I'm letting Don Boudreaux provide the answer today to Paul Krugman's claim that Great Britain's government is following a policy of "austerity." (By the way, "austerity" is nothing more than government not engaging in reckless borrowing and spending. I guess if I am not trying to get as many credit cards and maxing out of them, then my household is in an "austerity" pattern, and all of us know about the dastardly Paradox of Thrift of which Krugman warns.)
Take it away, Don.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
355 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 355 of 355Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: No, it is impossible to predict according to constant causal factors."
"And yet it is predictable that people will go about acquiring food."
Which people? No, it isn't "predictable." You have zero knowledge in being able to direct my attention towards an equation containing variables such that if the variables are the case in the past, then it is certain I will acquire food today.
"Major_Freedom: The past cannot show constant relations in human action."
"And yet every day, people go about acquiring food."
Which people? Saying "people eat" is not a prediction. It is not based on equations or on mathematical relationships between factors. It is just an observation of past historical patterns. If 78.36553775462% of the world's population ate food yesterday, there is nothing in that fact alone, or in combination with other prior facts, that can able you to predict how many people will act to eat today.
"Major_Freedom: And the fact that non-economic historical researchers of past data must resort to statistics, is a signal it is untenable."
"Statistics is a well-founded field."
So is astrology.
"And probabilistic predictions can be used to turn a consistent profit."
No they can't. If they could, then statistical mathematics PhDs would be the richest people in the world.
First, probabilistic predictions are only as good as the assumptions. Second, there are no constant relations in probability calculations when it comes to human action. In economics, saying if A happens then B will happen 50% of the time and C will happen 50% of the time, is making a one time estimate of the future. It is not representing a prediction. It is merely making a statement regarding the frequency of various outcomes. Third, the use of probability as a substitute for causality only shows the lack of existence of constant causal factors for individual human action.
"Major_Freedom: There is nothing that occurred in the past that caused people to choose food today for their meal."
"Of course there is."
No, there isn't.
"Simple Induction: People acquired food yesterday and the day before and the day before that. We can extrapolate that they will do so tomorrow."
Which people? Which food? Where? That is just a naive extrapolation about an undefined set of individuals and an undefined set of food at undefined locations.
"Comparative Anatomy: Humans are animals, which means they ingest food for energy and protein. Like all animals, they will seek food."
Which humans? Which food? Where? What percentage? Again you are not making any prediction based on constancy of relations.
"Major_Freedom: This doesn't mean however that you have uncovered a constant causal connection that enables you to predict whether or not a person will choose to eat tomorrow, regardless of their choices."
"And yet we keep predicting it, and it keeps coming true."
What is coming true? Which people are you referring to? Which food? Which percentages? You can say "people will eat" many times in a row, and just because "people" do end up eating isn't showing the success of any prediction based on constancy in relations.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: A priori deduction is knowledge that does not ARISE out of experience."
"In the case of Maxwell, he started with a few empirical discoveries. From there, he made a series of generalizations encapsulated in his equations."
LOL, what you call "generalizations" is a fudge factor that you need to cover up the fact that his equations are a priori. It is exactly what makes his equations begin with experience, but not arise from experience.
"Major_Freedom: "prices are determined according to supply and demand", these are propositions that begin with experience, but they do not arise from experience. They don't need future "testing" once they are known."
"Sure they do if they are to have scientific validity, and as there are a number of parameters that can affect the relationship, including the knowledge and the relationship of market participants, it is constantly being subject to testing."
No, you are again conflating science with positivism. The law of supply and demand has validity apart from repeated "testing". It is not a hypothetical that requires continuous observations to be established. It is a logically necessary requirement. It is a law that begins with experience (we have to observe money to know what it is, and we have to observe objects to know what they are, and we have to observe exchanges to know what they entail), but once we grasp these concepts, the law itself arises from logical deduction, not observing green pieces of paper, or material objects, or humans moving paper in one direction and other humans moving material objects in another direction. We cannot observe the law of supply and demand taking place. We infer it.
The law is non-empirical. It is logically necessary. You will never see the law of supply and demand violated empirically. Every price you will ever see will have a supply and demand associated with it.
You saying that the law of supply and demand only has "scientific validity" on the basis of repeated testing is just a failure to grasp what actually validates the law.
"Major_Freedom: Or how about the minimum age laws. Suppose I told you "If the minimum wage were raised to $100,000 per minute tomorrow, then all else equal, unemployment will go up", would you say that I am not entitled to claim to knowing it, until it is actually tried?"
"You are very confused about the scientific method."
You didn't answer my question.
"Similarly, the laws of supply and demand have been confirmed in a wide variety of different circumstances."
No, you're still confused about economic science. The law of supply and demand was and remains validated before empirical testing and "confirmation" of the law, and not only that, but the law cannot even be observed. It has to be inferred. Observation alone can only show us people and building structures and material objects resting on shelves and movements of material objects and movements of green pieces of paper. You cannot observe the law of supply and demand taking place.
Zachriel:
"We can then predict with confidence what would happen in your scenario."
No, that is not what enables economists to know what happens if minimum wage is raised to $100,000 per minute all else equal, i.e. if minimum wage is raised above the market rate, PRIOR to it actually being tried and observed. We can know what happens by understanding what the terms mean and how they relate to each other.
"That's the whole point of the scientific method, to be able to make reasonable generalizations from limited information."
What you described above is the positivist method of science, not the scientific method per se. The knowledge we acquire in economic science is not derived from the positivist methodology you (crudely) characterized above.
"Major_Freedom: It arises from understanding."
"Yes, but an understanding that is ultimately grounded in experience."
No, it is not grounded in experience. It is grounded in self-reflection. It BEGINS with experience, temporally. But logically, it arises from understanding. It is grounded in reason.
"Look at the scientific method again:"
No, that is the positivist method. The scientific method is not monopolized by positivism.
"1. observation"
"2. generalization"
"3. prediction"
"1. observation"
"Generalization" is vague and undefined. What premises underlie the "generalization"? What sort of reasoning is being made when one "generalizes"?
At any rate, this crudely explained method you listed is itself not based on observation. This is because it requires an understanding of what "observation" is before one can even go about this methodology. A method that utilizes observation as a premise cannot justify itself on the grounds of observation. It would be begging the question.
Since this crude method you described above is not based on observation, but on an understanding of what observation is, it means that you are contradicting yourself when you claim "the" scientific method is empirical observation and continuous testing of hypothetical-empirical pronouncements. That method you described above is itself not hypothetical-empirical.
"Major_Freedom: Maxwell derived his theory a priori by in part drawing on the experimental work of Weber and Kohlrausch. It isn't entirely based on experimental work."
"Scientists, such as Maxwell and Einstein, worked on the process of generalization, what we call theory."
Economists, such as Mises and Rothbard, worked on the process of "generalization" called praxeological reasoning.
Zachriel:
"But the theory has to be reasonably consistent with existing empirical knowledge, that is, with observation, and be able to make new empirical predictions that can confirm and possibly expand the theory."
Not all propositions are hypothetical-empirical. As noted above, the positivist method is itself not hypothetical-empirical. It is presented as non-hypothetically true.
The crude methodology you described above is also not empirical-hypothetical and not based on observation. A method based on observation cannot be justified by arguments that are themselves based on observation. Again that would be begging the question. It would be like asking someone to justify their use of God in their reasoning, by making an argument that itself utilizes God and takes it for granted.
"Major_Freedom: If any physicist claims to have violated Maxwell's a priori equations through experiment, then almost every physicist will "side" with the a priori equations and question the experiment."
"Again, Maxwell based his equations on experimentally derived axioms."
Again, no he didn't. He based his equations in part on experiment, and in part on intuitive reasoning (understanding).
"The equations follow from the axioms, but if the axioms were wrong, if the original experiments that formed the basis for the axioms had been in error, then the equations would have no scientific validity."
No, original experiments did not form "the" basis of the equations. "The" basis was deduction that utilized empirical concepts.
"Major_Freedom: The hypothetico-deduction model is NOT "the heart" of the "the" scientific method. It is ONE method of science, it is the heart of ONE scientific methodology."
"Can you point to a major scientific journal and published research that doesn't work with hypothesis testing?"
Argument ad populum fallacy.
Propositions don't have to be published in a "major" journal before they are established as true.
As noted above, the very "hypothesis testing" method itself is not advanced as a hypothetical. It is advanced as a priori true, thus contradicting itself.
To answer your question stripped of the fallacy, the Austrian Quarterly Journal of Economics is an "economic science" journal that contains papers that "don't work with hypothesis testing."
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: If a zombie uttered the sound "humans act", then that can't be logically considered an argument, ...
"The whole point is you can't tell if the utterance is made by a zombie or not."
You have to first establish the logical possibility of a zombie before you can claim to know I can't know if I am talking to a zombie or not.
And again, the whole point that you missed is that the refutation of the argument "humans act" MUST LOGICALLY BE CATEGORIZED as a purposeful action. It cannot coherently be regarded as sounds from a mechanistic entity that "sounds like" a refutation. If I say "humans act" and I hear a wind breeze that sounds like the word "No", or I hear from a zombie something that sounds like "No", or I hear a dog barking something like sounds like "No", then I cannot even treat these as refutations, or even arguments at all.
The proposition that "humans act is an irrefutably true proposition" is not an empirical proposition. It is not a proposition that attempts to say something like "For this entity right here that looks like me and is moving about like me and sounds like me, I propose that these observations entitle me to know that it is acting with a purpose." It is actually an irrefutably true proposition on the basis of knowing that any refutation of it would have to itself be logically categorized as a purposeful action in order for that refutation to be a refutation and not just sounds in the wind that only sound like a refutation. I cannot treat mere sounds in the wind as refutations of my argument. Only by treating the response as an action itself can it even make sense to me.
This is true for any entity that says their species acts. If any other member of their species is going to refute it, then that entity must categorize the response as a purposeful action in order for it to even qualify as a refutation.
So if I say "humans act", and you present me with something that looks humans, sounds human, and that zombie elicits sounds that resemble "No, humans don't act", then I cannot even consider those sounds as a refutation of my argument. You might as well show me a dog carrying a sign that reads "No, humans don't act."
"Major_Freedom: Reasonable based on what?"
"It depends on the definition of volition we are using."
Reasonable propositions are not based on mere definitions.
"Sufficient for "man acts" just means you can determine that they have a goal, perhaps they state it aloud, they formulate a plan, maybe they write it down, then they act on that plan to achieve the stated goal."
Sufficient for "man acts" is that they "act" on a plan? Tautology.
"Major_Freedom: I said PURPOSEFUL goal seeking. Not just looking like goal seeking."
"Purpose just means having a goal. Perhaps you are referring to consciousness."
Purpose means intended, and not just going through the motions.
"Major_Freedom: How is that "in other words"?"
"In that you just posted three more paragraphs without deducing a single thing from your single axiom."
You never asked.
"Perhaps it's like fairies, they disappear when you turn to look at them"
Perhaps if you wanted me to show you, you should have asked. But you have just been making error after error after error that I have been too busy correcting those errors, than answering questions you never asked as if I am supposed to read your mind.
Zachriel: And yet it is predictable that people will go about acquiring food.
Major_Freedom: Which people? No, it isn't "predictable."
Of course it's predictable. Let's try a simple test. Go to several grocery stores during the daytime. See if there are people shopping for food.
Zachriel: Statistics is a well-founded field.
Major_Freedom: So is astrology.
So your position depends on arguing that statistics is not a valid field of study.
Zachriel: And probabilistic predictions can be used to turn a consistent profit.
Major_Freedom: No they can't. If they could, then statistical mathematics PhDs would be the richest people in the world.
Casinos rely upon probability to turn a regular profit that depends only the number of patrons they can attract.
Zachriel: Comparative Anatomy: Humans are animals, which means they ingest food for energy and protein. Like all animals, they will seek food.
Major_Freedom: Which humans?
Funny thing about that. All humans are animals. Like all animals, humans ingest food for energy and protein.
Major_Freedom: What is coming true?
That people will ingest food.
Major_Freedom: LOL, what you call "generalizations" is a fudge factor that you need to cover up the fact that his equations are a priori.
While the derivation of Maxwell's Equations are deductive, the scientific validity depends on experimental confirmation of the physical axioms, such as the conservation of energy.
Major_Freedom: You didn't answer my question.
Zachriel: the laws of supply and demand have been confirmed in a wide variety of different circumstances. We can then predict with confidence what would happen in your scenario.
Just as we can have confidence concerning the effect of gravity on the surface of Mars without having to step foot on the planet.
Major_Freedom: You cannot observe the law of supply and demand taking place.
Of course you can. For example, if the supply of oil is disrupted, we can predict that the price will tend to increase. We can even test the relationship in controlled experiments.
Major_Freedom: "Generalization" is vague and undefined. What premises underlie the "generalization"? What sort of reasoning is being made when one "generalizes"?
We explained that above. The source of the hypothesis can be from any source, deep-thought, an educated guess, even a dream.
Major_Freedom: Economists, such as Mises and Rothbard, worked on the process of "generalization" called praxeological reasoning.
It doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from, but to have scientific validity, the hypothesis has to be reasonably consistent with the evidence, and entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Major_Freedom: Not all propositions are hypothetical-empirical.
No, they're not; for instance, the syllogism: if p then q, p, therefore q.
Major_Freedom: As noted above, the positivist method is itself not hypothetical-empirical.
No, but hypothetico-deduction is not the same as positivism. Positivism is a philosophical stance that only empirical study of natural phenomena is valid. While the scientific method is by nature empirical, you can practice the scientific method while still believing that other forms of knowledge are valid, such as mysticism, but that doesn't make these other forms of knowledge science.
Zachriel: Again, Maxwell based his equations on experimentally derived axioms.
Major_Freedom: Again, no he didn't. He based his equations in part on experiment, and in part on intuitive reasoning (understanding).
While Maxwell may have used his intutition as a guide to reach his conclusions, the basis of his equations are physical and mathematical axioms. Each step can be justified based on the axioms by which he derived the equations.
Zachriel: Can you point to a major scientific journal and published research that doesn't work with hypothesis testing?
Major_Freedom: Argument ad populum fallacy.
In other words, no. The meaning of terms are defined by usage, so argument ad populum is not a fallacy.
Major_Freedom: Sufficient for "man acts" is that they "act" on a plan? Tautology.
All definitions are tautologies. In this case, we are observing behavior to determine whether it meets the definition. If people state a goal, write down a plan, and then take the steps entailed in the plan, achieving the goal, then that is sufficient to reasonably conclude goal-seeking behavior.
Zachriel: In that you just posted three {now five} more paragraphs without deducing a single thing from your single axiom.
Major_Freedom: You never asked.
Zachriel: What can you deduce from this single axiom?
Major_Freedom: Not all propositions are hypothetical-empirical.
Here's a few others.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-is-truth.html
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Which people? No, it isn't "predictable.""
"Of course it's predictable."
No, it's not predictable based on constant causal factors.
"Let's try a simple test. Go to several grocery stores during the daytime. See if there are people shopping for food."
Which people? Which grocery stores? Based on what constant causal factors that describe their past actions?
You aren't making any constancy based predictions when it comes to human action.
"Major_Freedom: So is astrology."
"So your position depends on arguing that statistics is not a valid field of study."
No, it doesn't "depend" on it, and my actual position is that it is not valid in economic science.
"Major_Freedom: No they can't. If they could, then statistical mathematics PhDs would be the richest people in the world."
"Casinos rely upon probability to turn a regular profit that depends only the number of patrons they can attract."
Probability based on constant causal factors cannot enable you to predict when an individual is going to place a bet, where, when, and how much.
"Zachriel: Comparative Anatomy: Humans are animals, which means they ingest food for energy and protein. Like all animals, they will seek food."
"Major_Freedom: Which humans?"
"Funny thing about that. All humans are animals. Like all animals, humans ingest food for energy and protein."
Which humans?
My argument is that no constant relations exists that can enable you to know when, where, and what, a human will eat.
"Major_Freedom: What is coming true?"
"That people will ingest food."
Which people?
"Major_Freedom: LOL, what you call "generalizations" is a fudge factor that you need to cover up the fact that his equations are a priori."
"While the derivation of Maxwell's Equations are deductive, the scientific validity depends on experimental confirmation of the physical axioms, such as the conservation of energy."
While the derivation of economic principles utilizes concepts that begin with experience, the scientific validity of those principles depend on praxeological reasoning of the axioms, such as the law of supply and demand, the law of marginal utility, and the quantity theory of money. If anyone claims to have found evidence that contradicts these principles, then they are necessarily in error.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You didn't answer my question."
"Zachriel: the laws of supply and demand have been confirmed in a wide variety of different circumstances. We can then predict with confidence what would happen in your scenario."
First, you still didn't answer my question.
Second, you're still making the mistake of claiming the law of supply and demand is empirically confirmed. In reality, the law of supply and demand is not "confirmed" by observation. It is established and known a priori. It can never be empirically falsified because it is not established empirically. It is established a priori. All experience will necessarily obey it and never falsify it.
"Just as we can have confidence concerning the effect of gravity on the surface of Mars without having to step foot on the planet."
No, not just like gravity. Gravity is established empirically.
Economics concerns human actions who don't behave according to constancy in relations the way gravity does.
"Major_Freedom: You cannot observe the law of supply and demand taking place."
"Of course you can."
No, you cannot. You are observing price movements, you are observing supply changes, and you are observing demand changes, but the law of supply of demand is not borne out of these data.
"For example, if the supply of oil is disrupted, we can predict that the price will tend to increase. We can even test the relationship in controlled experiments."
The fact that you said "tend" to increase only proves there is no constancy.
You can't know the price will rise based on any constancy, because you can't know that the future demand will remain the same, or increase, or fall but doesn't fall by enough to result in a rise in price. You can't know what will happen to the demand based on constant causal relations because they depend on human choices.
If you expect the supply of oil will rise, and it does, then you haven't proven the existence of constancy in whatever equation you used. But it is possible that your expectation will turn out wrong. The price of oil could fall.
You can't "test" any constancy relation because all you would be doing is tabulating past history, past choices, past knowledge, past values. There is no constancy between "I purchased 1 million barrels of crude oil for $100 a barrel yesterday" and "The price I will pay tomorrow will be F(past price, past supply)."
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: "Generalization" is vague and undefined. What premises underlie the "generalization"? What sort of reasoning is being made when one "generalizes"?"
"We explained that above."
No, you didn't. All you did was beg the question and say the generalizations on the observations are based on generalizations about observations.
"The source of the hypothesis can be from any source, deep-thought, an educated guess, even a dream."
Economic science is not a hypothetical science. The law of marginal utility, and other economic propositions, are not hypothetical theories that requires testing such that they will remain hypothetical until they are tested. Economic propositions are logically deduced propositions.
"Major_Freedom: Economists, such as Mises and Rothbard, worked on the process of "generalization" called praxeological reasoning."
"It doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from, but to have scientific validity, the hypothesis has to be reasonably consistent with the evidence, and entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions."
Economic propositions are not hypotheses. They are not hypothetical propositions that require testing. I don't need to test the proposition "There is no prices for the means of production in (universal) economic socialism, and therefore cost accounting would be impossible." I don't need to observe the world actually trying it before the proposition is "confirmed" as true.
I don't need to "test" the law of marginal utility: "Whenever the supply of a good increases by one additional unit, provided each unit is regarded as of equal serviceability by a person, the value attached to this unit must decrease." This proposition cannot even be observed, let alone confirmed through observation. You can observe the motions taking place, but you cannot observe the law taking place.
"Major_Freedom: Not all propositions are hypothetical-empirical."
"No, they're not; for instance, the syllogism: if p then q, p, therefore q."
Economic science consists of propositions that are not hypothetical-empirical. Economic HISTORY on the other hand does consist of hypothetical-empirical propositions. I can't know what you did yesterday until I observe what you did. But I can know that you did not violate any of the economic propositions I explained above.
"Major_Freedom: As noted above, the positivist method is itself not hypothetical-empirical."
"No, but hypothetico-deduction is not the same as positivism."
The hypothetico-deductive pronouncement is not itself hypothetico-deductive.
"Positivism is a philosophical stance that only empirical study of natural phenomena is valid."
The hypothetico-deductive method presumes the philosophical positivist position.
"While the scientific method is by nature empirical, you can practice the scientific method while still believing that other forms of knowledge are valid, such as mysticism, but that doesn't make these other forms of knowledge science."
False. The scientific method is not by nature empirical. The scientific method begins with experience, but not all scientific propositions arise or are CONFIRMED through experience.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Again, no he didn't. He based his equations in part on experiment, and in part on intuitive reasoning (understanding)."
"While Maxwell may have used his intutition as a guide to reach his conclusions, the basis of his equations are physical and mathematical axioms."
Mathematics is not an empirical science. Once again, boom goes your contradictory worldview.
"Each step can be justified based on the axioms by which he derived the equations."
Mathematical axioms are grounded in praxeology.
"Zachriel: Can you point to a major scientific journal and published research that doesn't work with hypothesis testing?
"Major_Freedom: Argument ad populum fallacy."
"In other words, no."
In other words, argument ad populum.
"The meaning of terms are defined by usage, so argument ad populum is not a fallacy."
False. The DEFINITIONS of terms are established by usage, but the MEANING of terms must have a concrete reference to reality. That is where all epistemological pronouncements and thus methodologies must be ultimately judged. Not how many journals utilize it. That is truth by consensus.
"Major_Freedom: Sufficient for "man acts" is that they "act" on a plan? Tautology."
"All definitions are tautologies."
Man acts is not a definition. It is a proposition about reality.
"In this case, we are observing behavior to determine whether it meets the definition."
You're still confused. Human action is not a definition. It is a proposition concerning something real.
The validity of the proposition is not confirmed by observing humans and "see whether it meets the definition" of human action.
"If people state a goal, write down a plan, and then take the steps entailed in the plan, achieving the goal, then that is sufficient to reasonably conclude goal-seeking behavior."
You don't know they are purposefully doing all of these things by merely observing their motions.
The fact that you had to say "reasonably conclude" is just more of your inability to understand the arguments. The arguments "humans act" cannot be refuted by any human, not just those you happen to see, because we can know prior to observing any humans that if they are going to attempt to refute it, then their attempt at refuting it must logically be categorized as an action. It must be categorized that way because if it isn't, then what they say cannot even qualify as a refutation of an argument. I could just be talking to a zombie who says a particular set of words in response to hearing a certain set of words, and there would be no grounds for categorizing his words as a refutation.
"Major_Freedom: You never asked."
"Zachriel: What can you deduce from this single axiom?"
