Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#44957 - 12/15/10 10:29 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2523
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part ... Both fields apply the scientific method.

"Hard" (OU) science legitimately applies the scientific method, because OU-consistency is [to the extent of human experience] just that. The SM is a process for identifying such consistencies.

"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44959 - 12/15/10 10:31 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.


Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

My time to use the smiley.


Edited by TheInsane (12/15/10 10:43 AM)

Top
#44961 - 12/15/10 10:51 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2523
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.

Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

Once again it appears that TheInsane has not felt any discretionary option in the creation and expression of this response, but was inexorably compelled to it by natural laws predetermining every aspect of his/her existence. The secret is out: TheInsane is a Vulcan.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44964 - 12/15/10 11:21 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.

Funny thing is you questioned my stance on this before and I replied to you and you choose not to comment on it. Therefore I feel no need to elaborate on this again and I dont know why you ask me again. The post I made several months back is still here for anyone to see.

Once again it appears that TheInsane has not felt any discretionary option in the creation and expression of this response, but was inexorably compelled to it by natural laws predetermining every aspect of his/her existence. The secret is out: TheInsane is a Vulcan.


Haha \:\)

Had you read what I replied to you in the post I was refering to you would know that I am not a determinist either. I also discussed free will and the nature of conciousness in the recent thread created by HeimiricIX.

It would be more productive if you took your time to respond to the posts where I actually try to go into some detail about my thoughts and ideas instead of being ironic about posts where I say nothing about the subject at hand.

Top
#44965 - 12/15/10 11:28 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You have to excuse Mr Aquino; he's a huge Dodgers fan. ;\)

D.

Top
#44966 - 12/15/10 12:00 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2523
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I am not a determinist either.

You can't have it both ways: Either you have free will or your thoughts are predetermined by something external to your consciousness, like Indiana Jones after he drank that unpleasant cocktail in Temple of Doom.

It is because the implications of individual/isolate free will are so Xeper that so many of the profane have fought so long and so hard to deny or at least distort it, indeed to the extent of torturing/killing anyone daring to affirm it. What do you think Satanism is really all about?

Be careful, because I have predetermined your answer/nonanswer.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44967 - 12/15/10 12:31 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I am not a determinist either.

You can't have it both ways: Either you have free will or your thoughts are predetermined by something external to your consciousness, like Indiana Jones after he drank that unpleasant cocktail in Temple of Doom.

It is because the implications of individual/isolate free will are so Xeper that so many of the profane have fought so long and so hard to deny or at least distort it, indeed to the extent of torturing/killing anyone daring to affirm it. What do you think Satanism is really all about?

Be careful, because I have predetermined your answer/nonanswer.


Again, take the time and read what I previously wrote and you will see my stance on it instead of making statements as the ones above. For being a doctor you sure as hell are stubborn to not take time to research who you are debating with despite repeated invitations to do so. Perhaps your conciousness is too isolated :P

As for what I consider Satanism to be all about I have explained that before as well.

Now Mr. if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions:

http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthreads...=true#Post40551

http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthreads...=true#Post36749

http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthreads...=true#Post44793

Feel free to comment on either of them but there would perhaps be preferable to keep to the already existing threads rather than go more off-topic in this one.

Top
#44970 - 12/15/10 02:42 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Aklo]
Opacus Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/21/10
Posts: 23
Loc: Hell
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
You will forgive me if I don't work that hard, there isn't really that much controversy in what I am saying.

I could be wrong though; I try to learn something new every day. Please introduce a "social science" that you feel has had sufficient range of experiment to falsify itself, and thoroughly failed to do so.




Another issue that comes into play here is HOW data is gathered in studying people.

This is a big issue and one that a lot of people don't understand.

If a "study" has data gathered not through observation but through "self-reported" data it is going to be a bunch of crap.

I'm a (very) amateur body builder that helps people traion to lose weight. If I rely on their word and not actual observation of what they eat, they either intentionally or unintentionally give me the wrong data.

If I only relied on self-reported data then I'd have 900 different diets that all seemed to work.

For some people. For some of the time.

