruitful ways of discussion than pure logic. Because the logical does not take into consideration the human, and the situations which cannot be resolved by logic (rock paper scissors is excellent) it is not good for human discourse to be wholly logical. But on the other hand, the greatest way is not to disregard logic, but to employ it with a cunning understanding of human psychology. This is why chess is so compelling. It is a mix of psychology and logic. The man who knows his opponenet, who knows how he thinks, and then acts in accordance with this, is more often the victor than not. Accordingly, one is introducing logic to humanity in a way that leads one to practical results, without sacrificing either. And yes, those so unwillingly to bend in matters of human discourse, that they disregard all things, and do not consider matters with a discerning eye, are idiots. Ultimately, the unwillingness to act at the above is the death of all things. Indeed, one must simply "do for the sake of doing" after a point.
Fair enough then. I didn't mean to get so heavy semantically, but more often than not in these discussions, as P_J can attest to, word usage can create serious misunderstandings. I agree with you here. I think the notion of a 'shared reality' is, to a great extent, responsible for confusion. This is the whole "other minds" problem as Wittgenstein pointed out so well. All of our attempts to devise a descriptive model of reality implicitly assumes that there is such a shared domain. Of course, these models can be quite handy: simple Newtonian physics for example, serves us quite well within the macro world. Nevertheless, no model can claim completeness, and this does seem to indicate that there is something serious missing. To my mind, what seems unsurmountable here, is our inability, theoretically speaking, to ever be able to verify any model. On the flipside of this line of thought though, is the danger of solipsism..... I'm not sure what you mean here. Admittedly, there are types of logic that differ from each other in particular ways, but ultimately they can all be reduced back down to a combination of Syllogistic and 1st Order Truth-Functional Logic.
Glaucon: Yep. Word usage is the bane of all philosophical discussions. It's terribly annoying at times.
Terribly annoying until you can adapt to your crowd and automatically determine the meaning behind a given word without having to deliberate the words definition every time it's brought up. Now, this entire discussion sort of rounds us about to the question of whether or not there is any "fixed" reality, or whether or not there is a reality at all. Do we really exist in a "reality", or is everything we can sense entirely an illusion? And if reality isn't real, then are we?