I already said at the very start. Praxeology, in combination with thymology, deduces the entire field of what can be known in economic theory: The quantity theory, the law of marginal utility, the law of supply and demand, the law of coerced exchange, the Ricardian law of association (i.e. law of comparative advantage), the connection between minimum enforced minimum wage laws and unemployment, etc.
"Major_Freedom: Not all propositions are hypothetical-empirical."
"Here's a few others."
"http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-is-truth.html"
Quite frankly, and I am not just saying this to be rude for the sake of being rude, but I am not interested in reading a blog from a simpleton. It would be an incredible waste of time.
Major_Freedom: No, it's not predictable based on constant causal factors.
Of course it's predictable based on the word-salad, "constant causal factor", that animals require energy which they get by ingesting food. If you want to quantitize it, put it in calories or equivalent measure.
Major_Freedom: Which people?
All people ingest food. If you are new to the study of featherless bipeds, you might try to observe these humans for a while. Oddly enough, they think with their meat.
Major_Freedom: Probability based on constant causal factors cannot enable you to predict when an individual is going to place a bet, where, when, and how much.
In the statistical aggregate, which, contrary to your previous assertion, is what counts when it comes to making money in a casino.
Major_Freedom: No, you cannot. You are observing price movements, you are observing supply changes, and you are observing demand changes, but the law of supply of demand is not borne out of these data.
Of course it is. We observe the relationship between price and supply.
Major_Freedom: The fact that you said "tend" to increase only proves there is no constancy.
Of course it's a tendency. For instance, with oil, it's possible people will switch to alternative sources of energy, which bends the supply and demand curve.
Major_Freedom: The hypothetico-deductive method presumes the philosophical positivist position.
Um, no. Many scientists are not philosophical positivists. Some are even mystics.
Major_Freedom: Human action is not a definition. It is a proposition concerning something real.
You defined "Man acts" above as goal-seeking behavior.
Major_Freedom: Praxeology, in combination with thymology, deduces the entire field of what can be known in economic theory
In other words, everything but no single thing.
Major_Freedom: Quite frankly, and I am not just saying this to be rude for the sake of being rude, but I am not interested in reading a blog from a simpleton. It would be an incredible waste of time.
Heh, so you will spin thousands of words without deriving a single thing from your single axiom. But you won't read a simple and short blog on non-scientific statements—when we are agreeing with you. That's okay. It was for our readers, not you particularly.
Beauty is Truth
Major_Freedom: No, it doesn't "depend" on {statistics}, and my actual position is that it is not valid in economic science.
This is why we bother to post. To find gems like this. Thank you so much.
There's a whole field called economic statistics, which has to do with collecting and analyzing economic data; for instance, what is the average price of milk in Cincinnati, or the average number of people tweeting per hour, or how many people watched the Superbowl.
Major freedom actually compared statistics to astrology - this blog gets weirder All the time.
There is a paper in Nature about pedestrian simulation. I had student do an honors thesis implementing the method, a computer simulation, with surprisingly realistic results. The technique is now used in the architectural design of public places to avoid bottlenecks and traffic jams especially during emergencies.
How does this impinge on the human behavior cannot be predicted debate going on here?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: No, it's not predictable based on constant causal factors."
"Of course it's predictable based on the word-salad, "constant causal factor", that animals require energy which they get by ingesting food. If you want to quantitize it, put it in calories or equivalent measure."
It's not word salad. The fact that animals require food is not a prediction of human action based on constant causal factors.
"Major_Freedom: Which people?"
"All people ingest food. If you are new to the study of featherless bipeds, you might try to observe these humans for a while. Oddly enough, they think with their meat."
Not all people choose to ingest food. Anorexics choose not to eat food. Those on a starvation protest choose not to eat food.
Knowing that animals need food in order to live is not an example of predicting what an individual will choose to do in the future based on some past events.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Probability based on constant causal factors cannot enable you to predict when an individual is going to place a bet, where, when, and how much."
"In the statistical aggregate, which, contrary to your previous assertion, is what counts when it comes to making money in a casino."
Statistical aggregates do not inform us of what an individual human actor will do, which, contrary to your previous assertion, is actually what counts when it comes to claiming to be able to predict human choices based on constancy relations.
If you told me "people will eat food", then that doesn't mean if I open a grocery store tomorrow that I can earn a profit by utilizing some constancy equation that can predict what people will do based on what they did in the past.
If you told me "casinos can earn a profit by using statistics", same thing.
You're not understanding the argument being presented and you are instead resorting to making biological statements, and vague references to statistics being used by casinos as tools to assist in forming their expectation, all the while failing to comprehend what the "word salad" actually means.
"Major_Freedom: No, you cannot. You are observing price movements, you are observing supply changes, and you are observing demand changes, but the law of supply of demand is not borne out of these data."
"Of course it is."
No, of course it is not.
You can observe price movements, but you cannot from the observation alone derive the law of supply and demand.
"Major_Freedom: The fact that you said "tend" to increase only proves there is no constancy."
"Of course it's a tendency."
You're blind. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I clearly said "There is no constancy", and then you reply with "Of course it's a tendency", as if I said "There is no tendency."
Of course it's a....of course it's a...
This is not how to form arguments.
"For instance, with oil, it's possible people will switch to alternative sources of energy, which bends the supply and demand curve."
The fact that you said "it's possible" is proof there is no constancy.
Zachriel: "Of course it's possible." LOL
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The hypothetico-deductive method presumes the philosophical positivist position."
"Um, no."
Um, yes.
"Many scientists are not philosophical positivists. Some are even mystics."
Irrelevant red herring.
I was referring to the hypothetico-deductive method itself, not the percentage of the population of scientists who are not philosophical positivists.
According to the hypothetico-deductive method, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data.
According to the positivist methodology, the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on observation and verification of theories concerning observation.
The hypothetico-deductive methodology therefore is based on the philosophy of positivism. It presupposes its validity.
"Major_Freedom: Human action is not a definition. It is a proposition concerning something real."
"You defined "Man acts" above as goal-seeking behavior."
Man acts has a definition, but its actual reality is not a definition.
"Major_Freedom: Praxeology, in combination with thymology, deduces the entire field of what can be known in economic theory"
"In other words, everything but no single thing."
In other words, everything and every single thing.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Quite frankly, and I am not just saying this to be rude for the sake of being rude, but I am not interested in reading a blog from a simpleton. It would be an incredible waste of time."
"Heh, so you will spin thousands of words without deriving a single thing from your single axiom."
I just showed you no less than 4 economic propositions that are derived from human action in combination with thymology.
"But you won't read a simple and short blog on non-scientific statements—when we are agreeing with you."
I don't read blogs of simpletons. Sorry.
"Major_Freedom: No, it doesn't "depend" on {statistics}, and my actual position is that it is not valid in economic science."
"This is why we bother to post. To find gems like this. Thank you so much."
You're welcome. The hilarious thing is that you actually believe statistics can be used for something other than studying economic history. This follows from your confusion of conflating theory with history in the world of economics. In economics, theory and history are separate fields of inquiry.
"There's a whole field called economic statistics, which has to do with collecting and analyzing economic data; for instance, what is the average price of milk in Cincinnati, or the average number of people tweeting per hour, or how many people watched the Superbowl."
All economic history and data collection. Not economic science, not economic theory. Your examples concern past prices of milk, past tweets, past viewership of football games. None of this data elicits any constancy relations than makes future prices of milk, future tweets, and future viewership of football games predictable according to those constancy relations.
110,234,224 million people can watch the Superbowl one year. There is no constancy relation however than can enable you to know how many people will watch the Superbowl next year.
macroman:
"Major freedom actually compared statistics to astrology - this blog gets weirder All the time."
In the field of economic theory, yes, statistics are astrology.
In the field of economic history, it's perfectly valid.
You should actually read and understand arguments before you consider yourself capable of criticizing them. Trying to find something to argue against that I never said is the straw man fallacy. But hey, no less is expected from you.
macroman:
"There is a paper in Nature about pedestrian simulation. I had student do an honors thesis implementing the method, a computer simulation, with surprisingly realistic results. The technique is now used in the architectural design of public places to avoid bottlenecks and traffic jams especially during emergencies."
"How does this impinge on the human behavior cannot be predicted debate going on here?"
The paper than you read cannot be used to predict the choices that any individual will make. It is a paper than shows something like "given X number of people choose to walk through this passage, this will be the outcome that is most likely to occur when repeated over time. It won't guarantee no bottlenecks, because individual people can choose to walk slower, and so we cannot claim there is a constancy here. But over time, over a number of days, we expect the bottlnecks to be reduced, and so far, it has did what we expected, given people's choices."
Look, I am not saying that it is impossible to succeed when predicting people's future choices. Clearly it can be done. We all do it. My actual arguments are that there is nothing that can be learned in textbooks that can enable anyone to predict human choices according to constancy the way we can predict the tides, the phases of the moon, the electron affinity of an oxygen atom, the heat capacity of a volume of water, or the gravitational force experienced a certain distance away from a mass, and that economic propositions are grounded, established, confirmed according to self-reflection on ourselves as acting entities, which is non-hypothetical and non-empirical. We can do this because we are actors. We have to presuppose that everything that doesn't act, obeys constancy.
Major_Freedom: You can observe price movements, but you cannot from the observation alone derive the law of supply and demand.
Sure you can. You can even run controlled experiments to show the relationship.
Major_Freedom: According to the hypothetico-deductive method, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. According to the positivist methodology, the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on observation and verification of theories concerning observation. The hypothetico-deductive methodology therefore is based on the philosophy of positivism. It presupposes its validity.
Of course not. Just because someone uses hypothetico-deductive methodology doesn't mean they think it's the only authentic knowledge. That's why it's called a methodology.
Major_Freedom: There is no constancy relation however than can enable you to know how many people will watch the Superbowl next year.
Let's make a rough estimate. Millions.
Major_Freedom: In the field of economic theory, yes, statistics are astrology.
Heh.
Major_Freedom: Look, I am not saying that it is impossible to succeed when predicting people's future choices. Clearly it can be done.
How many weeks did that admission take?
Major_Freedom: the electron affinity of an oxygen atom
Let's consider this example. You do understand that you can't predict a single electron with certainty? However, statistically, you can predict the behavior of electrons in aggregate, allowing for toasters and computers.
Major_Freedom: We can do this because we are actors.
Your introspection only applies to yourself. You have to infer that others have consciousness from observations of their behaviors. However, we can certainly take this as an axiom. But, after thousands of words, we still haven't seen you derive a single thing from this single axiom.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You can observe price movements, but you cannot from the observation alone derive the law of supply and demand."
"Sure you can."
No, you can't.
The controlled experiments do not "show" the relationship. They would invariably and consistently obey the logically necessary relationship. But the observations themselves cannot be known through observation.
"Major_Freedom: According to the hypothetico-deductive method, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. According to the positivist methodology, the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on observation and verification of theories concerning observation. The hypothetico-deductive methodology therefore is based on the philosophy of positivism. It presupposes its validity."
"Of course not."
Of course yes.
You claimed that "the" scientific method is hypothetico-deduction. You didn't say "a" scientific method is hypothetico-deduction. Because you said "the", that presupposes positivism.
The context was someone who says hypothetico-deduction is "the", meaning the only valid, scientific method, and thus the only method that gives us authentic knowledge.
You're now changing goal posts and pretending that all along you have only proposed it as an option among others.
"Major_Freedom: There is no constancy relation however than can enable you to know how many people will watch the Superbowl next year."
"Let's make a rough estimate. Millions."
The fact that you had to say "rough estimate" is just more evidence there are no constancies.
"Major_Freedom: In the field of economic theory, yes, statistics are astrology."
"Heh."
Ha.
"Major_Freedom: Look, I am not saying that it is impossible to succeed when predicting people's future choices. Clearly it can be done."
"How many weeks did that admission take?"
I've always held it, it's just not the argument I am addressing. You are talking past the argument I am making and believing I am denying the above position. This is brought about by your failure to understand that which you choose to criticize.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: the electron affinity of an oxygen atom"
"Let's consider this example. You do understand that you can't predict a single electron with certainty?"
Who said anything about certainty?
I am not even certain about what I myself will know next week and thus what I will do based on that knowledge next week. I could learn of something new that leads me to altering my behavior away from where it would have lead me had I known something different. I could get a phone call, learn of something new, and then alter my behavior because I have chosen to act on a new path that utilizes this new knowledge.
"However, statistically, you can predict the behavior of electrons in aggregate, allowing for toasters and computers."
It's good that you bring up quantum mechanics, because it serves as a useful, albeit unrelated, analogy.
Just like quantum mechanics tells us that individual HUMANS cannot predict with arbitrary precision both the location and velocity vector of a particle, the same is true for individual humans vis a vis other individual humans. However, unlike our observing and predicting of particles, individual humans have "inside information" when it comes to their own behavior and choices.
"Major_Freedom: We can do this because we are actors."
"Your introspection only applies to yourself."
False. It applies to all acting entities.
It applies to any actor who claims to be refuting me for saying it applies to all other actors, because their refutation will have to be logically categorized, by myself and by them, as a purposeful action, or else we can't even agree that it is a refutation, let alone an argument. But refuting that one is acting is a performative contradiction. Because of that, my argument that introspection applies to all actors cannot ever be refuted even in principle.
"You have to infer that others have consciousness from observations of their behaviors."
Inference does not mean it is hypothetical only and cannot be known. You are totally mistaken in assuming that inferencing is somehow nothing more than an educated guess.
"However, we can certainly take this as an axiom."
According to your belief, it would mistakenly be considered arbitrary.
"But, after thousands of words, we still haven't seen you derive a single thing from this single axiom."
I've already said that I have already shown no less than 4 such propositions.
Furthermore, I never said that all economics can be derived from a single axiom. I said that it can be derived from praxeology in combination with thymology.
Major_Freedom: The controlled experiments do not "show" the relationship.
If, in a controlled experiment, we apply a current, and it creates a magnetic field, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, then we have shown the relationship.
If, in a controlled experiment, we increase the price, and quantity demanded drops, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, then we have shown the relationship.
Major_Freedom: You claimed that "the" scientific method is hypothetico-deduction.
Zachriel: "While there is no single scientific method, the scientific method is characterized by matching evidence (data) to theory (models)."
Major_Freedom: Because you said "the", that presupposes positivism.
It doesn't matter if there is one or several methodologies. Using scientific methodology doesn't imply believing there are no other ways of knowing. It's not that complicated.
HD = Hypothetico-deduction
SM = Scientific Methodology
WK = Way of Knowing
HD ⊂ SM ⊂ WK implies that HD ⊂ WK. However, X ⊂ WK does not imply that X ⊂ SM.
Major_Freedom: According to your belief, it would mistakenly be considered arbitrary.
Zachriel: "However, empirically, you can reach a reasonable conclusion that other people are volitional."
Major_Freedom: I've already said that I have already shown no less than 4 such propositions.
You didn't derive a single thing.
Major_Freedom: My actual arguments are that there is nothing that can be learned in textbooks that can enable anyone to predict human choices according to constancy the way we can predict ... the electron affinity of an oxygen atom ...
Perhaps you missed the point. The actions of electrons can't be predicted except statistically. What is the "constancy" for an individual electron?
test
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The controlled experiments do not "show" the relationship."
"If, in a controlled experiment, we apply a current, and it creates a magnetic field, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, then we have shown the relationship."
Economics is not a controlled experiment science.
"If, in a controlled experiment, we increase the price, and quantity demanded drops, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, then we have shown the relationship."
No, all you have shown is past historical data. You have not shown any theoretical constancy.
You cannot run a controlled experiment in economics.
If you as a seller increase the price of your goods, and the quantity demanded drops, then you can only say that at that time, in that place, under those circumstances, the money demand did not rise to maintain the same quantity demanded.
You cannot "repeat" this experiment, because the people are different, they know different things, technology has changed, people's preferences have changed, resources are different, in short, the information is different. You cannot rerun "experiments" in economics because the subject matter changes, not only by virtue of considerations outside the "experiment," but also by virtue of the "experiments" themselves.
"Major_Freedom: According to your belief, it would mistakenly be considered arbitrary."
"Zachriel: "However, empirically, you can reach a reasonable conclusion that other people are volitional."
"Reasonable" according to what standard?
"Major_Freedom: I've already said that I have already shown no less than 4 such propositions."
"You didn't derive a single thing."
I said I have shown no less than 4 such propositions. I didn't say I derived them. If you want to see how they are derived, read
http://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf
and
http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf
and
http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf
"Major_Freedom: My actual arguments are that there is nothing that can be learned in textbooks that can enable anyone to predict human choices according to constancy the way we can predict ... the electron affinity of an oxygen atom ..."
"Perhaps you missed the point. The actions of electrons can't be predicted except statistically."
Perhaps you missed the point I made. The actions of an individual can't be predicted based on any constancy derived from observing past statistics.
The fact that you relegate yourself to having to make statistical inferences based on large populations of individuals, none of whom you can predict individually, is just more evidence that there is no constancy relations.
"What is the "constancy" for an individual electron?"
Planck's constant.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You claimed that "the" scientific method is hypothetico-deduction."
"Zachriel: "While there is no single scientific method, the scientific method is characterized by matching evidence (data) to theory (models)."
Nice try, but that is not the quote you made that I was referring to. I was referring to this one:
"We observe. We form or refine generalizations. We deduce from these generalizations new observations. We observe. It's called hypothetico-deduction, the heart of the scientific method."
You said hypothetico-deduction is "the" heart of "the" scientific method.
Try again, LOL.
"Major_Freedom: Because you said "the", that presupposes positivism."
"It doesn't matter if there is one or several methodologies. Using scientific methodology doesn't imply believing there are no other ways of knowing. It's not that complicated."
You did it again. You now insinuated even more subtly that "scientific methodology" is monopolized by positivism. I am saying positivism and the hypothetico-deductive methodology don't have a monopoly on "scientific methodology". You are saying that those who reject positivism and hypthetico-deduction in economics are somehow using "a way of knowing" that is distinct and separate from "scientific methodology."
That is what you said when you said hypothetico-deduction is "the" heart of "the" scientific method before, and what you are now saying here when you subtly insinuated that I am offering a methodology that is not included in "scientific methodology."
I was addressing your incorrect assertion that positivism is "the" only way to proceed in science, and a further incorrect assertion that is built on that which was that hypothetico-deduction is "the" heart of "the" scientific method.
Positivism, and hypothetico-deduction that is based on postivism, are but one epistemology and scientific methodology among more than one epistemologies and scientific methodologies.
Rationalism is another epistemology, and praxeology/thymology are another scientific methodology.
"HD = Hypothetico-deduction
SM = Scientific Methodology
WK = Way of Knowing"
"HD ⊂ SM ⊂ WK implies that HD ⊂ WK. However, X ⊂ WK does not imply that X ⊂ SM."
The argument you made, to which I rejected, was this one:
HD = SM
Major_Freedom: Economics is not a controlled experiment science.
Yet you just said, "The controlled experiments do not 'show' the relationship". We can certainly run controlled experiments concerning market interactions.
Major_Freedom: No, all you have shown is past historical data.
If, in a controlled experiment, we apply a current, and it creates a magnetic field, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, all we have is past historical data, yet we still conclude there is a relationship.
Major_Freedom: You cannot run a controlled experiment in economics.
There are research departments on experimental economics at major universities, including at MIT, University of York, and Harvard University.
"There was a time when the conventional wisdom was that, because economics is a science concerned with complex, naturally occurring systems, laboratory experiments had little to offer economists. But experimental economics has now become a well-established tool of economic research."
http://kuznets.harvard.edu/~aroth/exper.html
Experimental economics can help us understand how and when people will cooperate, or to determine at what point markets will reach equilibrium.
Major_Freedom: The actions of an individual can't be predicted based on any constancy derived from observing past statistics.
You pointed to the " constancy the way we can predict ... the electron affinity of an oxygen atom". Can you predict the action of an individual electron?
Major_Freedom: You said hypothetico-deduction is "the" heart of "the" scientific method.
Yes. However, individual scientists may not work in such a direct fashion. Some just collect data, other categorize it, some just think about the data, others confirm what others have hypothesized. There is a social aspect to science, such as publishing, setting up experiments or instruments, funding, etc. so while hypothetico-deduction is the heart of the scientific method, it does not encompass the whole of it.
Major_Freedom: The argument you made, to which I rejected, was this one: HD = SM
That doesn't change the relationship stated above. Given,
HD ⊆ SM ⊂ WK, you claim that if HD = SM, HD = WK *necessarily follows*. That is fallacious.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Economics is not a controlled experiment science."
"Yet you just said, "The controlled experiments do not 'show' the relationship". We can certainly run controlled experiments concerning market interactions."
No, economics is not a controlled experiment science. Notice how I put "experiment" in quotes.
You can observe what happens, tally the data, but you aren't revealing any constancy relations.
"Major_Freedom: No, all you have shown is past historical data."
"If, in a controlled experiment, we apply a current, and it creates a magnetic field, and we can reliably repeat the experiment, all we have is past historical data, yet we still conclude there is a relationship."
The economy is not a magnet nor is it an electric current.
The fact that you feel compelled to continually refer to hard science analogies only proves that you can't do what you claim can be done in the economy.
"Major_Freedom: You cannot run a controlled experiment in economics."
"There are research departments on experimental economics at major universities, including at MIT, University of York, and Harvard University."
Fallacy of authority.
Experimental economics is astrology.
"There was a time when the conventional wisdom was that, because economics is a science concerned with complex, naturally occurring systems, laboratory experiments had little to offer economists."
There was a time before that conventional wisdom, when "serious" people denied economic laws and rationalist epistemology and considered the economy the way the conventional wisdom now considers it.
"But experimental economics has now become a well-established tool of economic research."
It doesn't show anything except for economic history. Not only are non-real world, artificially controlled economic "experiments" unable to elucidate any constancy principles, but the very "experiments" themselves change the subject matter that is being studied (the people).
Then you have to consider what happens to the experimenter as well. He must learn in unpredictable ways, or else there would be no point in running the "experiments" in the first place. And to the extent that his actions are based on knowledge, he will act in unpredictable ways as well. Therefore, the experiment itself cannot prove that any constancy relation exists in human actions. It not only can't prove them, but it must be logically treated as impossible in proving them. This last is because the very act in performing the experiment presupposes the outcome is at the outset unknowable. If the outcome is unknowable at the outset, then so are the resulting actions based on having knowledge of the outcome.
This is always true for all experiments. Constancy must be assumed in everything but the people themselves, or else the people cannot consider themselves to be learning anything. Because constancy must be assumed in everything but the people, it means it is a logical absurdity to claim that experiments can elucidate constancies in action.