When they actually grabbed people and put them in a lab, force-fed them the same measured amounts of food they saw that weight-loss was NOT genetic; it was entirely predictable with calories consumed versus calories burnt.

I also used to write three-dimensional facial recognition software for law enforcement. Worked with some really good sketch artists and they said "people's memories are terribe. The more time that elapses between the crime and when we get to interview them, the more likely they are to forget or EMBELISH data". Again either consciously or not.

This doesn't (usually) apply to hard sciences, but is the reason why sociology, psychology and what not are wrong so often, especially when "academic politics" come into play.

Opacus

Top
#44971 - 12/15/10 03:11 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Opacus]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Originally Posted By: Opacus
Another issue that comes into play here is HOW data is gathered in studying people.

Yes thanks, these are some great observations. Jake was giving another good example a bit earlier:

 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.

I've done my share of internal reporting over the years, and I can confirm that numbers are even better than words for effective lying.

Real science has methodologies to deal with these problems though.

 Originally Posted By: Jim Manzi
And as experiments began to move from fields like classical physics to fields like therapeutic biology, the number and complexity of potential causes of the outcome of interest—what I term “causal density”—rose substantially. It became difficult even to identify, never mind actually hold constant, all these causes. For example, how could an experimenter in 1800, when modern genetics remained undiscovered, possibly ensure that the subjects in the test group had the same genetic predisposition to a disease under study as those in the control group?

In 1884, the brilliant but erratic American polymath C. S. Peirce hit upon a solution when he randomly assigned participants to the test and control groups. Random assignment permits a medical experimentalist to conclude reliably that differences in outcome are caused by differences in treatment. That’s because even causal differences among individuals of which the experimentalist is unaware—say, that genetic predisposition—should be roughly equally distributed between the test and control groups, and therefore not bias the result.

And so on, the hard sciences are really intent on not lying to themselves, even accidentally. I don't see the same pressures in things like economics and politics, where a good lie is a solid paycheck.

(I have dug this article up in a public place now, along with a response, so people can see the context from which I'm speaking, if they wish. But keep in mind that there are journalists in this story, so if they were telling the truth they wouldn't necessarily know it.)

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44985 - 12/15/10 11:09 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2523
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
... if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions ...

I did read them previously, and just re-read them again per your request.

Altogether these certainly constitute an earnest and exhaustive argument that you (as a unique, isolate, and pure consciousness) don't in fact exist. This is, in a word, absurd - no matter how many equally-convoluted testimonials you collect in support of it. And we both know it is; otherwise this conversation could not exist either.

In medieval philosophy the term "scholasticism" refers to what might be summarized as "reasoned argument towards a predetermined conclusion". It was what Tom Aquino & al. resorted to in order to shore up Catholic dogma against the rediscovery of Aristotle, for instance. That's essentially what you're doing here - just with a different axiom to enshrine.

I do not say this to insult you, but you requested my public assessment. You are welcome to ignore it and plunge resolutely on. But I won't spend further time on it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44989 - 12/16/10 02:49 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
... if you took your time and read the following links perhaps you wouldnt have as many questions ...

I did read them previously, and just re-read them again per your request.

Altogether these certainly constitute an earnest and exhaustive argument that you (as a unique, isolate, and pure consciousness) don't in fact exist. This is, in a word, absurd - no matter how many equally-convoluted testimonials you collect in support of it. And we both know it is; otherwise this conversation could not exist either.


Well if you think that what I wrote was a testament of me not existing perhaps I expressed myself in the wrong terms. Or more likely you only see black and white (which you’ve proven time and time again). If one does not agree with your view of Self and Will then dammit you have to be part of the other extreme. Its not as easy as that.

I do not deny me existing (the liking to the wave I did in those posts should make that very clear). I do however deny the notion of Self atomism – isolate, unnatural, unchanging or pure (whatever word you may want to use for it). I do not deny me and indeed everything being unique however. So either you take some time reflecting over the notion and try to widen your horizon from the view of only two alternatives (Self or no-Self, no will or Free Will) or you can keep going acting ignorant and putting words in my mouth.


Edited by TheInsane (12/16/10 03:07 AM)

Top
#44990 - 12/16/10 04:21 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.

I disagree with the statement that the SM cannot be applied when it boils down towards human studies. As for an example in criminology, the free mind can leave trails of a certain pattern which on its turn can be investigated to finally catch the criminal. The unconstrained mind has always been limited to its exotic space inside the head. At a certain moment social pressure, morals and other limitations start kicking in.

Isn't it so with people you know, you can almost predict or have a vague idea how they are going to react in a certain situation? What they are going to answer when certain subjects are brought up? I know I can with most people I know. And it is thanks to a loosely application of the SM (T&E) in real life such things are possible.

If we can use the SM on behavioral traits of different plants and animals, why can't it be applied when it boils down towards Human Ecology.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45008 - 12/16/10 12:15 PM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2523
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
"Soft" science attempts to use the same SM to the study of human beings, and succeeds only to the extent that the subjects' behavior is conditioned and constrained by OU forces (geography, physical needs, physical threats, stimulus/response). It fails where spontaneous creativity/destructiveness and free/unconstrained choice generally (SU) are concerned. This is the Achilles' heel of "soft" science, and is why that term certainly cannot be applied to all human studies.

... If we can use the SM on behavioral traits of different plants and animals, why can't it be applied when it boils down towards Human Ecology.

Let's start by explaining that term:

 Originally Posted By: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. a branch of sociology dealing especially with the spatial and temporal interrelationships between humans and their economic, social, and political organization; 2. the ecology of human communities and populations especially as concerned with preservation of environmental quality (as of air or water) through proper application of conservation and civil engineering practices.

This is pretty fuzzy language. I would rather go back to my statement above: Each individual consciousness exists and is absolutely creative & discretionary as an essential aspect of this existence. Such creative & discretionary expressions are not subject to the SM for the simple reason that the SM functions to identify & codify OU regularities (which, in human experience, are universally constant & consistent).

The incarnate human consciousness, however, interfaces with the OU through the medium of a physical body whose displacement, functions, and senses are constrained by OU "natural law". TheInsane's position is thus understandable to the extent that it is often very difficult to distinguish one's authentically-discrete expression from one that is motivated or driven by OU influences. [Indeed many human expressions are a blend of both.]

Let us take the example of the proverbial pink elephant. The concept of an elephant and the color pink are OU phenomena, gathered through our physical/OU senses. However the imaginative creation of a pink elephant is a discretionary exercise in creation outside the OU, for the mere fun of it. This is a SU action [which, if we decide to share the fun, we can communicate through OU translation, as here].

It is as wrong to insist upon the independence of consciousness from external information as it is [as TheInsane does] to insist that it is merely a product of such information. Both exclusionist positions are ultimately agenda-driven, hence my reference to scholasticism. [Ironically, the creative imagination of an agenda (which is by definition not naturally/OU-compelled) is discretionary.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45277 - 12/19/10 11:16 PM A note to our viewers [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
You will remember, that the original question was whether it was good to have an argument. At this point you have seen some nice arguments. Did they do you any good? Was it beneficial to see ideas taken out of their boxes and put through their paces? Did some of them turn out to be compelling? Were others a lot more talk than actual walk?

In school the kids who argue against grading systems tend to be the brilliant underachievers, the ones making D's and F's whose IQ ought to "entitle" them to better. The people who want heavy internal criticism of their work and a strict scoring system are a lot more likely to be getting A's and B's. I'm going to characterize the people in the middle as C's, but I don't mean any insult by that. I want you making A's on the biggest test, the one that life throws you. I think a good way to move in that direction is to take anyone who thinks all opinions are equal with a ton of salt and maybe keep some buckshot on hand too.

But what do you think? Log in, or sign up, or whatever might be necessary, and make your opinion known. Vote 'A'!

(With special thanks to Lexi and Jason, for playing stereotypical roles with great panache; you guys are the Bomb!)

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
Page 3 of 3 <123


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 27 queries. Zlib compression disabled.