"Experimental economics can help us understand how and when people will cooperate, or to determine at what point markets will reach equilibrium."
"Help us understand" how exactly? What is the inference being made when 10 people engage in a controlled economics "experiment" and a certain outcome is reached? Why should it apply to others, why should it be constant for the people involved and others, and what is the basis for assuming this constancy?
If I buy a $5.00 sandwich everyday for 100 days in a row, there is no scientific law that says I MUST buy a $5.00 tomorrow. Humans have choice. We act according to choice that is derived from knowledge, not constant causal factors.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The actions of an individual can't be predicted based on any constancy derived from observing past statistics."
"You pointed to the " constancy the way we can predict ... the electron affinity of an oxygen atom". Can you predict the action of an individual electron?"
Electrons don't act.
And yes, individual electrons can be predicted. Not to an arbitrary accuracy, but there is constancy assumed. The Planck constant underlies all quantum behavior. The fact that we cannot predict the electron to an arbitrary accuracy doesn't mean that scientists don't assume constancy is inherent in the behavior of individual electrons. The Schrodinger wave function and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are both based on constancy (Planck's constant), and constant regularity in behavior.
"Major_Freedom: You said hypothetico-deduction is "the" heart of "the" scientific method."
"Yes."
That is the fallacious assertion I rejected.
"However,..."
Desperation.
"...so while hypothetico-deduction is the heart of the scientific method, it does not encompass the whole of it."
Hypothetico-deduction method is NOT "the" heart of the scientific method, since it is not the only method that is scientific!
"Major_Freedom: The argument you made, to which I rejected, was this one: HD = SM"
"That doesn't change the relationship stated above."
[Facepalm]
When I originally rejected your incorrect assertion that HD = SM, at that point you had not written the relationship stated above. That relationship you stated above is not what you originally said. To tell me that your incorrect assertion that HD = SM
"doesn't change the relationship stated above" is textbook red herring.
"Given,"
Oh great, more red herring nonsense.
"HD ⊆ SM ⊂ WK, you claim that if HD = SM, HD = WK *necessarily follows*. That is fallacious."
LOL, I didn't claim that. That's a straw man.
I said you are wrong to claim HD = SM. That is what you said.
In addition, you changed the symbology from HD ⊂ SM ⊂ WK, to HD ⊆ SM ⊂ WK instead. How can you claim that I made an argument that takes into account HD ⊆ SM ⊂ WK, before you even proposed it? You're making no sense.
You originally said HD = SM. That is what I rejected.
Major_Freedom: Notice how I put "experiment" in quotes.
You put 'show' in quotes.
Major_Freedom: The economy is not a magnet nor is it an electric current.
No. However, one way to determine relationships is by doing controlled experiments. That you continue to wave your hands without addressing the comment is telling.
Zachriel: There are research departments on experimental economics at major universities, including at MIT, University of York, and Harvard University.
Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority. Experimental economics is astrology.
Ad hominem. Casting aspersions and waving your hands doesn't make an argument. Certainly all the economists in all the universities that work on experimental economics may be wrong, and Major_Freedom could be right. Not likely.
Major_Freedom: This is always true for all experiments.
Which is why businesses spend millions on marketing research.
Major_Freedom: And yes, individual electrons can be predicted. Not to an arbitrary accuracy,
Only statistically, because if you know with precision where the electron is, you can't know where it's going, and if you know with precision where the electron is going, then you can't know where it is.
Similarly, people can be predictable, just not to an arbitrary accuracy.
Major_Freedom: You originally said HD = SM. That is what I rejected.
Please get it right. Zachriel: "While there is no single scientific method ..."
Meanwhile, you did falsely say that the hypothetico-deductive methodology is based on the philosophy of positivism. Again, just because hypothetico-deduction is part of science doesn't mean it is the only way of knowing. One can be a positivist or a mystic and use hypothetico-deduction.
-
Note: ⊂ and ⊆ are often synonyms. We changed to the latter symbol for clarity.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: And yes, individual electrons can be predicted. Not to an arbitrary accuracy,"
"Only statistically, because if you know with precision where the electron is, you can't know where it's going, and if you know with precision where the electron is going, then you can't know where it is."
"Statistically" based on constancy in behavior.
"Similarly, people can be predictable, just not to an arbitrary accuracy."
Not based on constancy in relations. If that were true, econometrician PhDs would be the world's richest people.
"Major_Freedom: You originally said HD = SM. That is what I rejected."
"Please get it right."
I already did. You're just backtracking now.
"Zachriel: "While there is no single scientific method ..."
You said that after.
"Meanwhile, you did falsely say that the hypothetico-deductive methodology is based on the philosophy of positivism."
That isn't a false claim. That is true. The hypothetico-deductive methodology is based on the philosophy of positivism.
"Again, just because hypothetico-deduction is part of science doesn't mean it is the only way of knowing."
First, that's irrelevant, and second, that's not what you originally said that I rejected.
"One can be a positivist or a mystic and use hypothetico-deduction."
Positivism and mysticism are not mutually exclusive.
Those who use HD, are using a methodology based on positivism.
"Note: ⊂ and ⊆ are often synonyms. We changed to the latter symbol for clarity."
"We"? Who else is there besides you?
And you changed it to clarity what exactly? It's irrelevant anyway. You said HD = SM, and that's wrong.
The heart of the scientific method is not HD. The heart of the SM is self-reflective reasoning. It's what underlies the actor's constancy assumption for non-acting entities, it's what underlies mathematics, it's what underlies the reality of "observation", it's what underlies everything that can be known by human actors.
Major_Freedom: "Statistically" based on constancy in behavior.
You can't predict the position and trajectory of an electron. And if you have two electrons starting at the same point, they will trace different, unpredictable paths.
Major_Freedom: You said that after.
Three days, nine hours, six minutes ago.
Major_Freedom: The hypothetico-deductive methodology is based on the philosophy of positivism.
Do you understand the word "method"? Hypothetico-deductive methodology is no more based on positivism than a cookbook is.
Major_Freedom: Positivism and mysticism are not mutually exclusive.
There are several definitions of positivism, but it usually entails rejecting introspection.
Major_Freedom: The heart of the SM is self-reflective reasoning.
Wow!
Here's a few common definitions of the scientific method:
Dictionary
Oxford, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
For Kids
Science Buddy, The steps of the Scientific Method are: Observation/Research, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experimentation, Conclusion.
University
University of Rochester: The scientific method has four steps, 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Scientific Institution
NASA: Review background information, State the problem, Form a hypothesis, Design and perform the experiment, Collect and analyze data, Draw conclusions.
Zachriel: The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
test
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: "Statistically" based on constancy in behavior."
"You can't predict the position and trajectory of an electron."
You can't predict it to an arbitrarily accurate degree no. But scientists still assume the electron behaves according to constant causal factors. It's why they utilize Planck's constant.
No such constants exist for human action.
"And if you have two electrons starting at the same point, they will trace different, unpredictable paths."
Sure, if they have different velocity vectors.
"Major_Freedom: You said that after."
"Three days, nine hours, six minutes ago."
And again.
"Major_Freedom: The hypothetico-deductive methodology is based on the philosophy of positivism."
"Do you understand the word "method"?"
Do you understand that every method of inquiring into the natural world has an identifiable philosophical foundation that presupposes a specific epistemology for that method?
"Hypothetico-deductive methodology is no more based on positivism than a cookbook is."
False. Hypothetico-deduction the method has a philosophical foundation called positivism.
Do you not understand anything regarding the philosophy of science?
"Major_Freedom: Positivism and mysticism are not mutually exclusive."
"There are several definitions of positivism, but it usually entails rejecting introspection."
Which is exactly why it is unsuited to economic science, which is based on introspection.
"Major_Freedom: The heart of the SM is self-reflective reasoning."
"Wow!"
HOLY MACKEREL!
"Here's a few common definitions of the scientific method:"
All based on positivism, all suited to the natural sciences, all not suited to economic science.
"Zachriel: The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat."
No, that's the positivism based method. It's not "the" scientific method, and it is certainly not the basis of economic science.
Zachriel: And if you have two electrons starting at the same point, they will trace different, unpredictable paths.
Major_Freedom: Sure, if they have different velocity vectors.
If they start at the same point, meaning we have precise knowledge concerning their position, then per the Uncertainty Principle, we can have *no* information about their momenta.
Werner Heisenberg, Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift für Physik 1927.
Major_Freedom: Do you understand that every method of inquiring into the natural world has an identifiable philosophical foundation that presupposes a specific epistemology for that method?
A method is like a cookbook. You don't have to even believe in cakes to follow the directions.
Major_Freedom: HOLY MACKEREL!
That's right. We provides citations from dictionaries, student resources, universities and scientific institutions. You wave your hands and say "Is not!"
test
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Sure, if they have different velocity vectors."
"If they start at the same point, meaning we have precise knowledge concerning their position, then per the Uncertainty Principle, we can have *no* information about their momenta."
Two electron wave functions cannot coexist in the same exact point of spacetime.
"Major_Freedom: Do you understand that every method of inquiring into the natural world has an identifiable philosophical foundation that presupposes a specific epistemology for that method?"
"A method is like a cookbook."
I'll take that as a resounding no.
"Major_Freedom: HOLY MACKEREL!"
"That's right."
That's right? How would you know? Nothing of what you say is right.
"We provides citations from dictionaries, student resources, universities and scientific institutions. You wave your hands and say "Is not!"
No, I say all your sources are sources of the positivism based method of scientific inquiry.
I'm not "hand waving." I am identifying them, and telling you that positivism based methodologies aren't applicable to that which is not constant in nature. Human action is not based on constancy, and thus economic science cannot utilize any method that presumes it.
You are hand waving at this irrefutable fact of constancy, and saying "No it's not!"
longest comment thread ever? lol
Major_Freedom: Two electron wave functions cannot coexist in the same exact point of spacetime.
That's right, but they can be at the same point in space at different times. You are clearly avoiding your error. If you have an electron at a particular point in space, then you cannot predict its trajectory.
Major_Freedom: I'll take that as a resounding no.
Avoidance. Computers are methodical, but most have no philosophy.
Major_Freedom: I say all your sources are sources of the positivism based method of scientific inquiry.
Yes, you keep saying, but you neither argue nor provide authoritative references.
As we pointed out above, positivism has multiple definitions. You had indicated you were referring to philosophical positivism. But hypothetico-deduction does not presuppose philosophical positivism, even if it presupposes methodological positivism.
Major_Freedom: I am identifying them, and telling you that positivism based methodologies aren't applicable to that which is not constant in nature.
You might want to define "constant in nature".
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Two electron wave functions cannot coexist in the same exact point of spacetime."
"That's right, but they can be at the same point in space at different times."
And?
"You are clearly avoiding your error."
LOL, not only have you not shown me to be in error, but it is I who keep having to correct you on the nature of how to integrate the concept of constancy in relations in epistemology of science.
"If you have an electron at a particular point in space, then you cannot predict its trajectory."
I never claimed you could.
"Major_Freedom: I'll take that as a resounding no."
"Avoidance."
I'll take that as an avoidance of you indirectly addressing your answer of "no."
"Computers are methodical, but most have no philosophy."
Computer science presupposes an epistemology, and hence presupposes a philosophy. You have no clue what you're talking about.
"Major_Freedom: I say all your sources are sources of the positivism based method of scientific inquiry."
"Yes, you keep saying, but you neither argue nor provide authoritative references."
That's because I don't commit the fallacy of authority like you do, silly.
"As we pointed out above, positivism has multiple definitions."
"We"? Who else is there besides you?
And no, positivism is one philosophy. It holds that introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are to be rejected, and that sensory experiences and their logical and mathematical treatment are together the exclusive source of all that can be known in reality.
"You had indicated you were referring to philosophical positivism."
Which is the philosophical basis for hypothetico-deduction.
"But hypothetico-deduction does not presuppose philosophical positivism, even if it presupposes methodological positivism."
Hypothetico-deduction is based on the philosophy of positivism. It is an outgrowth of it.
"Major_Freedom: I am identifying them, and telling you that positivism based methodologies aren't applicable to that which is not constant in nature."
"You might want to define "constant in nature"."
You might want to educate yourself in the literature before asking me trivial questions concerning the very topic you are considering yourself intellectually able to participate in.
For X to be constant in nature means the substance of X does not change over the course of time. Examples include the relationship between mass and gravity, a Planck length, the relationship between matter and energy, etc.
On the other hand, the substance "human action" is NOT constant in nature. It does not remain the same over the course of time. Humans learn over time. Our knowledge influences what we do, and so our actions are not constant over time. Constancy does not apply to human action.
Therefore, in any study of human action (like economics), it is a mistake to utilize a methodology that is based on the philosophy of positivism, like hypothetico-deduction, or induction. Any methodology that rests on the constancy assumption, such as the entire body of hard science methodologies, is not the correct methodology to utilize for economics.
Anonymous @ February 8, 2012 2:26 PM:
"longest comment thread ever? lol"
How long does acquiring a degree in economics take?
Zachriel is still only a frosh. Give him time.
Zachriel: If you have an electron at a particular point in space, then you cannot predict its trajectory.
Major_Freedom: I never claimed you could.
Actually, you suggested that physical objectsn had a "constancy" that distinguished them from humans. Things can and do change, and many phenomena can be unpredictable, such as long-term weather. On the other hand, humans have certain constant characteristics.
Major_Freedom: For X to be constant in nature means the substance of X does not change over the course of time...
It seems that each squirrelly definition depends on another. The substance of X. What is the substance of a squirrel?
Major_Freedom: On the other hand, the substance "human action" is NOT constant in nature.
So back to "human action", which is that human behavior is directed toward goals. Isn't that a constant then? Or is it that, due to learning, human behavior is a moving target? Still not sure of your meaning.
Major_Freedom: Therefore, in any study of human action (like economics), it is a mistake to utilize a methodology that is based on the philosophy of positivism, like hypothetico-deduction, or induction.
That doesn't follow. Why shouldn't we be able to apply hypothetico-deduction to human behavior? We certainly can and do. For instance, humans are heat machines, meaning they have to consume a source of energy or will cease to move, er, act.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: I never claimed you could."
"Actually, you suggested that physical objectsn had a "constancy" that distinguished them from humans."
That is true. We see a diffraction pattern every single time particles are passed through a double slit.
"Things can and do change, and many phenomena can be unpredictable, such as long-term weather."
Unpredictability does not mean lack of constancy.
Lack of constancy on the other hand does mean unpredictability. We know human action is not constant, and that's why we can't predict what humans will choose in the future based on constancy.
"On the other hand, humans have certain constant characteristics."
Learning about any such constancies changes the human actor themselves, and they immediately transcend the previous alleged constancy, which of course means there was no constancy to begin with.
"Major_Freedom: For X to be constant in nature means the substance of X does not change over the course of time..."
"It seems that each squirrelly definition depends on another. The substance of X. What is the substance of a squirrel?"
Have you ever taken a philosophy course, or read a philosophical treatise? Substance is what things are in themselves, which encompasses, but is distinct from, how they interact with other things.
"Major_Freedom: On the other hand, the substance "human action" is NOT constant in nature."
"So back to "human action", which is that human behavior is directed toward goals. Isn't that a constant then?"
The logical structure is constant yes, but not the content. The content, however, is what manifests economic history that positivists incorrectly claim they can predict by observing past history. That's their error. There is no constancy in content.
Einstein could not have predicted and acted upon his theory of relativity before he discovered it. But we know means and ends would constrain his existence before he discovered it. Once he did discover it, economic history content is manifested. The content that is his discovery could not have been predicted beforehand, because that would imply he could know it at the outset, which would contradict the meaning of discovering and learning things over time.
Zachriel:
"Or is it that, due to learning, human behavior is a moving target?"
Sort of. It's not just a moving target, it's fundamentally not constant and logically cannot be constant, if learning is to even have the meaning that positivists attach to it. Positivists have to admit that their methodology enables them to learn over time in essentially unpredictable and non-constant ways.
Because they must admit that they can learn over time, in a priori unpredictable ways, i.e. they can't know beforehand what they will learn using their methodology, or else there is no point in using the methodology at all, then it follows that they cannot claim that constancy exists in knowledge. It wouldn't make any sense to attach constancy in what people know, if their entire enterprise is based on changing what they know through learning via positivism!
The crucial connection to human action is that because human action is based on what people know at the time they do act, and because what people know cannot be held as constant, then their actions cannot be held as constant either.
Thus, any methodology that presumes constancy over time cannot possibly work for studying human action. Only those methodologies that allow for change, can apply to economics.
"Major_Freedom: Therefore, in any study of human action (like economics), it is a mistake to utilize a methodology that is based on the philosophy of positivism, like hypothetico-deduction, or induction."
"That doesn't follow."
It does follow. Positivism is based on constancy. Learning and hence action is not constant.
"Why shouldn't we be able to apply hypothetico-deduction to human behavior?"
Because human behavior is based on what humans know, and what humans know fundamentally changes over time and is not constant.
The very process of positivist methodologies shows that the researchers accept that there is no constancy in knowledge, or else they wouldn't even engage in positivist methodology in the first place. Without constancy in knowledge, there is no constancy in human action.
"We certainly can and do."
It's not knowledge of economics that is derived from such endeavors. It's nothing but history. It only shows what people knew and what people did at the time. It's unique to those time periods. What people knew and did in the past is not constant to what people know and do in the present. Humans learn over time. Our knowledge changes. There. Is. No. Constancy. In. Human. Action.
"For instance, humans are heat machines, meaning they have to consume a source of energy or will cease to move, er, act."
This is unrelated to economics, and concerns human biology instead. You can't know what I will eat in the future, you can't know if I will eat in the future, and you can't know where or when I will eat in the future. Such things will be dependent on my knowledge, my preferences, and my choices at the time, not your guess today, or anything I did in the past.
Major_Freedom: Unpredictability does not mean lack of constancy.
And what is the difference?
Major_Freedom: It's not just a moving target, it's fundamentally not constant and logically cannot be constant,
Well, the 'state' of a human inevitably changes. So does that of a squirrel. There's feedback, and a person today is not the same as the person yesterday. And yet, there are striking similarities. Are you saying dynamical feedback systems have no predictable characteristics?
Zachriel: Why shouldn't we be able to apply hypothetico-deduction to human behavior?
Major_Freedom: Because human behavior is based on what humans know, and what humans know fundamentally changes over time and is not constant.
It's a moving target. That might be an argument that it is difficult to study empirically, but certainly not that it's impossible.
Zachriel: For instance, humans are heat machines, meaning they have to consume a source of energy or will cease to move, er, act.
Major_Freedom: This is unrelated to economics, and concerns human biology instead.
Ah, so this axiom of yours that transcends all human actions only applies to economics. But isn't the acquisition of food an essentially economic activity?
Major_Freedom: You can't know what I will eat in the future,
Something with calories and protein. Are we close?
test
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Unpredictability does not mean lack of constancy.
And what is the difference?
One is epistemological, the other is ontological.
"Major_Freedom: It's not just a moving target, it's fundamentally not constant and logically cannot be constant,"
Well, the 'state' of a human inevitably changes. So does that of a squirrel. There's feedback, and a person today is not the same as the person yesterday. And yet, there are striking similarities. Are you saying dynamical feedback systems have no predictable characteristics?
I am not talking about anything other than human action based on knowledge which changes. Human action is the subject matter of economics, not squirrels, and not "dynamical feedback systems" as one would find in a laboratory.
"Major_Freedom: Because human behavior is based on what humans know, and what humans know fundamentally changes over time and is not constant."
It's a moving target. That might be an argument that it is difficult to study empirically, but certainly not that it's impossible.
It's not just "moving." It's fundamentally changing from one moment to the next. All of history is unique to that time. What we know changes, and because of that, constancy assumptions are not warranted.
"Major_Freedom: This is unrelated to economics, and concerns human biology instead."
Ah, so this axiom of yours that transcends all human actions only applies to economics.
You're just now figuring this out? Good grief you're slow.
But isn't the acquisition of food an essentially economic activity?
Acquisition of food is a historical activity.
"Major_Freedom: You can't know what I will eat in the future,"
Something with calories and protein. Are we close?
No, you cannot know this because I could choose to be an anorexic tomorrow. You're just unscientifically guessing.
There is nothing that I did in the past that can enable you to point to some constancy relationship those factors that shows I must do something in the future, regardless of my knowledge and actions at the time.
Major_Freedom: Unpredictability does not mean lack of constancy.
Major_Freedom: One is epistemological, the other is ontological.
As we were discussing electrons, the unpredictability of the trajectory of electrons is not merely a matter of not knowing. There is no specific trajectory until measured. Don't worry. It threw Einstein for a loop, too.
With deterministic chaotic systems, it's a bit different. If we can know the entire state of the system to the last infinitesimal, then the system is predictable. What we mean by unpredictable with chaotic systems is that we can't know the entire state of most such systems to sufficient detail to be able to make long term predictions.
Major_Freedom: We know human action is not constant, and that's why we can't predict what humans will choose in the future based on constancy.
Well, no. That's a claim. What we do know is that humans are highly complex and that we can't predict their behavior with unlimited accuracy. Pointing to learning, a type of feedback, is not sufficient to distinguish human action from other types of chaotic, but deterministic systems. But that doesn't mean we can't predict humans in some degree or in the aggregate.
Major_Freedom: I am not talking about anything other than human action based on knowledge which changes.
Well, so you can't say if squirrels act? Thought that was an easy question. They have goals. They learn.
Major_Freedom: It's fundamentally changing from one moment to the next. All of history is unique to that time. What we know changes, and because of that, constancy assumptions are not warranted.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.
Zachriel: Ah, so this axiom of yours that transcends all human actions only applies to economics.
Major_Freedom: You're just now figuring this out?
That just undercuts your entire argument, that there is something unique about human behavior that makes it impossible to predict (even though we can predict many aspects of human behavior).
Major_Freedom: Acquisition of food is a historical activity.
Yes! It is! It's also a fundamental economic activity.
Zachriel: Something with calories and protein. Are we close?
Major_Freedom: There is nothing that I did in the past that can enable you to point to some constancy relationship those factors that shows I must do something in the future, regardless of my knowledge and actions at the time.
We predicted that you would consume calories some time in the future. Be honest now. Did you consume calories between February 9, 2012 6:44 PM and February 13, 2012 5:14 PM?
"Major_Freedom: Unpredictability does not mean lack of constancy."
"Major_Freedom: One is epistemological, the other is ontological."
"As we were discussing electrons, the unpredictability of the trajectory of electrons is not merely a matter of not knowing. There is no specific trajectory until measured."
Electrons have the constant property of always being in a definite location when observed. They also have the constant property of always producing a diffraction pattern in the double slit experiment.
"Don't worry. It threw Einstein for a loop, too."
I understand the basics of quantum mechanics.
"With deterministic chaotic systems, it's a bit different. If we can know the entire state of the system to the last infinitesimal, then the system is predictable."
There is no single indivisible "system" that is "the economy." There are only individual actors who pursue definite plans and make definite choices.
"What we mean by unpredictable with chaotic systems is that we can't know the entire state of most such systems to sufficient detail to be able to make long term predictions."
That's what is the case in the economy.
"Major_Freedom: We know human action is not constant, and that's why we can't predict what humans will choose in the future based on constancy."
"Well, no. That's a claim."
No, it's not a claim. It's a logical necessity. We can't even coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined, because it is impossible for us to coherently aim and choose something we know is already past and settled.
"What we do know is that humans are highly complex and that we can't predict their behavior with unlimited accuracy."
No, that's a claim. I can predict my actions right before I do them. Planning presupposes conscious aiming at ends that succeed or fail.
"Pointing to learning, a type of feedback, is not sufficient to distinguish human action from other types of chaotic, but deterministic systems."
False. Learning is a game changer. It is not a "feedback" mechanism of inherently predictable concepts. Learning is a one directional movement of never ending change into the future that creates a unique past, never to be repeated.
Chaotic, but deterministic physical processes outside of human action processes, do not learn. Their behavior is grounded on constancy. This is why we ALWAYS see a definite location of electrons when they are observed, and we why ALWAYS see a diffraction pattern in the double slit experiment, and why we ALWAYS cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined, because human action is in the teleogical realm, not the constancy causal realm.
"But that doesn't mean we can't predict humans in some degree or in the aggregate."
There is no constancy that you can refer to in order to make predictions, unlike in the natural sciences where we can.
Again, that there is no constancy does not mean that predictions are impossible. Clearly they can succeed and fail, but their success is not grounded in utilizing constancy assumptions. Their success is grounded in the ability of individual innovators and entrepreneurs to correctly forecast future human preferences. Those who cannot forecast correctly, will incur losses.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: I am not talking about anything other than human action based on knowledge which changes."
"Well, so you can't say if squirrels act?"
I am not talking about anything other than human action based on knowledge that changes.
"Thought that was an easy question. They have goals. They learn."
Prove it.
"Major_Freedom: It's fundamentally changing from one moment to the next. All of history is unique to that time. What we know changes, and because of that, constancy assumptions are not warranted."
"The fundamental things apply
As time goes by."
Yes, and one of them is that there are no constancies in Rick's actions.
"Major_Freedom: You're just now figuring this out?"
"That just undercuts your entire argument, that there is something unique about human behavior that makes it impossible to predict (even though we can predict many aspects of human behavior)."
It doesn't undercut my argument at all to identify something that distinguishes humans from electrons and the correct way to study both.
"Major_Freedom: Acquisition of food is a historical activity."
"Yes! It is! It's also a fundamental economic activity."
No, it's a historical activity. Some individuals choose not to eat, and other individuals want to, but can't eat. It's not a "fundamental" economic activity. Some, indeed most individuals choose to eat, but whoever does choose to eat, where, and when, is the data of history, not economic science.
"Major_Freedom: There is nothing that I did in the past that can enable you to point to some constancy relationship those factors that shows I must do something in the future, regardless of my knowledge and actions at the time."
"We predicted that you would consume calories some time in the future."
Which point in time in the future?
"Be honest now. Did you consume calories between February 9, 2012 6:44 PM and February 13, 2012 5:14 PM?"
Did you know what I would eat, where I would eat it, what price I paid, what costs I incurred, PRIOR to February 9, 2012 6:44 PM? Suppose you had absolutely full knowledge of my past history. There is nothing in that data that would show an equation that would compel me to make certain choices but not others, after February 9, 2012 6:44 PM.
There is a chance that you could be wrong about me eating between the 9th and 13th. I have in the past, and I may choose to do so again in the future, engage in a fasting body cleanse. The last one I did was last year, and it lasted 7 days. Nothing except water for 7 straight days.
Suppose in your dogmatic quest to being able to predict what I will choose to do based on some constancy relation, you predicted me to eat during a time that I in fact chose to engage in the fasting cleanse. Would you then admit that you can't predict future human choices? After all, if you predicted correctly based on some constancy in historical data, then you will take that as proof you can predict what I will choose to do, so by mirror implication, you would have to admit that you can't predict what I will do based on some constancy in historical data.
Zachriel:
"We predicted that you would consume calories some time in the future. Be honest now. Did you consume calories between February 9, 2012 6:44 PM and February 13, 2012 5:14 PM?"
The hilarious thing about this is that this proves my point. You can't KNOW what I do between February 9, 2012 6:44 PM and February 13, 2012 5:14 PM, until the time has already passed, and you ask me what I knew and what I chose to do during that time.
By seeking to find answers now, after the fact, you are only making it obvious that you can't know the content of human action until it's already past and settled.
If you are right that I did eat, then it will be a correct guess. But you could also have been wrong. Whatever you guess, it won't be scientific or based on constancy, the way we treat chemical reactions, and engineering blueprints. You must admit that you can't KNOW of the content of human action until it's already past and settled, every time you ask the question.
Major_Freedom: Electrons have the constant property of always being in a definite location when observed.
So do people.
Major_Freedom: That's what is the case in the economy.
Yes, the economy is a chaotic system.
Major_Freedom: We know human action is not constant ...
The state of a human is always in flux, but so is a river.
Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν.
Major_Freedom: Learning is a game changer.
Then squirrels and deterministic computers "act".
Major_Freedom: Prove it.
Prove that you're not a zombie.
Zachriel: Be honest now.
Major_Freedom: Did you know what I would eat, where I would eat it, what price I paid, what costs I incurred, PRIOR to February 9, 2012 6:44 PM?
You avoided answering the question.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Electrons have the constant property of always being in a definite location when observed."
"So do people."
And wouldn't you know it? That electrons are in definite locations when observed, is grounded in action.
The legitimacy of the concept of "observation" cannot of course be grounded in observation, for that would be begging the question.
"Major_Freedom: That's what is the case in the economy."
"Yes, the economy is a chaotic system."
No, the economy is not chaotic. From a scientist's view, yes it is chaotic, but since each individual plans their own lives, and in freedom individuals would plan according to their highest goals, in coordination with other individuals, it means the economy can be very much in harmony and causally determined on the basis of individual action.
"Major_Freedom: We know human action is not constant ..."
"The state of a human is always in flux, but so is a river."
Worthless platitude masquerading as profound insight.
"Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν."
You quote a passage from an ancient theologian who believed fire is the fundamental substance of everything, who had contempt for humanity and held that only force will compel them to act for their own good, who glorified war as "the father of all and the king of all", and, most relevantly, denied the law of identity and claimed that EVERYTHING is in a constant state of flux (not realizing of course that such a pronouncement is contradictory, since if everything "is" something, even a permanent flux, it is unchanging in that respect).
"Major_Freedom: Learning is a game changer."
"Then squirrels and deterministic computers "act"."
Prove it.
"Major_Freedom: Prove it."
"Prove that you're not a zombie."
It is a logical fallacy to burden someone with proving a negative. One cannot be obligated to prove a negative.
"Major_Freedom: Did you know what I would eat, where I would eat it, what price I paid, what costs I incurred, PRIOR to February 9, 2012 6:44 PM?"
"You avoided answering the question."
But you should have already known the answer if your worldview is correct. You don't need to interrogate me after the fact.
Major_Freedom: That electrons are in definite locations when observed, ...
Depends on the observation. If you measure the momentum, then you lose all knowledge of the particle's position.
Major_Freedom: ... is grounded in action.
So the squirrel collapses the wave function? In any case, it isn't clear that consciousness is required.
Yu & Nikolić, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, Annalen der Physik 2011.
Major_Freedom: No, the economy is not chaotic.
Of course it's chaotic. Small changes in circumstances today can have profound importance tomorrow.
Major_Freedom: Worthless platitude masquerading as profound insight.
Your claim was that "human action is not constant" because the human today is changed from the human yesterday. So is a river. A feedback does not render a system unpredictable in all aspects, though it can render the system chaotic and therefore unpredictable in others.
Major_Freedom: Learning is a game changer.
Seriously? You don't think squirrels and computers can learn? Now you're just being silly. Squirrels are a family of the rodent order, an order often used for learning experiments. As for computers, there's an entire field of machine learning. The key is that the state of the machine (or squirrel) changes over time.
http://squirrelproject.blogspot.com/
Major_Freedom: But you should have already known the answer if your worldview is correct.
Um, that's your problem, right there. That is exactly contrary to how empirical claims are verified. In this case, humans are heat engines, and if you don't consume calories, you will eventually not be able to act, er, comment.
We predicted that you would consume calories some time in the future. Have you consumed calories since February 9, 2012 6:44 PM?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: That electrons are in definite locations when observed, ..."
"Depends on the observation. If you measure the momentum, then you lose all knowledge of the particle's position."
No, you don't lose ALL knowledge, you lose a definite knowledge according to the Heisenberg relation.
"Major_Freedom: ... is grounded in action."
"So the squirrel collapses the wave function?"
Humans do.
"In any case, it isn't clear that consciousness is required."
It's not actually.
"Major_Freedom: No, the economy is not chaotic."
"Of course it's chaotic."
Keep reading.
"Small changes in circumstances today can have profound importance tomorrow."
Based on what mechanism?
"Major_Freedom: Worthless platitude masquerading as profound insight."
"Your claim was that "human action is not constant" because the human today is changed from the human yesterday. So is a river."
Yes, things other than human action changes. But in the river, the relations are constant. The water molecule properties, the heat capacity of water with various "impurities", the viscosity, etc.
"A feedback does not render a system unpredictable in all aspects, though it can render the system chaotic and therefore unpredictable in others."
It's unfortunate how you have to keep moving away from human action every time you try to think about it.
"Major_Freedom: Learning is a game changer."
"Seriously? You don't think squirrels and computers can learn?"
I just asked you to prove it.
"Now you're just being silly."
Asking you to prove your claims about whether squirrels and computers learn is not silly. Computers maybe, but the point is that there is a reason why I am asking.
"Squirrels are a family of the rodent order, an order often used for learning experiments."
Prove it.
"As for computers, there's an entire field of machine learning. The key is that the state of the machine (or squirrel) changes over time."
Computers are not self-aware (yet).
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: But you should have already known the answer if your worldview is correct."
"Um, that's your problem, right there. That is exactly contrary to how empirical claims are verified."
That's your problem right there actually. The proposition that human action is not constant is not an empirical claim. It does not arise from historical data. It begins with historical data, but it does not arise from historical data.
And empirical claims are not "verified" (and refuted), unless you subscribe to the logical positivist tradition, instead of the positivist tradition where claims are falsified and confirmed.
That you don't know what I will choose to do, and you can only ever know by interrogating me or observing me, proves that such knowledge is historical and not predictive.
"In this case, humans are heat engines, and if you don't consume calories, you will eventually not be able to act, er, comment."
Humans can choose not to eat, and for many, some are compelled not to eat due to food shortage.
"We predicted that you would consume calories some time in the future. Have you consumed calories since February 9, 2012 6:44 PM?"
"We"? Who else is there besides you?
The fact that you don't know whether or not I consumed calories since February 9, 2012 6:44 PM, and the fact that you have to ask me only after the fact, is proof that what you are calling economics knowledge, is really just historical knowledge. All you're asking me is what I did in the past. Your previous "prediction" was not based on any knowledge of a constant relation between historical factors that concern my history that makes my consuming calories since February 9, 2012 6:44 PM causally assured.
I can throw a ball up into the air and know that it will eventually stop, and then come back down to Earth again. I know this before I even throw it. It's how I am able to play baseball.
You cannot know what I will do the way I can know what a baseball would do.
Major_Freedom: No, you don't lose ALL knowledge, you lose a definite knowledge according to the Heisenberg relation.
If you know the precise momentum, then you have no knowledge of the position.
Major_Freedom: Humans do.
But do squirrels?
Yu & Nikolić, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, Annalen der Physik 2011.
Major_Freedom: Based on what mechanism?
A butterfly flaps its wings. A hurricane pummels a coastline, killing thousands, disrupting food supplies, while contaminated water spreads disease.
Major_Freedom: Yes, things other than human action changes. But in the river, the relations are constant.
Are you simply asserting dualism, that mental phenomena is beyond mechanistic explanation? If so, that is more than can be shown with any certainty.
Major_Freedom: Prove it.
Gee whiz, rodent learning is demonstrated every day in classroom laboratories around the world. We already showed you a fun site about squirrel learning. Here. Build your own maze.
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatsAndMazes.htm
Major_Freedom: Computers are not self-aware (yet).
You said learning was the key. Have you changed your stance?
Major_Freedom: The proposition that human action is not constant is not an empirical claim.
Nor is it clearly defined, as we have seen on this thread. It just seems to be a hat into which you hide your conclusion, er, rabbit so you can draw it out later.
Major_Freedom: The fact that you don't know whether or not I consumed calories since ...
Lot of words, but no answer. Fair enough, but the reader already knows the answer.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: No, you don't lose ALL knowledge, you lose a definite knowledge according to the Heisenberg relation.
If you know the precise momentum, then you have no knowledge of the position.
It's in the universe. Win.
Major_Freedom: Humans do.
But do squirrels?
Ask them. See what they say.
Major_Freedom: Based on what mechanism?
A butterfly flaps its wings. A hurricane pummels a coastline, killing thousands, disrupting food supplies, while contaminated water spreads disease.
Wow, your imagination is very negative and depressing. That probably explains your challenges in economics.
And those are a series of events. What is the mechanism?
Major_Freedom: Yes, things other than human action changes. But in the river, the relations are constant.
Are you simply asserting dualism, that mental phenomena is beyond mechanistic explanation?
To assert that we cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined, does not imply dualism or monism.
What it does imply is a dualism in the way we approach learning about reality. There is one approach for us as actors, and another approach for non-acting entities.
If so, that is more than can be shown with any certainty.
Are you certain of that? LOL
Major_Freedom: Prove it.
Gee whiz, rodent learning is demonstrated every day in classroom laboratories around the world.
Prove that they are learning, and not merely adapting and changing automatically according to sense perception.
We already showed you a fun site about squirrel learning. Here. Build your own maze.
Not related to economics of mankind.
Let me ask you, is it impossible for you to think of human reality for any length of time, before you feel compelled to think about squirrels and rats and other rodents? Does thinking about small rodents make you feel physically grander? Why don't you consider elephants, or lions? And why consider other animals at all?
Major_Freedom: Computers are not self-aware (yet).
You said learning was the key. Have you changed your stance?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: The proposition that human action is not constant is not an empirical claim.
Nor is it clearly defined, as we have seen on this thread.
It is clearly defined, as we have seen on this thread. You're just dancing around the issue not knowing how to deal with it. You've proven you have no knowledge of any constancy relation in human action, by asking, then asking again, and again, and again, for whether or not I chose to eat between February 9th and 13th. You seem utterly clueless that you're just asking me for knowledge that cannot arise until it's already past and settled. You could not know I ate between those dates, nor where I ate, nor when I ate, nor who I ate with, until it's already past and settled.
See, the problem with your mindset is that you are failing to distinguish between theory and history. In the natural sciences, there is overlap, because in the natural sciences, there is constancy. But in human action (not the physiological processes which do behave according to constancy) is not constant. It's not even a moving target. It is ontologically, epistemologically, cosmically if you will, unknowable a priori. The very meaning of learning (over time) presupposes that we have to wait until we acquire knowledge before we can claim to have it. It is not just something that with enough probing and experiments and looking at past history, that we will finally know at the outset through some equations of what we will learn, when we will learn, how we will learn, before we learn it. It is utterly incomprehensible to even think of a learning entity that has access to its own future path of learning and knowing it in the present.
The only way that humans will ever know what they know at the outset, before they actually go out and learn it, would be if human knowledge is perfectly overlapping with total possible knowledge. In other words, humans would have to know everything that humans are capable of knowing.
This isn't just some arm chair, navel gazing, secretly ideologically driven, dogmatic, uninformed, mental trick about human action. It is something that very brilliant people have discovered, and if you bothered to read the literature, you will have the opportunity of learning it too.
It just seems to be a hat into which you hide your conclusion, er, rabbit so you can draw it out later.
LOL, did I just anticipate that comment perfectly or what?
Major_Freedom: The fact that you don't know whether or not I consumed calories since ...
Lot of words, but no answer. Fair enough, but the reader already knows the answer.
LOL, no you don't. You believe you know, but you only need to believe you know because you really deep down know you can't know, and so you have to simply ASSERT that you know, to rescue your untenable worldview from its fallacious origins.
You see, I have actually been fasting since February 8th. What are the odds of that? Gotta be something akin to the housing bubble bursting, LOL!
My cleansing ends tonight, just in time for Valentine's Day dinner.
What say you Mr. Constancy?
Major_Freedom: It's in the universe. Win.
Heh. But the question was predicting the trajectory (position and momentum) of an electron.
Major_Freedom: Ask {the squirrels}. See what they say.
Squirrels are thieves and can hardly be considered trustworthy.
Zachriel: Small changes in circumstances today can have profound importance tomorrow.
Major_Freedom: Based on what mechanism?
Zachriel: A butterfly flaps its wings. A hurricane pummels a coastline, killing thousands, disrupting food supplies, while contaminated water spreads disease.
Major_Freedom: And those are a series of events. What is the mechanism?
We just explained that. It starts with the turbulence created by a butterfly in flight.
Major_Freedom: To assert that we cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined, does not imply dualism or monism.
Okay. Then you are asserting mental phenomena are non-deterministic?
Major_Freedom: Prove that they are learning, and not merely adapting and changing automatically according to sense perception.
It's learning by the commonly accepted definition. They become skilled at a task through experience.
Major_Freedom: Why don't you consider elephants, or lions?
We had started with your squirrelly definitions, but sure. Elephants and lions learn, too. Elephants also seem to be self-aware.
Plotnik, de Waal & Reiss, Self-recognition in an Asian elephant, PNAS 2006.
Major_Freedom: You seem utterly clueless that you're just asking me for knowledge that cannot arise until it's already past and settled.
We *predicted* you would consume calories sometime in the future (based on an understanding of biology and basic thermodynamics). We're just doing an interim check.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: It's in the universe. Win."
Heh. But the question was predicting the trajectory (position and momentum) of an electron.
You asked where the position of the electron would be. I already addressed the trajectory issue.
Major_Freedom: Ask {the squirrels}. See what they say.
Squirrels are thieves and can hardly be considered trustworthy.
Squirrels don't necessarily believe in private property rights.
Major_Freedom: And those are a series of events. What is the mechanism?
We just explained that. It starts with the turbulence created by a butterfly in flight.
No, you haven't explained it. You just listed a series of events.
Now that you say "it starts with the turbulence created by a butterfly." This doesn't explain the mechanism. This just repeats the first event in the series.
Major_Freedom: To assert that we cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined, does not imply dualism or monism.
Okay. Then you are asserting mental phenomena are non-deterministic?
Non-constant.
Major_Freedom: Prove that they are learning, and not merely adapting and changing automatically according to sense perception.
It's learning by the commonly accepted definition. They become skilled at a task through experience.
This isn't a proof. This is just repeating the meaning of learning.
Major_Freedom: Why don't you consider elephants, or lions?
We had started with your squirrelly definitions, but sure. Elephants and lions learn, too. Elephants also seem to be self-aware.
Plotnik, de Waal & Reiss, Self-recognition in an Asian elephant, PNAS 2006.
Could humans have known this before they studied it?
Major_Freedom: You seem utterly clueless that you're just asking me for knowledge that cannot arise until it's already past and settled.
We *predicted* you would consume calories sometime in the future (based on an understanding of biology and basic thermodynamics). We're just doing an interim check.
No, you're just asking me about my history, that you did not, and could not, have known prior. Your prediction was a guess based on something other than constancy of relations between human actions in the past.
Major_Freedom: You asked where the position of the electron would be. I already addressed the trajectory issue.
If you have an electron at a particular point, you can't predict how it will act.
Major_Freedom: Now that you say "it starts with the turbulence created by a butterfly." This doesn't explain the mechanism.
Sorry. You were staking a position on chaos, and the butterfly effect is the archetypal example, as originally discovered by Edward Lorenz. A minuscule change in air pressure, such as the wings of a butterfly, can cause a cascade of events that affects the formation and path of a hurricane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Consequently, the flapping of the wings of a butterfly in China can affect the price of grain in Chicago.
Major_Freedom: Non-constant.
The weather's non-constant. You really should try to clean up your terminology, and provide clear definitions.
Major_Freedom: This is just repeating the meaning of learning.
If a rat, with experience of a maze, can go directly to the food, then the rat has "become skilled at a task through experience".
Major_Freedom: Could humans have known this before they studied it?
Possibly. Self-reflection, though, is a particular type of cognition that might be difficult to recognize reliably, and people often anthropomorphize. However, people have broad experience and relationships with animals. There are a whole set of social cues that humans and other animals use to communicate their feelings.
Major_Freedom: Your prediction was a guess based on something other than constancy of relations between human actions in the past.
Hardly a guess, and we gave our reasons; biological and thermodynamic. How is our experiment coming along?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You asked where the position of the electron would be. I already addressed the trajectory issue."
If you have an electron at a particular point, you can't predict how it will act.
You're just repeating yourself at this point. I already know this.
"Major_Freedom: Now that you say "it starts with the turbulence created by a butterfly." This doesn't explain the mechanism."
Sorry. You were staking a position on chaos, and the butterfly effect is the archetypal example, as originally discovered by Edward Lorenz.
Actually I was not staking a position on chaos at all. You introduced it. I have already said that from a scientist's perspective, yes the economy LOOKS chaotic, but to the economist it's not, because the economist knows each individual is consciously planning their actions.
If you stood outside a library, and counted how many people go in and out everyday, then you will see a seemingly randomized number each day. You can tabulate the number of people over the days, and then take that historical average and theorize an "average", and then make guesses on how many people will enter the library the next day (if it still open that is).
To the economist, and not the historian, he knows that each person is purposefully acting. Of course some of them might be wrong about which building they are entering, and maybe someone might be coerced into going in the building, but we know that the behavior of individuals is not "random" at all. It is purpose directed. Purposeful behavior is not "random."
A minuscule change in air pressure, such as the wings of a butterfly, can cause a cascade of events that affects the formation and path of a hurricane.
I asked you to tell me the mechanism involved, not a summary of explaining an effect of what I already know.
Consequently, the flapping of the wings of a butterfly in China can affect the price of grain in Chicago.
Where's the constancy?
"Major_Freedom: Non-constant."
The weather's non-constant.
The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
And the topic is human knowledge, not the weather. You keep uttering these freely floating assertions without integrating them into the discussion.
Zachriel:
You really should try to clean up your terminology, and provide clear definitions.
Which terms? Which definitions? Merely telling me the above vague pretensions don't accomplish anything to the discussion. They only serve your psychological fix, which I am not interested in (yuck).
"Major_Freedom: This is just repeating the meaning of learning."
If a rat, with experience of a maze, can go directly to the food, then the rat has "become skilled at a task through experience".
Skilled, or learned? Accustomed through automatic responses to various external stimuli, or abstracting various concepts and weighing alternatives before selecting a course of action?
We had started with your squirrelly definitions, but sure. Elephants and lions learn, too. Elephants also seem to be self-aware.
"Major_Freedom: Could humans have known this before they studied it?"
Possibly.
Based on what?
"Major_Freedom: Your prediction was a guess based on something other than constancy of relations between human actions in the past."
Hardly a guess
Why is not a guess? What knowledge do you have that causally connects past actions with future actions?
and we gave our reasons; biological and thermodynamic.
Neither of which are studies of human action.
How is our experiment coming along?
Like I said before:
You see, I have actually been fasting since February 8th. What are the odds of that? Gotta be something akin to the housing bubble bursting, LOL!
My cleansing ends tonight, just in time for Valentine's Day dinner.
What say you Mr. Constancy?
Major_Freedom: Actually I was not staking a position on chaos at all. You introduced it. I have already said that from a scientist's perspective, yes the economy LOOKS chaotic, but to the economist it's not, because the economist knows each individual is consciously planning their actions.
It's still a chaotic system, as in the butterfly effect. You seem to be confusing random or confused with chaos.
Major_Freedom: I asked you to tell me the mechanism involved, not a summary of explaining an effect of what I already know.
If you understood, then you wouldn't be confusing "random" with chaos.
Major_Freedom: Where's the constancy?
You really need to clean up your terminology. You keep saying "constancy", and it seems to mean based on constant relational laws, as in physics, but it's hard to tell. We keep asking.
As for the butterfly, the flapping wings change the air pressure slightly.
Major_Freedom: The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
The weather is a chaotic system, which means that weather models inevitably diverge from actual weather over time.
Zachriel: Okay. Then you are asserting mental phenomena are non-deterministic?
Major_Freedom: Non-constant.
Assuming you mean "constant relational laws, as in physics", then you don't know that. Neuroscientists believe that human mental activities are the physical workings of the brain. It's certainly possible they are wrong, but you seem to basing your position on something that hasn't been shown. Previously, you said it was learned by introspection, but that is certainly not the case with human mental activities.
Now, if you mean human mental activities are highly complex and chaotic, without regard to causation, then sure. If you mean this results in highly complex and chaotic social interactions, sure again. But you seem to be saying something else without being clear. You seem to be vastly overloading the term "human acts".
Zachriel: If a rat, with experience of a maze, can go directly to the food, then the rat has "become skilled at a task through experience".
Major_Freedom: Skilled, or learned?
learn, to become skilled at a task through experience.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learn
If the rat becomes skilled at a task through experience, that means, by definition, that it has learned.
Major_Freedom: Based on what?
We answered this.
Zachriel: People have broad experience and relationships with animals. There are a whole set of social cues that humans and other animals use to communicate their feelings.
Major_Freedom: You see, I have actually been fasting since February 8th.
We asked you to be honest.
In any case, we didn't predict a specific time period.
Major_Freedom: You can't know what I will eat in the future,
Zachriel: Something with calories and protein. Are we close?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Actually I was not staking a position on chaos at all. You introduced it. I have already said that from a scientist's perspective, yes the economy LOOKS chaotic, but to the economist it's not, because the economist knows each individual is consciously planning their actions."
"It's still a chaotic system, as in the butterfly effect."
No, it's not chaotic. It's purpose directed. It only seems chaotic to those who ignore the human action element.
"You seem to be confusing random or confused with chaos."
Not in the slightest. But you are confusing unpredictability with randomness.
"Major_Freedom: I asked you to tell me the mechanism involved, not a summary of explaining an effect of what I already know."
"If you understood, then you wouldn't be confusing "random" with chaos."
First, I didn't confuse random with chaos, second, you didn't answer my question. If you don't know, say it, don't waste my time with false accusations.
"Major_Freedom: Where's the constancy?"
"You really need to clean up your terminology. You keep saying "constancy", and it seems to mean based on constant relational laws, as in physics, but it's hard to tell. We keep asking."
We already agreed to what constancy in relations means. You can stop pretending that your inability to answer is somehow my problem of terminology. Yes, I mean constant relational laws.
Where's the constancy?
"As for the butterfly, the flapping wings change the air pressure slightly."
How far does that change in air pressure extend, and what is the process by which the flutter of a butterfly's wings affects the price of wheat in Japan?
Spell it out explicitly please. I know the vague metaphor. I know the story. I am not asking because I don't know, I am asking because I know you don't know and I like to make pompous douches who think they know what they don't really know, squirm.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations."
"The weather is a chaotic system, which means that weather models inevitably diverge from actual weather over time."
The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
"Major_Freedom: Non-constant."
"Assuming you mean "constant relational laws, as in physics", then you don't know that."
Logical necessity tells me that. Logic trumps empiricism.
"Neuroscientists believe that human mental activities are the physical workings of the brain."
Agreed.
"It's certainly possible they are wrong, but you seem to basing your position on something that hasn't been shown."
I am showing it to you using my own mind. My mind is just as capable as neuroscientist's minds. My self-reflection and self-awareness can never be observed directly. I can know for a fact that a neuroscientist's brain will be altered in metaphysically unpredictable and non-constant ways in his course of studying the human brain. His very studying and learning will affect his mind and change his knowledge, and to the extent that his knowledge affects his actions, his actions will change as well.
In other words, no matter how much humans learn about the human mind, they will NEVER discover laws that can enable them to predict the path of their own future learning of the human mind. It's a form of Godel's incomplete theorem, or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, applied to consciousness, by way of self-reflection and logic.
"Previously, you said it was learned by introspection, but that is certainly not the case with human mental activities."
Depends on what you mean by "mental activities." If you mean the physical processes, sure, self-reflection is clearly not enough, and empiricism is necessary. However, self-reflection is still necessary in the process of learning these "mental activities." It cannot be ignored or rejected. It is integral in the process of learning itself and interacting with the external world, including other people's brains.
It would be funny to see a neurosurgeon have the requisite technology to perform brain surgery on himself. Maybe someday in the future humans will be able to control their own minds on a whole new level that has never before been tried. That is where my convictions of the human mind will be seriously challenged, if they are going to be challenged. Your arguments are like ants to an elephant in this respect.
"Now, if you mean human mental activities are highly complex and chaotic, without regard to causation, then sure."
How do you know that? Clearly you don't read brain surgery journals, so how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Zachriel:
"If you mean this results in highly complex and chaotic social interactions, sure again."
It's not just highly complex and chaotic (to the natural scientist). It's fundamentally impossible to even regard ourselves as past causally determined. No matter how much we learn about the human mind, that very learning process is ex ante unknowable, and will change our knowledge over time and hence our actions. The more we try to overcome it, the more learning reasserts itself, and the more my position is verified. Humans, indeed all actors, are forever travelling down paths on an open field the horizon of which never ends, because the horizon is our own knowledge expanding.
"But you seem to be saying something else without being clear. You seem to be vastly overloading the term "human acts"."
Here's some advice. Instead of trying to attribute to me what I "seem" to be saying, so that you have some silly straw man that you can beat down so that you can feel vindicated, instead try to address what I am actually saying, and for pete's sake, improve your memory, because you're bringing up crap about "constancy" that we settled on a long time ago.
"Major_Freedom: Skilled, or learned?"
"learn, to become skilled at a task through experience."
Prove it that they are learning, and not merely automatically responding to external stimuli like candles fluttering in the wind in "predictable" ways.
"If the rat becomes skilled at a task through experience, that means, by definition, that it has learned."
So if candlelight becomes skilled enough to flutter whenever there is wind, is the candle learning?
"Major_Freedom: Based on what?"
"We answered this."
"We"? Who else is there besides you?
And where did you who is really an "I" answer this? I don't see it.
"Major_Freedom: You see, I have actually been fasting since February 8th."
"We asked you to be honest."
No, you asked to be told what you expected.
"In any case, we didn't predict a specific time period."
Yes you did. You asked:
"Did you consume calories between February 9, 2012 6:44 PM and February 13, 2012 5:14 PM?"
Since you asked this question, it is obvious that your time horizon for your prediction was up to and including February 13, 2012 5:14 PM.
"Major_Freedom: You can't know what I will eat in the future,"
"Zachriel: Something with calories and protein. Are we close?"
You're just telling me the descriptive characteristics of food. You're not predicting what I will eat in the future.
Major_Freedom: No, it's not chaotic. It's purpose directed.
Financial markets are another historical example of a chaotic system, as shown in the work on the fractal properties of the cotton market by Benoit Mandlebrot.
Major_Freedom: I asked you to tell me the mechanism involved, not a summary of explaining an effect of what I already know.
The mechanisms were various, as explained above. The butterfly flaps its wings (turbulence). This results in a hurricane (turbulence). This causes homes to be blown away (turbulence), agriculture (flooding) and the spread of disease (pathogens). This answered your question concerning how "Small changes in circumstances today can have profound importance tomorrow."
Major_Freedom: Spell it out explicitly please.
Not sure where you are confused. Does the fact that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can cause a hurricane your source of confusion? The heat energy is already there, and will be dissipated somehow. However, even slight changes today can be amplified, so that the hurricane may never form, or may veer out to sea instead of hitting land.
You might want to look at Edward Lorenz's original discoveries for insight into chaos, which is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions. He was trying to model weather and noticed that a very slight change in the initial conditions would cause different runs of the model to diverge over time.
Lorenz, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963.
Major_Freedom: The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
Weather is a deterministic system (not sure why you don't use the usual term), and insofar as it can be predicted, it is predicted based on physical law. But being based on physical law doesn't mean it is predictable over the long run.
Zachriel: Then you are asserting mental phenomena are {non-constant, non-deterministic}.
Major_Freedom: Logical necessity tells me that.
Except that it's still an open question.
Major_Freedom: His very studying and learning will affect his mind and change his knowledge, and to the extent that his knowledge affects his actions, his actions will change as well.
Yes, that doesn't make the source of the mind non-deterministic. It may just means there's a non-linear feedback.
Major_Freedom: In other words, no matter how much humans learn about the human mind, they will NEVER discover laws that can enable them to predict the path of their own future learning of the human mind.
So? That's just means it's a dynamical system. Even your own argument doesn't depend on it being non-deterministic, just chaotic.
Major_Freedom: So if candlelight becomes skilled enough to flutter whenever there is wind, is the candle learning?
No, because the candle doesn't become better at the task with experience.
Zachriel: We asked you to be honest.
Major_Freedom: No, you asked to be told what you expected.
No. We asked that you be honest. Sorry that was beyond your capabilities.
Sorry. Forgot the Mandelbrot references.
Mandelbrot, The variation of certain speculative prices, Journal
of Business 1963.
Mandelbrot, New methods in statistical economics, Journal of
Political Economy 1963.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: No, it's not chaotic. It's purpose directed."
"Financial markets are another historical example of a chaotic system"
No, financial markets are also purpose directed.
"as shown in the work on the fractal properties of the cotton market by Benoit Mandlebrot."
Having fractal properties in the visual, descriptive sense does not mean that the cotton market is chaotic in the ontological sense.
"Major_Freedom: I asked you to tell me the mechanism involved, not a summary of explaining an effect of what I already know."
"The mechanisms were various, as explained above."
No, you just said that a butterfly flapping its wings will disturb the surrounding air. I asked you to elaborate, but you balked.
"The butterfly flaps its wings (turbulence). This results in a hurricane (turbulence)."
How can a butterfly flapping its wings result in a hurricane? You say "this results in a hurricane." How?
"This answered your question concerning how "Small changes in circumstances today can have profound importance tomorrow.""
No, you're just again describing a series of events. You're saying event A, event B, event C, and saying that one results in the other. How does a butterfly flapping its wings result in a hurricane?
Are you making sure to not violate the conservation of energy?
"Major_Freedom: Spell it out explicitly please."
"Not sure where you are confused."
I did not ask you to give me your opinion on who is confused and who isn't. I am showing you that you are confused, and I am doing so by asking you questions that I know you aren't considering. The questions again, are not a product of me not knowing, they are questions that I suspect you don't know, to show you where you are going wrong.
Tell me the exact process of how a butterfly flapping its wings causes hurricanes. Don't just say it causes hurricanes. Explain it.
If you don't know, admit it and stop wasting time.
"Does the fact that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can cause a hurricane your source of confusion?"
I am not asking you for your opinion on whether I am confused or not. I am asking you to describe exactly how a butterfly flapping its wings causes hurricanes.
"The heat energy is already there, and will be dissipated somehow. However, even slight changes today can be amplified, so that the hurricane may never form, or may veer out to sea instead of hitting land."
How can these slight changes be "amplified"?
"You might want to look at Edward Lorenz's original discoveries for insight into chaos, which is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions. He was trying to model weather and noticed that a very slight change in the initial conditions would cause different runs of the model to diverge over time."
What were his assumptions for the relationship between the initial conditions and later outcomes?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The weather can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations."
"Weather is a deterministic system (not sure why you don't use the usual term)"
I do not deny that weather is deterministic. My point however is that unlike human action, it can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
"and insofar as it can be predicted, it is predicted based on physical law."
Physical laws are constant, aren't they? But learning the physical laws presupposes and logically requires the learning subject to be changing their knowledge and hence not be constant in this respect. The very fact that you claim humans can learn of constant laws over time, requires humans to change over time in some respect. It is this respect that I am making an argument about, and which underlies the entire range of economic phenomena. It is ideas, knowledge, and changing behavior based on this changing knowledge, that is responsible for economic history.
If you can finally accept that no constancies exist in human knowledge and thus no constancies in action, you have just proved to yourself that no equations, formulas, or theories based on the assumption of constancy in relations, are applicable methodologies for studying economic science. Observing past history can only ever provide us with historical knowledge, which right away presupposes that the subject has changed, and thus any concatenation of events prior, are no longer applicable by virtue of learning about them and thus becoming a different subject.
"But being based on physical law doesn't mean it is predictable over the long run."
Based on physical law presupposes constancy. Laws are laws because they are constant over time. Human knowledge isn't constant over time, and thus human action isn't constant over time. The fact that you can only point to biological constancies like needing to eat, rather than dealing with what it is I am actually talking about, which is the range of actions that concern eating, like when to eat, what specific food to eat, where to eat, who to eat with, etc, only proves that you cannot refute my actual argument, and you are relegated to having to seek constancies in phenomena outside the scope of action.
"Major_Freedom: Logical necessity tells me that."
"Except that it's still an open question."
No, it's not. It's an answered question.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: His very studying and learning will affect his mind and change his knowledge, and to the extent that his knowledge affects his actions, his actions will change as well."
"Yes, that doesn't make the source of the mind non-deterministic. It may just means there's a non-linear feedback."
I am not here trying to convince you that the mind is not deterministic. It most probably is because it's entirely physical. What I am arguing is that even if the mind is deterministic, we will never acquire knowledge that can predict our future path of knowledge learning, based on constancy. Maybe some superhuman entity with mental powers far beyond ours, or some deity with omniscient powers, can know such things, but human actors can't know it.
To know it would require omniscience, because as soon as any entity has the capability of being able to predict its own future path of learning at some point in time, it will acquire all such future knowledge beyond that point in time, and thus become omniscient at that point in time.
As long as humans are not omniscient, my argument applies. This is important because it enables us to set boundaries on what we can know, and knowing these boundaries is an increase in our knowledge of who we are and what we can do. We can also use this knowledge to reject any claim that contradicts it, such as attempts to introduce positivism and constancy based methodologies into economic science.
"Major_Freedom: In other words, no matter how much humans learn about the human mind, they will NEVER discover laws that can enable them to predict the path of their own future learning of the human mind."
"So? That's just means it's a dynamical system."
So? So it means positivism, and all methodologies that presuppose constancy in relations, is a flawed epistemology in economics! Egads man, like the elephant is walking right past you and yet you can't even see it.
"Even your own argument doesn't depend on it being non-deterministic, just chaotic."
No, again I am not the one introducing chaos into this, you are. Even chaos theory is based on constancy in relations. The Mandelbrot set for example is a single simple equation that when acted upon through reiterations, it ALWAYS generates the Mandelbrot set. It APPEARS chaotic, but is in fact highly structured, constant, and does not change.
Human action is fundamentally not constant, but it is not chaotic. It is purpose directed. From a constancy perspective, yes, it appears chaotic, but to the economist, the actual economist and not the historian, there is order in the seeming chaos, that is not constant in content, but in structure.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: So if candlelight becomes skilled enough to flutter whenever there is wind, is the candle learning?"
"No, because the candle doesn't become better at the task with experience."
Better according to what criteria? Why that criteria but not other criteria? For example, what if doing the same thing and not failing to do the same thing, is itself an improvement?
"Major_Freedom: No, you asked to be told what you expected."
"No. We asked that you be honest."
No, you asked to be told what you expected.
"Sorry that was beyond your capabilities."
This just proves you only want to be told what you expected. You are not being honest. You have no idea if I lied or told the truth, and yet you are insinuating I am lying. There is absolutely no evidence that you have that will enable you to prove I ate between February 9th and February 13th, as you predicted. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me. You just want to be told that I ate between those dates because you want to be told what you expected. You are clearly so far into absurdity that you will even lie to make your worldview work.
You cannot accuse me of lying because you don't have any evidence of whether I did eat between the 9th and 13th, as you originally predicted. But I can accuse you of lying, because I have evidence that you are claiming to know what you can't possibly know on the basis that you lack the evidence, and the fact that you then called me a liar also without any evidence whatsoever.
You see, you just want so desperately for your prediction to be true, that you will lie to yourself and to me to make yourself believe it. You have not the slightest shred of evidence that I ate between the 9th and 13th, and yet you're insinuating I did eat, and you are insinuating I am lying about it.
You have no idea if I am an anorexic. You have no idea if I am fasting. You have no idea of these things but you are lumping me conceptually into the group of people who eat, on the basis of the naive assumption that most people eat. Your claim to knowledge is nothing but a guess based on zero evidence. No, observing past humans eat daily says ZILCH about my actions. I am not them. I am my own person. I make my own choices. My choices to eat are not contingent on other people's choices to eat. This is very difficult for collectivists like you to comprehend, but libertarian oriented people can understand this because they don't start with the whole and then smother individual humans with that whole. They start with themselves as individuals who think and act, and then they understand other individuals to think and act as well. The outcome of that is a whole.
Major_Freedom: No, financial markets are also purpose directed.
That doesn't mean markets aren't chaotic.
Major_Freedom: How does a butterfly flapping its wings result in a hurricane? Are you making sure to not violate the conservation of energy?
It's explained here: Lorenz, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963. A butterfly doesn't create the energy, the energy is already there. What the butterfly does is add a disturbance, which results in a different unfolding of events.
You said you understood chaos, as in the butterfly effect, but you apparently don't.
There's no simple and direct path between the butterfly and the hurricane. That's the very nature of chaos. In chaotic systems, the simplest way to predict the unfolding of events is to model every detail. There is no simpler way.
Major_Freedom: What were {Lorenz's} assumptions for the relationship between the initial conditions and later outcomes?
That they were based on physical laws, such as air pressure and temperature. It had been presumed by scientists that if there were a slight difference in initial values, a deterministic, dynamical system would unfold in a similar fashion. But that's not what Lorenz discovered. He found that if you change the initial conditions, even slightly, then the system would diverge more and more over time. In one, a hurricane would slam into the coast. In another, it would turn harmlessly out to sea.
Major_Freedom: My point however is that unlike human action, it can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations.
Like many dynamical systems, sensitivity to initial conditions means that long range weather forecasting is generally not possible.
Major_Freedom: The very fact that you claim humans can learn of constant laws over time, requires humans to change over time in some respect.
Yes, we understand your point. A person today is not the same person as he was yesterday. That's true of machine intelligence, too.
Major_Freedom: So it means positivism, and all methodologies that presuppose constancy in relations, is a flawed epistemology in economics!
Just because human mental states change over time doesn't mean they aren't amenable to scientific investigation. Why would you think that?
Major_Freedom: You cannot accuse me of lying because you don't have any evidence of whether I did eat between the 9th and 13th, as you originally predicted.
We merely expressed our disappointment in you. You could have tried to move the conversation forward by simply granting the evident fact that some things about human behavior can be predicted.
I guess the insane legion needs to meet Irom Sharmila
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: No, financial markets are also purpose directed."
"That doesn't mean markets aren't chaotic."
Actually it does, because purposeful behavior is ALWAYS present. For any flutter of a butterfly's wings that ceteris paribus is followed by a hurricane in the distant future, or any uptick or downtick in a stock price that ceteris paribus is followed by a bankruptcy in the distant future, all throughout, are human actors purposefully behaving, causing the changes you see in economic phenomena that are themselves caused by purposeful behavior.
The market only appears chaotic if one denies the presence of purposeful human behavior, and just considers the historical data in a mechanistic way.
"Major_Freedom: How does a butterfly flapping its wings result in a hurricane? Are you making sure to not violate the conservation of energy?"
"It's explained here"
I was asking you.
"A butterfly doesn't create the energy, the energy is already there. What the butterfly does is add a disturbance, which results in a different unfolding of events."
How so?
"You said you understood chaos, as in the butterfly effect, but you apparently don't."
Like I have said many times, I am not asking you because I don't know, I am asking you because I suspect that you don't know.
"There's no simple and direct path between the butterfly and the hurricane. That's the very nature of chaos."
I wasn't asking for a simple and direct path. I was asking for the path. If it's too complex and indirect for you, then admit it and stop wasting time.
"In chaotic systems, the simplest way to predict the unfolding of events is to model every detail. There is no simpler way."
And for non-chaotic systems like the market?
"Major_Freedom: What were {Lorenz's} assumptions for the relationship between the initial conditions and later outcomes?"
"That they were based on physical laws, such as air pressure and temperature. It had been presumed by scientists that if there were a slight difference in initial values, a deterministic, dynamical system would unfold in a similar fashion. But that's not what Lorenz discovered. He found that if you change the initial conditions, even slightly, then the system would diverge more and more over time."
Diverge more and more how?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: My point however is that unlike human action, it can be predicted on the basis of constancy in relations."
"Like many dynamical systems, sensitivity to initial conditions means that long range weather forecasting is generally not possible."
I wasn't talking about long range forecasting. I was talking about predictions based on the existence of constancy in relations. The reason long range forecasts are generally not possible is because of the lack of knowledge of ALL the constancy relations that exist in the weather. We have localized air pressure readings, temperature, humidity, current trajectories of low and high pressure systems, etc, but there is a lack of knowledge of everything that can effect weather, so long range forecasts become difficult.
But this is separate from the argument I am making, which is that unlike human action, which is not based on constancy in relations, the weather is. This is not an argument that the weather can be predicted out to arbitrary ranges into the future, so pointing out that long range forecasts in weather is problematic, is unnecessary and irrelevant.
"Major_Freedom: The very fact that you claim humans can learn of constant laws over time, requires humans to change over time in some respect."
"Yes, we understand your point. A person today is not the same person as he was yesterday. That's true of machine intelligence, too."
Except the machine does operate according to constancy, because the machine's intelligence is programmed. It's learning process is programmed. It's learning is limited to a narrow band of programmed rules and thus outcomes.
You keep trying to find equivalent things other than humans, of what I am saying is the case for humans. I say humans act, then you say (without proof) "so do squirrels." I say human action is not constant because humans learn, then you say (without proof) "so do AI machines."
You see, the reason why you keep wanting to equivocate consciousness and that which the consciousness is conscious of, is almost certainly due to what I know is a very common inner drive in people, which is to transcend the fact that you are not what you observe. The existence of the consciousness' own boundaries is intolerable for you, just like it was intolerable to many mystics from Plotinus down to Anselm down to Hegel down to Marx. You try to overcome separation by thinking that you are what you observe. You are changing in your knowledge, allegedly so is the AI machine, so that means you and the AI machine can now be the same, and the separation between you and the AI machine is thus eliminated. You are acting, allegedly so is the squirrel, so that means you and the squirrel can now be the same, and the separation between you and the squirrel is thus eliminated.
You obviously find standing as ontologically unique in the truest sense, to be intolerable. Whatever you find to be true for you, you immediately have to find similarity to other things, even if they don't even exist and only the appearance is similar.
You have for the last few posts introduced the concept of chaos, and Hericlitean philosophy (the moving river), and I strongly suspect that this is due to you at some level starting to realize that you are metaphysically not what other things are, and because of that, there is allegedly nothing for you to grasp hold of in terms of similarity and oneness, so everything seems like a chaotic mess, like you've just been ejected out of your mother's womb and are now faced with that which is not you.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: So it means positivism, and all methodologies that presuppose constancy in relations, is a flawed epistemology in economics!"
"Just because human mental states change over time doesn't mean they aren't amenable to scientific investigation."
There you go again making the fallacious leap that if it's not positivism, it can't be science. For the millionth time, science is not monopolized by positivist based methodologies!
Mathematics and logic are sciences, and both fields of inquiry are not based on positivism.
I didn't say the mind isn't amenable to scientific investigation. I said that positivism, and all methodologies that presuppose constancy in relations, is a flawed epistemology in economics. That doesn't mean economics is not a science. It means that the way we must approach economics in a scientific manner is to ground economic propositions on some logically consistent foundation that is not based on constancy in relations.
"Why would you think that?"
I don't fucking think that you ignoramus. Please pay the fuck attention already. You should not be making these absurd leaps after being told repeatedly the same thing over and over again. Yes, I know your memory is absolute fucking garbage. Yes, I know that you can't remember that I do not hold that science is monopolized by positivist based methodologies, and that saying positivist based methodologies are not applicable to economic science is not the same thing as saying economics and the human mind cannot be studied scientifically.
"Major_Freedom: You cannot accuse me of lying because you don't have any evidence of whether I did eat between the 9th and 13th, as you originally predicted."
"We merely expressed our disappointment in you."
"We"? Who else is there besides you?
"You could have tried to move the conversation forward by simply granting the evident fact that some things about human behavior can be predicted."
No see, that would not have moved the conversation forward at all. That would have only done what I have suspected since the start, which is that you only want to be told what you expected.
And it is not an evident fact that some things about human behavior can be predicted, if by predicted you mean based on utilizing the assumption of constancy in relations. If by prediction you mean entrepreneurial expectations, forecasts, subject to the profit and loss test, then profits signal good predictions and losses signal bad predictions. One cannot learn how to be an entrepreneur by learning prediction equations in economics textbooks, the way chemists and physicists can learn how to be scientists by learning prediction equations in chemistry and physics textbooks.
Bala:
I guess the insane legion needs to meet Irom Sharmila
Individuals don't matter in the insane legion's Platonic worldview, where ideal universals are the true reality, and individuals who contradict it, are not important when it comes to states controlling whole populations.
Major_Freedom: The market only appears chaotic if one denies the presence of purposeful human behavior, and just considers the historical data in a mechanistic way.
In markets, purpose is local. Global market structures are due to preferential network attachments, and the activity is chaotic (sensitive to initial conditions).
Major_Freedom: I wasn't asking for a simple and direct path. I was asking for the path. If it's too complex and indirect for you, then admit it and stop wasting time.
You're wasting your own time because you refuse to read the paper you were provided. The only way to determine the different trajectories of the system with and without butterfly wings is to follow every detail of the system. That's the very nature of chaos.
Major_Freedom: Diverge more and more how?
The physical mechanisms are the standard mechanisms of air pressure, humidity, the arrangements of continents, ocean currents, and so on. The detailed change in behavior of the system with and without perturbation can only be determined by looking at the dynamical system as it unfolds.
As Lorenz discovered, there is no way to trace the effect of the butterfly short of tracing the details of the entire dynamical system. Such is the nature of chaos.
Major_Freedom: We have localized air pressure readings, temperature, humidity, current trajectories of low and high pressure systems, etc, but there is a lack of knowledge of everything that can effect weather, so long range forecasts become difficult.
More particularly, the level of detail required, and the required detail increases exponentially with time.
Major_Freedom: But this is separate from the argument I am making, which is that unlike human action, which is not based on constancy in relations, the weather is.
The human mental state (or that of a squirrel) may be due solely to the 'constancy' of relations between neurons and synapses and the organization of the brain.
Major_Freedom: You keep trying to find equivalent things other than humans, of what I am saying is the case for humans. I say humans act, then you say (without proof) "so do squirrels." I say human action is not constant because humans learn, then you say (without proof) "so do AI machines."
At one point, you say it's learning. So we point to squirrels and machine intelligence. Not being able to argue the point, you move on.
Major_Freedom: You see, the reason why you keep wanting to equivocate consciousness ...
You are apparently making a claim that human consciousness is not due to 'constancy'. But that is something that simply isn't known with certainty, and the majority of neuroscientists would say there is a great deal of evidence that human mental states are a phenomena of 'constancy' relations having to do with nerves and synapses and the complex organization of the brain.
Major_Freedom: You have for the last few posts introduced the concept of chaos, and Hericlitean philosophy (the moving river),
We introduced the concepts because your views are ill-defined, and we are attempting to define them. By the way, can you provide a rigorous definition of "constancy"?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The market only appears chaotic if one denies the presence of purposeful human behavior, and just considers the historical data in a mechanistic way."
"In markets, purpose is local. Global market structures are due to preferential network attachments, and the activity is chaotic (sensitive to initial conditions)."
If individuals are purposeful, then so are two individuals, and three, and four, and the whole economy of acting man.
"Major_Freedom: I wasn't asking for a simple and direct path. I was asking for the path. If it's too complex and indirect for you, then admit it and stop wasting time."
"You're wasting your own time because you refuse to read the paper you were provided."
You haven't shown you understand it. I know the paper. Again, you're mistaking my asking you questions to mean I don't know.
"The only way to determine the different trajectories of the system with and without butterfly wings is to follow every detail of the system. That's the very nature of chaos."
This is separate from human action. In principle, one COULD know enough about the physical world to know what will happen. One could not in principle know the future path of one's own learning.
"Major_Freedom: Diverge more and more how?"
"The physical mechanisms are the standard mechanisms of air pressure, humidity, the arrangements of continents, ocean currents, and so on. The detailed change in behavior of the system with and without perturbation can only be determined by looking at the dynamical system as it unfolds."
Change how?
"As Lorenz discovered, there is no way to trace the effect of the butterfly short of tracing the details of the entire dynamical system. Such is the nature of chaos."
So if there was a way to trace out the entire system, it would no longer be chaotic?
"Major_Freedom: We have localized air pressure readings, temperature, humidity, current trajectories of low and high pressure systems, etc, but there is a lack of knowledge of everything that can effect weather, so long range forecasts become difficult."
"More particularly, the level of detail required, and the required detail increases exponentially with time."
The same information exists. There is no exponential increase in information over time.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: But this is separate from the argument I am making, which is that unlike human action, which is not based on constancy in relations, the weather is."
"The human mental state (or that of a squirrel) may be due solely to the 'constancy' of relations between neurons and synapses and the organization of the brain."
Sure, but we will never be able to make predictions based on that which can enable us to know the future path of our own learning, because learning any facts will change our knowledge.
"Major_Freedom: You keep trying to find equivalent things other than humans, of what I am saying is the case for humans. I say humans act, then you say (without proof) "so do squirrels." I say human action is not constant because humans learn, then you say (without proof) "so do AI machines."
"At one point, you say it's learning. So we point to squirrels and machine intelligence. Not being able to argue the point, you move on."
I have argued the point. I have asked how do you know that squirrels learn. After repeated questioning, you fail to answer, so you accuse me of moving on, when it's just traversing what you know.
"Major_Freedom: You see, the reason why you keep wanting to equivocate consciousness ..."
"You are apparently making a claim that human consciousness is not due to 'constancy'."
No, I am making the claim that we will never be able to know of it in such a way as to be able to predict what we will learn based on constancy.
"But that is something..."
Which is not my point, so the rest of what you said doesn't apply.
"Major_Freedom: You have for the last few posts introduced the concept of chaos, and Hericlitean philosophy (the moving river),"
"We introduced the concepts because your views are ill-defined, and we are attempting to define them."
"We"? Who else is there besides you? And when are you going to answer this question?
They are not ill-defined. They are very well-defined, clear, transparent, and if you read the source material, you'd gain a better understanding.
Your lack of understanding is what is causing you to grasp at other concepts for similarity.
"By the way, can you provide a rigorous definition of "constancy"?
I already have. Constancy is that the truth, the essence, the nature of things does not change over the course of time. E=mc^2 yesterday, and it is held as the same today because of constancy.
Major_Freedom: If individuals are purposeful, then so are two individuals, and three, and four, and the whole economy of acting man.
That is quite incorrect. As you should know, free markets are characterized by a *lack* of a central plan.
We can see this sort of network evolving in many areas of human activity. A typical example is the layout of air traffic networks. They weren't planned. Early airports started for reasons that have little to do with the eventual need or feasibility for these airports to act as hubs. Rather, they grew into their roles, so that hubs are not necessarily in the best locations, but the network is so intertwined, it can be difficult to restructure it now.
Guida & Maria, Topology of the Italian airport network: A scale-free small-world network with a fractal structure, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2006.
Interestingly, web interconnectivity is such an example. The overall structure isn't designed, but the result of preferential attachment.
Major_Freedom: This is separate from human action.
You asked about butterflies.
Major_Freedom: So if there was a way to trace out the entire system, it would no longer be chaotic?
Nope. Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions.
But it turns out that it is virtually impossible to predict something as simple as complex water turbulence. You can never have enough data.
Major_Freedom: The same information exists. There is no exponential increase in information over time.
Huh? If you want to predict weather over longer periods, you need to have more fine detail of the initial conditions. Unfortunately, the amount of information you need explodes as you try to extend your forecasts over a few days.
Major_Freedom: Sure, but we will never be able to make predictions based on that which can enable us to know the future path of our own learning, because learning any facts will change our knowledge.
Then your argument about constancy is irrelevant. So, it's only because mental states change through learning. Squirrels learn too. Yet, scientists* can study human and squirrel behavior, and we can make predictions about at least some behaviors with reasonable levels of confidence.
(* And please quite with the constant redefinition of terms. Science normally refers to the scientific method, that is, hypothesis-testing.)
Major_Freedom: I have asked how do you know that squirrels learn. After repeated questioning, you fail to answer, ...
We answered. We provided a fun site about the observation of squirrels solving problems. More particularly, we provided an operational definition of learning, in this case, by using the dictionary definition "become skilled at a task through experience", then showed how it applied to rodents. We even provided a reference so you could replicate the experiment.
Major_Freedom: No, I am making the claim that we will never be able to know of it in such a way as to be able to predict what we will learn based on constancy.
And you can't accurately predict the weather past a few days, but you can still make statistical predictions.
Major_Freedom: Constancy is that the truth, the essence, the nature of things does not change over the course of time.
Seriously, you just defined it as the "truth" of things.
Do humans not have "the truth, the essence, the nature of", but squirrels do? Can you rephrase that in terms so that when we look at something we can determine its "truth, essence, nature"? Or whether it even has one? Or if it changes?
-
So all your hundreds of comments, about all these various subjects, distills down into this vague preconception. We had always thought so, but it took a bit to pull it out.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: If individuals are purposeful, then so are two individuals, and three, and four, and the whole economy of acting man."
"That is quite incorrect. As you should know, free markets are characterized by a *lack* of a central plan."
No, you misunderstand yet again. I did not say that that there is a central plan.
There as many plans as there are individuals, and collectively, through economic coordination based on the price system, subject to the constraints of profit and loss, the free market is in fact planned and not chaotic; it is planned by the individuals themselves through their self-interested goals.
"We can see this sort of network evolving in many areas of human activity. A typical example is the layout of air traffic networks. They weren't planned. Early airports started for reasons that have little to do with the eventual need or feasibility for these airports to act as hubs. Rather, they grew into their roles, so that hubs are not necessarily in the best locations, but the network is so intertwined, it can be difficult to restructure it now."
This is an example of what Hayek called spontaneous order. The system as a whole was not planned by a single consciousness, but the whole system is nevertheless a product of individual planning.
"Interestingly, web interconnectivity is such an example. The overall structure isn't designed, but the result of preferential attachment."
The web is a perfect example of what I am saying. You just completely misunderstood what I said. You thought that by me saying "If individuals are purposeful, then so are two individuals, and three, and four, and the whole economy of acting man", that I was trying to advance the notion that the entire economy is planned by a single consciousness.
No, I am saying that the entire economy is planned, it is planned by the coordinated purposeful actions of millions if not billions of individuals. Just because the whole economy is not planned by a single consciousness, that doesn't mean the whole market is not planned. It is planned, if you look at the economy as a whole as ONLY a group of individually acting men.
"Major_Freedom: This is separate from human action."
"You asked about butterflies."
I know. I wanted to make it clear that UNLIKE the mechanisms involved in the relationship between butterfly wing flapping and hurricanes, which are based on constancy, human action is separate from this because there is no constancy knowable to us.
"Major_Freedom: So if there was a way to trace out the entire system, it would no longer be chaotic?"
"Nope. Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions."
Wrong. Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions AND by a lack of knowledge of the all the information in the system that affects the outcomes. Full knowledge of a system would no longer make that system chaotic, for we would have knowledge of not only the initial conditions, but also the information within the system that would enable us to know the outcomes, and hence the system will no longer be chaotic.
The sensitivity of initial conditions component of chaos theory is related to an inability to exactly pinpoint what the initial conditions in fact are. Things like rounding errors in the initial conditions can have effects that cannot be predicted for the very reason that predictions require full knowledge of the initial conditions.
It is false to assert that having full knowledge of not only the initial conditions, but also the information within the system, that chaos will nevertheless remain.
Zachriel:
"But it turns out that it is virtually impossible to predict something as simple as complex water turbulence. You can never have enough data."
It's interesting watching you start a few weeks ago with the conviction that predictions are not only possible for human action, but is also possible for the natural world. Now you're saying it's impossible to predict "simple" things. It's almost as if you are playing the part of a chaotic system. You obviously weren't entirely sure of your knowledge a few weeks ago, and that "rounding error" has displayed the sensitivity of your initial knowledge conditions. You did not have a clue that you would be here right now, a few weeks later, having different ideas, and typing on this blog, rather than doing something else.
You cannot predict even your own future path of knowledge changes, and hence your future actions, based on constancy in relations, let alone others in which you have even less information about them available. The last few weeks have shown you to be purpose directed, based on what you know at the time you make choices and act, and that you cannot coherently regard yourself as past causally determined, even if you were actually past causally determined.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The same information exists. There is no exponential increase in information over time."
"Huh? If you want to predict weather over longer periods, you need to have more fine detail of the initial conditions."
You're saying huh? I said the same information exists whether you have the wherewithal to observe it or not, and you're saying huh, followed by telling me that the limitation is how much we can have knowledge over those initial conditions, which is tacitly admitting that the same information exists whether we can gain knowledge over it or not?
Or did you misunderstand the meaning of information? Information is not the same thing as knowledge. Information is ontological data that is out there. Knowledge is epistemological data that is in our minds. Information has always, and probably always will, exceed our knowledge.
"Unfortunately, the amount of information you need explodes as you try to extend your forecasts over a few days."
But the same information is there the whole time. What explodes is our required knowledge to be able to know what happens.
Going back to human action once more, the limitation is even greater.
In the natural world, at least in principle it is the case that if we had more knowledge, we'd be able to know what will happen over longer periods, basing our judgment on constancy in relations over time. The more knowledge we have, the more we'd be able to extend our horizon of predictions.
In the human action world, this is not possible. Even in principle we can't acquire enough knowledge to know what will happen over longer periods, basing our judgment on constancy in relations over time. The very act of learning more and acquiring more knowledge, changes us and thus what we studies up to the present, is no longer even applicable. We can't look at what we did in the past, see that event X followed events A, B, C, etc, and then say we have found a constant relation. The very claim to have learned such a thing will require a change in the subject matter in question, so that now have to include event X and not just events A, B, C, etc. But then if we claim to have established another constancy relation of event Y following events A, B, C, X, etc, then we will have again changed, and now we have to take into account event Y along with A, B, C, X, etc.
This process is neverending insofar as humans claim to be learning constancy relations based on past data. It's like watching a skyscraper being built. As each floor is added, the structure itself changes and what was true before (say the weight of the floors above the first two floors, on the first two floors) is no longer applicable. One cannot say that just because one floor was added each week for the past 14 weeks, that we have found a constancy relationship that enables us to predict that every week another floor will be added. We can't know this because the floors are being added based on purposeful action; on the intentions of the builder. If he intended to build a 40 floor building, then we cannot say we have found an equation of the form "Floors built = W, where W is the number of weeks that have elapsed." This constancy based formula betrays the fact that the number of floors built are going to be a function of the purposeful action of the builder, not on a non-human equation that seeks to relate past events to current events in a fixed way.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Sure, but we will never be able to make predictions based on that which can enable us to know the future path of our own learning, because learning any facts will change our knowledge."
"Then your argument about constancy is irrelevant."
No, it's quite relevant, and is in fact central. It is because our knowledge changes, that enables to know that constancy does not apply, and so positivist based methodologies of inquiry are the wrong methodologies to use.
"So, it's only because mental states change through learning. Squirrels learn too."
You haven't proven this yet, and I have already said I am talking about humans, not squirrels.
"Yet, scientists* can study human and squirrel behavior, and we can make predictions about at least some behaviors with reasonable levels of confidence."
At least some, with reasonable levels of confidence. In other words, you can't. You could not even predict your own future path of learning while on this blog the last few weeks.
"(* And please quite with the constant redefinition of terms. Science normally refers to the scientific method, that is, hypothesis-testing.)"
What redefinitions? It's easy to accuse, harder to back it up, isn't it?
"Major_Freedom: I have asked how do you know that squirrels learn. After repeated questioning, you fail to answer,"
"We answered."
No, you didn't.
"We provided a fun site about the observation of squirrels solving problems."
Solving problems is a human endeavor that is being applied to what the squirrels are doing. But there is no difference, observationally, between an animal automatically responding to external stimuli, and an animal that is doing what humans do.
Again, I talk about human action and what is true for us, and you keep switching the context to squirrels. I have already explained why I think you keep doing this, and so there is no contribution you are making by continuing to refer to squirrels.
Zachriel:
"More particularly, we provided an operational definition of learning, in this case, by using the dictionary definition "become skilled at a task through experience", then showed how it applied to rodents."
As I have already said, the same visual interpretation can be made for candles that flutter in the wind.
"We even provided a reference so you could replicate the experiment."
You still have not answered who else is there with you such that the word "we" is justified. You have the audacity to tell me that I am redefining terms, and yet you're redefining "we" to refer to a single person.
What you are ignoring is the human element, as usual. If I were to perform the experiment you're suggesting, then you are asking me to learn something. But if I do learn something through such experiments, it will only change my knowledge, and to the extent that my actions are based on my knowledge, my actions will change as well. But, if you're telling me that it is guaranteed I will get the same experimental results, because there is constancy in the way rodents learn and behave, then you're only just doubling your admission that my position is correct that we must regard things outside ourselves as behaving according to constant relations, but not ourselves, because we can't be constant if we're going to claim to be learning about such constancy outside ourselves.
Having fun yet?
"Major_Freedom: No, I am making the claim that we will never be able to know of it in such a way as to be able to predict what we will learn based on constancy."
"And you can't accurately predict the weather past a few days, but you can still make statistical predictions."
Statistical predictions based on constancy in relations, which does not apply to human action.
"Major_Freedom: Constancy is that the truth, the essence, the nature of things does not change over the course of time."
"Seriously, you just defined it as the "truth" of things."
Seriously, you're confused by that?
"Do humans not have "the truth, the essence, the nature of", but squirrels do?"
That question makes no sense.
"Can you rephrase that in terms so that when we look at something we can determine its "truth, essence, nature"?"
When you look at something, you are seeing it how it appears to you at that time. I am not talking about how things merely appear at a given time, I am talking about how they are over time. Physical laws for example are true over time in terms of content. They are not "true yesterday but not true today". They are "true yesterday and true today, in terms of content." That's how we regard them.
With human action on the other hand, we cannot regard it as the same yesterday as it is today, in terms of content. Past human action is UNIQUE to those times, in terms of content.
"So all your hundreds of comments, about all these various subjects, distills down into this vague preconception."
It's not vague, and it's not a "pre"-conception. It is clear, coherent, and a product of logic through self-reflection.
"We had always thought so, but it took a bit to pull it out."
No see, that's just your own vague pre-conceptions biasing your interpretation. You want to shoehorn in your prejudices, and in desperation you try to find an excuse that appears to you as a means to not having to accept something other than what you believe.
I can tell you that after reading your hundreds of posts, I am now even more convinced of my knowledge. This is something that you're just going to have to learn at some point, and so if I haven't convinced you, then the obligation is on you to read the source material directly.
Major_Freedom: the free market is in fact planned and not chaotic
That is incorrect. Markets are sensitive to initial conditions. Free markets are a classic chaotic system, as we cited above. That's their strength.
Major_Freedom: This is an example of what Hayek called spontaneous order.
That's right. It is a type of spontaneous order.
spontaneous, coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
Major_Freedom: Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions AND by a lack of knowledge of the all the information in the system that affects the outcomes.
Um, no. Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system. If you input the exact same initial conditions, the simulation will follow the exact same history every single time. If, on the other hand, you change the initial conditions, even slightly, then the simulation will diverge from its previous incarnation. The simulation itself is a chaotic system. It is a simplified model of weather, which is also a chaotic system.
Major_Freedom: It's interesting watching you start a few weeks ago with the conviction that predictions are not only possible for human action, but is also possible for the natural world.
It is quite possible to make predictions about the weather, just not precise predictions, and they are often statistical. For instance, in Paris, it will tend to be warmer in July than January. We can make similar predictions about humans.
Major_Freedom: Information is not the same thing as knowledge. Information is ontological data that is out there.
Is it necessary to mangle every definition? Information is defined as the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence, knowledge obtained from investigation, a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Major_Freedom: Even in principle we can't acquire enough knowledge to know what will happen over longer periods, basing our judgment on constancy in relations over time.
Yes, the state of the human mind changes over time. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to make generalizations about human behavior. For instance, most humans will seek food, shelter and engage in mating behavior.
Zachriel: So, it's only because mental states change through learning. Squirrels learn too.
Major_Freedom: You haven't proven this yet, and I have already said I am talking about humans, not squirrels.
You haven't proven humans learn. For all we know you are just "an animal automatically responding to external stimuli". If you are human, then you most certainly are! We wouldn't presume to say, though.
Turns out the same tests of intelligence used for rats works for humans too; figuring out puzzles and the like. Did you know that humans think with their meat?
Major_Freedom: What redefinitions?
We provided multiple definitions of science, including the Oxford Dictionary, a source for learning about science for kids, a university, and NASA. Not sure how else to help you.
Major_Freedom: But there is no difference, observationally, between an animal automatically responding to external stimuli, and an animal that is doing what humans do.
Well, it is of the same kind, but different in degree. They "become skilled at a task through experience", which is the definition of learning.
Major_Freedom: As I have already said, the same visual interpretation can be made for candles that flutter in the wind.
Candles do not "become skilled at a task through experience".
Major_Freedom: But, if you're telling me that it is guaranteed I will get the same experimental results, because there is constancy in the way rodents learn and behave, ...
Turns out that people can solve mazes too. And if you reward them, they will usually "become skilled at a task through experience".
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: the free market is in fact planned and not chaotic."
"That is incorrect. Markets are sensitive to initial conditions."
First, it is not incorrect. It is correct.
Second, what you said is incorrect. You're just going back to your previous fallacious worldview.
There are no "initial conditions" in the sphere of human action. The conditions are constantly changing, in accordance with human knowledge. Human action is not sensitive to any past conditions at all. As I argued prior, we cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined. So we cannot coherently regard ourselves as past causally determined according to "sensitive initial conditions."
"The Free markets are a classic chaotic system, as we cited above. That's their strength."
No, you have not cited any proof that the market is chaotic. You have only cited the meaning, the definition, of chaos.
The market is planned by millions if not billions of goal oriented entities. It is the very antithesis of chaos.
"Major_Freedom: This is an example of what Hayek called spontaneous order."
"That's right. It is a type of spontaneous order."
I know it's right. No need to beat a dead horse.
"spontaneous, coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause."
The whole system was not planned or premeditated by a single consciousness. But the system at the local levels was all planned and premeditated.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions AND by a lack of knowledge of the all the information in the system that affects the outcomes."
"Um, no."
Um, yes.
Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system based on initial conditions and a lack of knowing the full information within the system thus preventing it from being predicted over the long run.
"If you input the exact same initial conditions, the simulation will follow the exact same history every single time."
Which is exactly not the case for human action! Not only is there no "same initial conditions" in the free market, since the conditions are always changing, but even if we consider particular unchanging conditions, like the price of a particular good, it doesn't always lead to the same choices being made by economic actors. The same individual can have different behavior over time in the presence of the same economic statistics like price and supply.
Unlike computerized chaos simulations, the market never has the same exact initial conditions. Every moment in time, the conditions are different. Never is there is the exact same set of initial conditions, such that we can repeat economic "experiments", and see the same result happening each time. Again, for the millionth time, human knowledge changes over time. Technology changed. Supply changes. Demands change.
"If, on the other hand, you change the initial conditions, even slightly, then the simulation will diverge from its previous incarnation."
This is also not the case for human action. Sometimes slightly different particular economic statistics, like the price of salt, accompanied little to no change in outcomes. This is the case for price inelastic goods.
"The simulation itself is a chaotic system. It is a simplified model of weather, which is also a chaotic system."
Does not apply to human action, which is purpose directed.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: It's interesting watching you start a few weeks ago with the conviction that predictions are not only possible for human action, but is also possible for the natural world."
"It is quite possible to make predictions about the weather, just not precise predictions, and they are often statistical."
If one considers the difference, performance-wise, between making a statistical prediction based on constancy in relations after which one ends up being wrong in one's prediction but not wrong about the assumption of constancy in relations, and making a statistical prediction based on constancy in relations after which one ends up being wrong in one's prediction and is wrong about the assumption of constancy
in relations, then the practical outcome is the exact same.
"For instance, in Paris, it will tend to be warmer in July than January. We can make similar predictions about humans."
You've already proven yourself incapable of doing so with something as simple as food intake. You're saying you can make similar predictions about humans, and yet you have not shown any equation that can predict what I will do.
"Major_Freedom: Information is not the same thing as knowledge. Information is ontological data that is out there."
"Is it necessary to mangle every definition?"
It's not a mangling of definitions. There is not one be all and end all definition of information.
"Information is defined as..."
There is not one definition. Since the context was the weather, and chaotic systems, the information here is every true proposition that can be made about the system, which is greater than the knowledge of the system.
In the market, the definition of information is the sum total of all knowledge.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Even in principle we can't acquire enough knowledge to know what will happen over longer periods, basing our judgment on constancy in relations over time."
"Yes, the state of the human mind changes over time. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to make generalizations about human behavior. For instance, most humans will seek food, shelter and engage in mating behavior."
Which humans exactly? Most humans may mean something over 50% of the population. Which people are in that group, and what equation based on constancy are you utilizing to predict who will be in that group, and who will not be in that group?
"Major_Freedom: You haven't proven this yet, and I have already said I am talking about humans, not squirrels."
"You haven't proven humans learn."
LOL, I don't have to. You already agreed with it. I don't need to prove something to you that you agree with. Remember when you tried to convince me that the hypothetico-deduction method is a method humans can use to learn about the world?
If your position is now different, if your position now is that you aren't even sure any more that humans learn, hoping to refute me by completely backtracking from what you said prior, which was that humans learn by utilizing the hypothetico-deduction method, then you'd only be completely contradicting yourself.
"For all we know you are just "an animal automatically responding to external stimuli"."
I know we are not. I showed it.
"If you are human, then you most certainly are!"
No, we most certainly are not! The same external stimuli doesn't always precede the same human action, and different external stimuli don't always precede different human action. Humans are a rational animal. We don't automatically respond to external stimuli.
"We wouldn't presume to say, though."
Who else is there with you? You still haven't answered that question. Your responses have dodged this question.
And you just presumed to say, first by saying that humans learn over time, then by denying it, hoping that latest crap argument will stick.
"Turns out the same tests of intelligence used for rats works for humans too; figuring out puzzles and the like."
Tests of intelligence? You mean you learned something about rats that you did not know prior to the experiments? LOL!!!!! And the house of cards that is your worldview collapses once again.
"Did you know that humans think with their meat?"
LOL, you just contradicted yourself yet again. If humans think with their meat, then they can't also be automatically responding to external stimuli.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: What redefinitions?"
"We provided multiple definitions of science, including the Oxford Dictionary, a source for learning about science for kids, a university, and NASA. Not sure how else to help you."
LOL, no, you just provided a definition of the positivist based methodologies such as hypothetico-deduction. This methodology does not have a monopoly on the definition of science. See mathematics and logic, and economics, for details. These sciences do not utilize the HD methodology.
"Major_Freedom: But there is no difference, observationally, between an animal automatically responding to external stimuli, and an animal that is doing what humans do."
"Well, it is of the same kind, but different in degree."
No, it is difference in KIND. We are unique in our mental powers. We can abstract and form conceptions. These are mental abilities that are not just "better" than the lower animals, they are additional distinct mental powers.
"They "become skilled at a task through experience", which is the definition of learning."
LOL, so now you're back to saying humans learn. Is your brain damaged?
"Major_Freedom: As I have already said, the same visual interpretation can be made for candles that flutter in the wind."
"Candles do not "become skilled at a task through experience"."
Why do you believe that?
"Major_Freedom: But, if you're telling me that it is guaranteed I will get the same experimental results, because there is constancy in the way rodents learn and behave, ..."
"Turns out that people can solve mazes too."
Which people? People have to choose to solve mazes, and the individual's choice to solve a maze is not predicated on constancy in relations. There is nothing you can point to in the past that determines their action in solving the maze.
"And if you reward them, they will usually "become skilled at a task through experience"."
Usually? Why not always?
And what's this? You mean you learned this through the outcomes of experiments? So we learn, then we don't learn, then we learn, then we don't learn, then we learn, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
LOL!!!
Major_Freedom: There are no "initial conditions" in the sphere of human action.
Initial conditions just refer to a point in time.
Major_Freedom: Human action is not sensitive to any past conditions at all.
That's just silly. Of course people are sensitive to the past.
Major_Freedom: No, you have not cited any proof that the market is chaotic. You have only cited the meaning, the definition, of chaos.
Markets are an archetype in the basis and founding of Chaos Theory, as as cited above.
Major_Freedom: The market is planned by millions if not billions of goal oriented entities. It is the very antithesis of chaos.
Markets are sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixed,
and its periodic orbits are dense; hence, markets are chaotic systems (with trend).
Major_Freedom: The whole system was not planned or premeditated by a single consciousness. But the system at the local levels was all planned and premeditated.
Which is typical of chaotic systems.
Major_Freedom: Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system based on initial conditions and a lack of knowing the full information within the system thus preventing it from being predicted over the long run.
Well, no. Every detail of Lorenz's systems was known. His mistake of entering truncated data simply revealed the sensitivity to initial conditions. The simulation was chaotic. That's the whole point.
Zachriel: If you input the exact same initial conditions, the simulation will follow the exact same history every single time.
Major_Freedom: Unlike computerized chaos simulations, the market never has the same exact initial conditions. Every moment in time, the conditions are different.
In nature, you'll never replicate the exact same initial conditions for most any chaotic system, including something as simple as turbulent water flow.
Major_Freedom: Again, for the millionth time, human knowledge changes over time. Technology changed. Supply changes. Demands change.
Yes, we're aware of that.
Major_Freedom: Sometimes slightly different particular economic statistics, like the price of salt, accompanied little to no change in outcomes.
Yes. Most butterflies have no consequential effect on weather.
Major_Freedom: Since the context was the weather, and chaotic systems, the information here is every true proposition that can be made about the system, which is greater than the knowledge of the system.
Gee whiz, Major_Freedom, you're not a stupid person. We provided several definitions, none of which comport to your understanding. Information in such discussions refers to data. And you could certainly have understood that from the context. In order to predict the future trajectory of a dynamical system, it requires an exploding amount of data concerning the initial conditions of the system. That makes long term weather prediction impractical, if not impossible.
Major_Freedom: In the market, the definition of information is the sum total of all knowledge.
That's a reasonable point. The amount of data required to represent the initial conditions of the market is vast, as vast as the human mind times billions.
Zachriel: You haven't proven humans learn.
Major_Freedom: LOL, I don't have to.
As you have spent days arguing as to whether squirrels learn, it is quite clear we do not agree on this point. We must be using different senses of the term. We provided a definition. We provided various scientific tests. But you go on and on without any attempt at communicating a clear understanding.
Zachriel: For all we know you are just "an animal automatically responding to external stimuli".
Major_Freedom: I know we are not. I showed it.
Sorry. Thought you were one of those bipedal apes from Earth. They are fascinating creatures, but we didn't mean to imply you think with your meat. We apologize.
Zachriel: Tests of intelligence?
Yes. Solving mazes is a common test of intelligence.
Major_Freedom: If humans think with their meat, then they can't also be automatically responding to external stimuli.
Not all responses are automatic, even in rats.
Major_Freedom: LOL, no, you just provided a definition of the positivist based methodologies such as hypothetico-deduction.
Well, the Oxford Dictionary, University of Rochester, Science Buddy, and NASA said it was the scientific method.
Major_Freedom: See mathematics and logic, and economics, for details. These sciences do not utilize the HD methodology.
According to Oxford Dictionary, the term "science" normally excludes pure mathematics and logic. Sometimes they are still grouped for historical purposes.
But then again, you're just arguing from definition again.
Major_Freedom: so now you're back to saying humans learn.
You keep mangling definitions, so it's hard to understand even where we have agreement. For instance, we provided a definition of learning way up above. You neither assented nor disputed the definition. We then showed tests of learning in non-human animals with positive results, even how you could replicate the experiments yourself.
Major_Freedom: Which people {solve mazes}?
Here's a few.
http://tinyurl.com/HamptonCourtMaze
Major_Freedom: Usually? Why not always?
Ah, people are changeable—like the weather.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: There are no "initial conditions" in the sphere of human action."
"Initial conditions just refer to a point in time."
There are no two points in time that have the same conditions.
"Major_Freedom: Human action is not sensitive to any past conditions at all."
"That's just silly. Of course people are sensitive to the past."
I said human action is not sensitive to past conditions. I didn't say people are not sensitive to the past. There is a difference.
"Major_Freedom: No, you have not cited any proof that the market is chaotic. You have only cited the meaning, the definition, of chaos."
"Markets are an archetype in the basis and founding of Chaos Theory, as as cited above."
The basis and founding for my interest in baseball has an archetype in the world series. But that doesn't mean that my playing of baseball is a world series.
Your citation only explains chaos theory.
"You haven't shown that markets are an archetype of chaos, and neither have the links you cited.
"Major_Freedom: The market is planned by millions if not billions of goal oriented entities. It is the very antithesis of chaos."
"Markets are sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixed,
and its periodic orbits are dense; hence, markets are chaotic systems (with trend)."
Non sequitur.
And the free market doesn't periodically orbit.
"Major_Freedom: The whole system was not planned or premeditated by a single consciousness. But the system at the local levels was all planned and premeditated."
"Which is typical of chaotic systems."
False. Chaotic systems are treated as past causally determined. Human action cannot coherently be regarded as past causally determined.
"Major_Freedom: Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system based on initial conditions and a lack of knowing the full information within the system thus preventing it from being predicted over the long run."
"Well, no. Every detail of Lorenz's systems was known. His mistake of entering truncated data simply revealed the sensitivity to initial conditions. The simulation was chaotic. That's the whole point."
Truncated data is another way of saying that one does not know the full information within the system. He didn't make a mistake in this respect. It is a necessary attribute of entities who lack omniscience.
"Major_Freedom: Unlike computerized chaos simulations, the market never has the same exact initial conditions. Every moment in time, the conditions are different."
"In nature, you'll never replicate the exact same initial conditions for most any chaotic system, including something as simple as turbulent water flow."
In principle one can, with enough technology. In the market, even in principle one can't, no matter how much technology one has.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Again, for the millionth time, human knowledge changes over time. Technology changed. Supply changes. Demands change."
"Yes, we're aware of that."
Then you must have forgot it.
"Major_Freedom: Sometimes slightly different particular economic statistics, like the price of salt, accompanied little to no change in outcomes."
"Yes. Most butterflies have no consequential effect on weather."
Butterfly affects on the weather are treated as causally determined based on constancy in relations. Human action does not work that way.
"Major_Freedom: Since the context was the weather, and chaotic systems, the information here is every true proposition that can be made about the system, which is greater than the knowledge of the system."
"Gee whiz, Major_Freedom, you're not a stupid person. We provided several definitions, none of which comport to your understanding. Information in such discussions refers to data. And you could certainly have understood that from the context. In order to predict the future trajectory of a dynamical system, it requires an exploding amount of data concerning the initial conditions of the system. That makes long term weather prediction impractical, if not impossible."
Definitions are conventions, not objective claims, and in the context of weather systems, and all other "natural" systems, information refers to the reality within a system, not what is known about the system. You are conflating the holder of information, with the information itself. In the hard sciences, information exists apart from anyone knowing it.
In physics for example, some physicists argue that the full information of any solid object can be represented by a 2 dimensional shell surrounding that object (holographic principle). This information is not claimed to be known in content. it is information that is "out there."
I don't care if you post a hundred definitions of "information." In the context of the hard sciences, like weather, information refers to every true thing about that system, regardless of it is known or not.
"Major_Freedom: In the market, the definition of information is the sum total of all knowledge."
"That's a reasonable point. The amount of data required to represent the initial conditions of the market is vast, as vast as the human mind times billions."
There is no initial conditions of the market. Time is always going forward. As soon as you gather all the data, it is no longer applicable to the present.
This is why I consider econometricians to actually be social historians, rather than economists.
"Zachriel: You haven't proven humans learn."
"Major_Freedom: LOL, I don't have to."
Interesting how you omitted the actual substance of my response:
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: LOL, I don't have to. You already agreed with it. I don't need to prove something to you that you agree with. Remember when you tried to convince me that the hypothetico-deduction method is a method humans can use to learn about the world?"
"As you have spent days arguing as to whether squirrels learn, it is quite clear we do not agree on this point."
LOL, no, YOU'VE spent days arguing as to whether squirrels learn. You brought it up. And nice red herring once again. You first claimed that humans learn via the HD method, and now you're saying it hasn't been proven that humans learn, thus contradicting yourself.
After being shown this contradiction, you then yammer on again about squirrels.
"We must be using different senses of the term."
And here is when you retreat back to semantics once again.
"We provided a definition."
You still have not answered who else is there with you such that "we" is justified.
The definition you cited already presupposes the one we initially agreed to via argument, which is acquiring an understanding of that which is really the case.
"We provided various scientific tests."
Which presuppose the definition we already agreed to, and which presupposes a LACK of constancy, such that humans can even learn the outcomes of these initially unpredictable experiments.
"But you go on and on without any attempt at communicating a clear understanding."
Utterly false. You're now just trying to defend your contradictions by pretending that you aren't sure what definitions I am using, after we already clearly agreed to them.
"Zachriel: For all we know you are just "an animal automatically responding to external stimuli".
"Major_Freedom: I know we are not. I showed it."
"Sorry. Thought you were one of those bipedal apes from Earth."
I am, but that doesn't mean I am responding automatically to external stimuli. You can't point to a non-human animal and claim that if it's true for that animal, it MUST be true for me too. I am not anything but me, who belongs in the human race. If there is a talent that humans have, it is not necessary that other animals have it as well.
"They are fascinating creatures, but we didn't mean to imply you think with your meat. We apologize."
You still have not answered who else is there with you such that "we" is a justified pronoun.
And I didn't deny that humans think with their meat.
"Zachriel: Tests of intelligence?"
"Yes. Solving mazes is a common test of intelligence."
That was actually me who asked that, not you.
And you again omitted the substantive part of my response, which was this:
"Tests of intelligence? You mean you learned something about rats that you did not know prior to the experiments? LOL!!!!! And the house of cards that is your worldview collapses once again."
"Major_Freedom: If humans think with their meat, then they can't also be automatically responding to external stimuli."
"Not all responses are automatic, even in rats."
Prove it that rats are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way, and show how it is you are even able to understand such a way such that you can identify it when it occurs in things you observe.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: LOL, no, you just provided a definition of the positivist based methodologies such as hypothetico-deduction."
"Well, the Oxford Dictionary, University of Rochester, Science Buddy, and NASA said it was the scientific method."
That would be the fallacy of authority.
Yes, those sources all define the scientific method according to positivist based methodologies such as the HD. That doesn't mean it is the only valid scientific method.
You can't win this argument about real things by constantly referring to definitions which are merely verbal conventions.
"Major_Freedom: See mathematics and logic, and economics, for details. These sciences do not utilize the HD methodology."
"According to Oxford Dictionary, the term "science" normally excludes pure mathematics and logic."
Fallacy of authority once again.
"Sometimes they are still grouped for historical purposes."
I am making a new history of re-introducing mathematics and logic back into science, just like people in the past (incorrectly) divorced them.
"But then again, you're just arguing from definition again."
LOL, now that's funny. Here I am making an argument which utilizes definitions, and there you are arguing over definitions, and when I refuse to adopt your definitions, you're saying I am arguing from definitions....again!(LOL! as if I have before).
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: so now you're back to saying humans learn."
"You keep mangling definitions, so it's hard to understand even where we have agreement."
LOL, no, I am not mangling any definitions. Definitions cannot be mangled. Definitions are stipulated conventions for the meaning of words. I am not mangling any definitions. I fully accept that the sources you have cited define the words in those ways. Let them. My arguments however are about meanings, not definitions.
You are just trying to defend your errors and contradictions by pretending that it's all just a semantics misunderstanding. This is a textbook tactic of hermeneuticians and rhetoricians. It is this irrationality that has poisoned not only the hard sciences, but economic science as well. You prefer to argue over definitions, rather than address the arguments.
You are the one spewing forth other sources for definitions, and then claiming that since I am not using those different definitions, that somehow your contradictory claims are magically immunized. You haven't even shown how your contradictions cease being contradictions if you utilize those other definitions of "learning" and "information" and "science".
"For instance, we provided a definition of learning way up above. You neither assented nor disputed the definition."
Definitions are not declarations about reality. They are verbal conventions. There is nothing to dispute.
"We then showed tests of learning in non-human animals with positive results, even how you could replicate the experiments yourself."
You still haven't answered who else is there with you such that "we" is a justified pronoun.
And again I am not talking about non-human animals learning. I am talking about humans learning. Every time you seek to introduce claims that you are learning from experiments on animals, you are (clearly obliviously) proving my point.
"Major_Freedom: Which people {solve mazes}?"
"Here's a few."
"http://tinyurl.com/HamptonCourtMaze"
People have to choose to solve mazes, and the individual's choice to solve a maze is not predicated on constancy in relations to their past actions. There is nothing you can point to in the past that proves a constancy relation in their action in solving the maze in the future.
"Major_Freedom: Usually? Why not always?"
"Ah, people are changeable—like the weather."
No, not like the weather. The weather can be treated as past causally determined. Humans cannot do that with themselves.
Major_Freedom: There are no two points in time that have the same conditions.
That's true of most natural chaotic systems too, such as water turbulence.
Major_Freedom: I said human action is not sensitive to past conditions. I didn't say people are not sensitive to the past. There is a difference.
Any reasonable reader knows that the past helps determine how people will act today.
Zachriel: Markets are sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixed,
and its periodic orbits are dense; hence, markets are chaotic systems (with trend).
Major_Freedom: Non sequitur.
How can it be a non sequitur. It's directly comparing the traits of markets to the definition of chaos.
Major_Freedom: Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system based on initial conditions and a lack of knowing the full information within the system thus preventing it from being predicted over the long run.
A weather simulation meets the definition of mathematical chaos.
Lorenz, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963: For those systems with bounded solutions, it is found that nonperiodic solutions are ordinarily unstable with respect to small modifications, so that slightly differing initial states can evolve into considerably different states... A simple system representing cellular convection is solved numerically. All of the solution are found to be unstable, and almost all of them are non-periodic.
Major_Freedom: Definitions are conventions, not objective claims, and in the context of weather systems, and all other "natural" systems, information refers to the reality within a system, not what is known about the system.
Not normally. In quantum mechanics, it refers to everything knowable about a system (qubits), but not in weather or most other sciences. We provided several references. Furthermore, you could have determined the meaning from context. More important, we restated using other terminology.
Major_Freedom: There is no initial conditions of the market. Time is always going forward.
The initial conditions just refers to a particular point in time.
Major_Freedom: As soon as you gather all the data, it is no longer applicable to the present.
That's true of every dynamical system.
Major_Freedom: You first claimed that humans learn via the HD method, and now you're saying it hasn't been proven that humans learn, thus contradicting yourself.
You keep mangling definitions and refusing to make an attempt to communicate clearly, so it's hard to understand even where we have agreement.
Zachriel: Sorry. Thought you were one of those bipedal apes from Earth.
Major_Freedom: I am, but that doesn't mean I am responding automatically to external stimuli.
How can one tell?
Major_Freedom: Prove it that rats are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way, and show how it is you are even able to understand such a way such that you can identify it when it occurs in things you observe.
Prove that humans "are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way". Prove that you "are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way."
Zachriel: NASA said it was the scientific method.
Major_Freedom: That would be the fallacy of authority.
Um, no. NASA is a recognized scientific agency. It's a valid appeal to authority.
Major_Freedom: You can't win this argument about real things by constantly referring to definitions which are merely verbal conventions.
When trying to determine the meanings of words, then yes, you refer to verbal conventions. Duh.
Zachriel: According to Oxford Dictionary, the term "science" normally excludes pure mathematics and logic.
Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority once again.
Um, no. Oxford Dictionary is a recognized authority of the meanings of words. It's a valid appeal to authority.
Zachriel: For instance, we provided a definition of learning way up above. You neither assented nor disputed the definition.
Major_Freedom: Definitions are not declarations about reality. They are verbal conventions. There is nothing to dispute.
We provided an operational definition of learning, which you apparently accept. We showed how squirrels exhibit learning behavior, and provided the means for you to replicate the experiments. Are we in agreement that squirrels learn?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: There are no two points in time that have the same conditions."
"That's true of most natural chaotic systems too, such as water turbulence."
But water turbulence is MODELLED by way of repeating the same constancy assumptions, with the only difference is the value of the initial data. This cannot be done with the market.
"Major_Freedom: I said human action is not sensitive to past conditions. I didn't say people are not sensitive to the past. There is a difference."
"Any reasonable reader knows that the past helps determine how people will act today."
"Helps" is proof it is not based on constancy.
We don't say mass "helps determine" energy release according to E/c^2. We say it IS E/c^2 in a constant manner.
"Zachriel: Markets are sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixed, and its periodic orbits are dense; hence, markets are chaotic systems (with trend)."
"Major_Freedom: Non sequitur.
"How can it be a non sequitur."
It doesn't follow from the premises.
You're just saying the market appears like a chaotic system in terms of its observable attributes. But you're forgetting that you have the ability to self-reflect, and acquire knowledge about the market that no outside observer can see just by observing it.
"It's directly comparing the traits of markets to the definition of chaos."
But those aren't even the attributes of markets. Markets are not sensitive to initial conditions, because there isn't any. Today is not an initial condition. Today is a product of past conditions and are completely unique, never to be repeated, unlike chaos models where the same process is run over and over, tweaking just a few variables and holding all others constant. The market doesn't have any constant variables. There are no constant "periodic orbits" in the free market. There is the business cycle in a hampered market to be sure, but even there the "orbits" are not "periodic", they are always different, both in length and scope, and it's all based on human action, not some constant process. The market is not "topologically mixed." Individuals are not "mixing" with each other according to the constancy assumption. They are individual actors who are purpose directed. There isn't even a "topology" of the market that can be observed.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Lorenz's weather simulation was a chaotic deterministic system based on initial conditions and a lack of knowing the full information within the system thus preventing it from being predicted over the long run."
"A weather simulation meets the definition of mathematical chaos."
The market is not the weather.
"Major_Freedom: Definitions are conventions, not objective claims, and in the context of weather systems, and all other "natural" systems, information refers to the reality within a system, not what is known about the system."
"Not normally."
Yes normally.
"In quantum mechanics, it refers to everything knowable about a system (qubits), but not in weather or most other sciences."
Everything "knowable" about a system does not mean it is actually known. You're just proving my point once again.
"We provided several references. Furthermore, you could have determined the meaning from context. More important, we restated using other terminology."
Your references are all used to make fallacy of authority inferences.
"Major_Freedom: There is no initial conditions of the market. Time is always going forward."
"The initial conditions just refers to a particular point in time."
There is no particular point in time that can be repeated, the initial variables of which can be slightly "altered" each time, which is totally unlike chaos models that do exactly that.
"Major_Freedom: As soon as you gather all the data, it is no longer applicable to the present."
"That's true of every dynamical system."
Not true in chaos models.
"Major_Freedom: You first claimed that humans learn via the HD method, and now you're saying it hasn't been proven that humans learn, thus contradicting yourself."
"You keep mangling definitions and refusing to make an attempt to communicate clearly, so it's hard to understand even where we have agreement."
LOL, I am not mangling any definitions. That is again just you trying to defend your contradictions by way of playing semantics. I've made all my definitions clear in the context of my arguments, and I have been communicating VERY clearly. To clear for you it seems.
"Major_Freedom: I am, but that doesn't mean I am responding automatically to external stimuli."
"How can one tell?"
By realizing it is incoherent to even claim that one has learned it.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Prove it that rats are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way, and show how it is you are even able to understand such a way such that you can identify it when it occurs in things you observe."
"Prove that humans "are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way". Prove that you "are not just automatically responding to external stimuli, but rather behaving in some other way."
I already did this a looooooong time ago to you. I provided references, which you obviously did not read, I provided arguments, which you obviously don't recall, so I am not going to waste my time repeating the same damn things over and over again like some demented carnival game.
"Major_Freedom: That would be the fallacy of authority."
"Um, no. NASA is a recognized scientific agency. It's a valid appeal to authority."
That is again another fallacy of authority.
Definitions, again, are conventions. They are not objective claims. You can't cite NASA and then say you're right and I'm wrong. You have to SHOW it. You just keep committing the fallacy of authority of the form "Authority A says X, ergo X is true."
"Major_Freedom: You can't win this argument about real things by constantly referring to definitions which are merely verbal conventions."
"When trying to determine the meanings of words, then yes, you refer to verbal conventions. Duh."
No you don't, not if the meaning of the word is not the conventional definition of the word to which you refer. Duh.
"Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority once again."
"Um, no. Oxford Dictionary is a recognized authority of the meanings of words. It's a valid appeal to authority."
That is again another fallacy of authority.
Definitions, again, are conventions. They are not objective claims. You can't cite Oxford and then say you're right and I'm wrong. You have to SHOW it. You just keep committing the fallacy of authority of the form "Authority A says X, ergo X is true."
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Definitions are not declarations about reality. They are verbal conventions. There is nothing to dispute."
"We provided an operational definition of learning, which you apparently accept."
No, I did not accept it, and my repeated references to the candle, which you have not provided a rebuttal to, should have made that obvious.
"We showed how squirrels exhibit learning behavior, and provided the means for you to replicate the experiments."
I already said many times in response to this repetitive red herring that I am only making arguments about humans and human learning, not squirrels. And I also said many times in response to this repetitive red herring that replicating experiments presupposes the conviction on your part that humans learn from such experiments, which means you are presupposing that human knowledge and hence human action is not based on constancy.
We should have ended this a long time ago, because once you admitted that human action is not based on constancy, you admitted that all methodologies based on the assumption of constancy are hence inapplicable.
"Are we in agreement that squirrels learn?"
You doubt that humans learn (when you postulated that humans might be automatically responding to stimuli), but you're insisting that squirrels learn, which itself must be learned by humans in order for you to even argue the case? You're so far up the confused creek it's not even funny.
Are we in agreement that my actual argument is over the question of humans learn and that it doesn't matter to my argument whether squirrels learn or not, and that squirrels is nothing but a gigantic red herring designed to detract attention away from the topic at hand, which is human learning, human action, and ECONOMICS?
Learning, again, for the millionth time, cannot be observed, it can only ever be understood via self-reflection. You can't infer squirrels to learn unless you already know what it means to learn, which means you must presuppose human learning.
Whether or not squirrels learn is something that has absolutely no bearing on anything I am arguing. Saying one answer or another will have absolutely no implication on a discussion about economics.
You have not proven that squirrels learn. You have not proven that squirrels are learning, rather than just automatically responding to external stimuli, which can perfectly explain EVERYTHING the squirrels do. I have been waiting for you to prove squirrels learn, so I am not going to accept it until you do.
Major_Freedom: "Helps" is proof it is not based on constancy.
If you mean markets are not describable in terms of simple physical relationships as we currently can't describe human mental states in those terms, sure. But that's the beautiful thing about chaos theory you don't understand. You don't have to know all the details of how the individual interactions occur. You don't have to know why a particular city evolved into a major hub for airlines (perhaps some early adopter of flight started an airport there). Once that airport was established, newer airports preferentially attach to it. All of chaos theory works this way. Traffic patterns (planes, cars, internet), made up of thousands of individuals having their own goals and making their own decisions, still form chaotic systems.
Major_Freedom: Markets are not sensitive to initial conditions, because there isn't any.
If someone lights a match in Nigeria, and blows up a pipeline, it can cause vast changes in markets around the world. Gee whiz. Hanging chads determined the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, and that led to wars and debt and financial calamity. That's what is meant by sensitivity to initial conditions. Constantly redefining terminology to suit your position doesn't make an argument.
Major_Freedom: The market is not the weather.
We can certainly agree to that.
Major_Freedom: I've made all my definitions clear in the context of my arguments, and I have been communicating VERY clearly. To clear for you it seems.
No, you haven't. Your use of terminology is idiosyncratic and ambiguous.
Major_Freedom: That is again another fallacy of authority.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Major_Freedom: You can't cite NASA and then say you're right and I'm wrong.
Um, when it comes to the definitions of terminology, such as the scientific method, then yes, the Oxford Dictionary and NASA are appropriate authorities.
Major_Freedom: No, I did not accept it
We used the dictionary definition of learning—to gain knowledge skill at a task through experience. Seriously, you don't consider that learning.
Major_Freedom: I already said many times in response to this repetitive red herring that I am only making arguments about humans and human learning, not squirrels.
You are actually arguing that squirrels can't learn, when anyone who has ever watched actual rodents knows otherwise.
Major_Freedom: You doubt that humans learn (when you postulated that humans might be automatically responding to stimuli), but you're insisting that squirrels learn, which itself must be learned by humans in order for you to even argue the case? You're so far up the confused creek it's not even funny.
No, rather we are showing that your understanding is incoherent.
Major_Freedom: Learning, again, for the millionth time, cannot be observed, it can only ever be understood via self-reflection.
Ah! As we can't read your mind, then we can't say whether you, or other humans, learn. Fair enough. Of course, you'll say you learn, but that's apparently just an automatic response to stimuli.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: "Helps" is proof it is not based on constancy.
If you mean markets are not describable in terms of simple physical relationships as we currently can't describe human mental states in those terms
No, I mean markets are not describable in terms of CONSTANT physical relationships as exists in the natural sciences.
But that's the beautiful thing about chaos theory you don't understand.
I understand chaos THEORY. I studied it. You don't understand that the market is not chaotic.
You don't have to know all the details of how the individual interactions occur.
Chaos theory is based on assuming constancy in relations, which the caveat that the full information of the system is not known.
You don't have to know why a particular city evolved into a major hub for airlines (perhaps some early adopter of flight started an airport there). Once that airport was established, newer airports preferentially attach to it. All of chaos theory works this way. Traffic patterns (planes, cars, internet), made up of thousands of individuals having their own goals and making their own decisions, still form chaotic systems.
No, it's not chaotic. The very fact that the elements (the individuals) are purpose oriented, and whose actions are not based on deterministic constancy, makes the market exactly anti-chaotic.
Major_Freedom: Markets are not sensitive to initial conditions, because there isn't any.
If someone lights a match in Nigeria, and blows up a pipeline, it can cause vast changes in markets around the world.
Not in a way that can be predicted based on constancy, unlike chaos models the outcomes of which are the same every time the same initial conditions are "plugged in to the model."
Gee whiz. Hanging chads determined the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, and that led to wars and debt and financial calamity. That's what is meant by sensitivity to initial conditions.
So you admit it is nothing but a crude analogy, not an actual description.
Constantly redefining terminology to suit your position doesn't make an argument.
I am not redefining ANY terms. Stop straw manning me in a desperate attempt to salvage your fallacious assertions.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: The market is not the weather.
We can certainly agree to that.
And yet you keep using the weather as an analogy, despite the fact that the differences are so vast that the analogy is moot.
Major_Freedom: I've made all my definitions clear in the context of my arguments, and I have been communicating VERY clearly. To clear for you it seems.
No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. My use of terminology is clear, defined, and unambiguous.
Major_Freedom: That is again another fallacy of authority.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
There is no "evidence" for word definitions. They are verbal conventions that can be anything anyone wants them to be.
And I submit that NASA is biased, because their area of expertise is not economics, but the hard sciences. In the hard sciences, the popularly accepted methodology is based on positivist philosophy. They cannot be a valid source for what constitutes economic science, which I submit is based on praxeology/thymology, not positivist based methodologies like the HD method.
Furthermore, You continue to commit the fallacy of authority by constantly referring to authorities and presenting this as proof you are right. It is a non sequitur to assert that because an authority says so, it MUST be right. The probability might be relatively high, but you cannot present the authority as a premise that makes you right.
Major_Freedom: You can't cite NASA and then say you're right and I'm wrong.
Um, when it comes to the definitions of terminology, such as the scientific method, then yes, the Oxford Dictionary and NASA are appropriate authorities.
Again you just committed the fallacy of authority.
Definitions are not objective claims to truth. They are verbal conventions, stipulations, that can be anything anyone wants them to be.
You can't point to ANY authority and say "I'm right because they use the same definition as me."
The Oxford dictionary and NASA are both defining scientific method according to the positivist based methodology only. This doesn't mean the scientific method is ONLY positivist based methodologies.
You're so confused that you're using a combination of fallacy of authority, non sequitur, and playing semantics, all in the same set of claims.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: No, I did not accept it
We used the dictionary definition of learning—to gain knowledge skill at a task through experience.
You didn't say knowledge until now. You only said skilled before.
Now you're saying "knowledge." That changes everything, because that is the definition I am using.
Seriously, you don't consider that learning.
That one I do. You changed it.
Major_Freedom: I already said many times in response to this repetitive red herring that I am only making arguments about humans and human learning, not squirrels.
You are actually arguing that squirrels can't learn, when anyone who has ever watched actual rodents knows otherwise.
You can't observe anything learning. Learning cannot be watched. Learning can only be inferred in what you see by you grounding the inference on self-reflection, on yourself as a thinking and learning entity.
How do you know that squirrels are not automatically responding to external stimuli? I know I'm not, because I can self-reflect. I am not a squirrel so I can't make the same logical inference as I can with other humans.
And I never said squirrels can't learn. I have only challenged you to prove it after you brought that red herring up, which you have thus far failed to do.
I am actually arguing that humans learn. That is what I am arguing, which you already accepted, which means you already accept that human action is not constant, which means you already accept that constancy based methodologies are not applicable to human action and therefore economics.
There is no need for this debate to continue any longer.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: You doubt that humans learn (when you postulated that humans might be automatically responding to stimuli), but you're insisting that squirrels learn, which itself must be learned by humans in order for you to even argue the case? You're so far up the confused creek it's not even funny.
No
Yes.
we are showing that your understanding is incoherent.
LOL, you haven't shown that at all. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary at this point.
Major_Freedom: Learning, again, for the millionth time, cannot be observed, it can only ever be understood via self-reflection.
Ah! As we can't read your mind, then we can't say whether you, or other humans, learn.
Reading of minds is not necessary. I can use a logical inference that because you're human, like me, and because we are having a debate that requires our minds to be similarly structured, for you to ARGUE that I can't say we share the same logical structure of mind, is a rank performative contradiction on your part.
You cannot possibly argue anything to me unless you have already presupposed that the thing you're arguing with shares the same structure of mind. You don't argue with squirrels, you argue with other people.
If you were really right that I cannot be sure of the logical structure of your mind, then you could not even argue that case to me, without contradicting yourself. The fact that you are arguing with me, the fact that you are presenting arguments to me, proves that you have already accepted the notion that I share the same logical structure of mind as you.
Fair enough. Of course, you'll say you learn, but that's apparently just an automatic response to stimuli.
No, it isn't an automatic response to external stimuli. Not every external stimuli is learned, for example these posts are external stimuli to you, but you're not automatically responding to them. You're choosing to do so. And you're not necessarily learning either, because you're still making errors in judgment despite the fact that the arguments have been presented to you, multiple times.
You can't even coherently regard yourself as past causally determined, because that would require you to act towards something you think is past and settled. It would be like thinking your actions of determining which envelope to open, one or the other, will determine which of the envelopes will have money in it and which one will be empty.
Major_Freedom: No, I mean markets are not describable in terms of CONSTANT physical relationships as exists in the natural sciences.
Describable? In the case of water flow, we happen to know the relationships, but can't determine the initial conditions. But even if we didn't know all the physical laws that make up turbulence, we could still determine it's chaotic.
Major_Freedom: I understand chaos THEORY. I studied it. You don't understand that the market is not chaotic.
If you studied it, then you should know that markets are considered by those in the field to be a typical example of a chaotic system.
Major_Freedom: Chaos theory is based on assuming constancy in relations, which the caveat that the full information of the system is not known.
You are very confused. Chaotic systems can include random or other factors. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers in mathematical and economic journals on the mathematical chaos of traffic, markets and web structures. Do you need references?
Now, you might disagree with all these scholars about particular applications. They might all be wrong. But you can't say that the theory depends on 'constancy of relations' in the sense of physical constants. That's simply not the case.
Li & Zhang, Study on Financial System Stability Based on Chaos Theory, Mathematics in Economics 2010.
Thalassinos et al, Chaos theory: forecasting the freight rate of an oil tanker, International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics 2009.
Ozun et al., A chaos analysis for Greek and Turkish equity markets, EuroMed Journal of Business 2006.
Liu et al., A Short-Term Forecasting Algorithm for Network Traffic Based on Chaos Theory and SVM, Journal of Network and Systems Management 2010.
Major_Freedom: And yet you keep using the weather as an analogy, despite the fact that the differences are so vast that the analogy is moot.
It's not simply an analogy. They are both chaotic systems.
Major_Freedom: There is no "evidence" for word definitions.
Words are defined by general usage, and a dictionary is a valid reference. Of course, dictionaries don't always provide the nuance, or technical distinctions.
Major_Freedom: They are verbal conventions that can be anything anyone wants them to be.
You can coin terms for the purposes of a discussion, but then you can't conflate those meanings with the general meaning. So you might say "the scientific method is whatever comes into Major_Freedom's head at the moment". We might possibly accede to this definition for the purposes of discussion. But you can't use that to argue NASA isn't using the term "scientific method" correctly.
Generally, it's best to use terms in their normal sense, and when you coin a term, try to use one where there won't be any confusion.
Major_Freedom: Furthermore, You continue to commit the fallacy of authority by constantly referring to authorities and presenting this as proof you are right.
Evidence is not proof. But when it comes to the definition of words, a dictionary is a good place to start. Absent other information, a valid appeal to authority is usually considered convincing.
Major_Freedom: It is a non sequitur to assert that because an authority says so, it MUST be right.
We provided a short description of when and where an appeal to authority is appropriate. When you use words contrary to their usual sense, you should probably expect to confuse people rather than communicate.
Major_Freedom: And I submit that NASA is biased, because their area of expertise is not economics, but the hard sciences...
That's a much better argument. Certainly, sometimes the term science includes mathematics and logic. It used to include studying the Bible for moral truths. But you seems to be bent on using the term for reasons unrelated to the discussion, as if you wanted the imprimatur of science without having to do the work. Otherwise, why would you insist upon using the term contrary to common usage.
Major_Freedom: You didn't say knowledge until now.
Sorry, typo. Learning, to gain skill at a task through experience.
Major_Freedom: I am not a squirrel so I can't make the same logical inference as I can with other humans.
Hate to tell you this, but you're not all that much different from a squirrel. You share a common ancestor not so long ago. Squirrels even share the same basic brain structure with a cerebrum.
In any case, you say you can learn. But, per your stated test about self-reflection (and as we can't self-reflect your mental states), that might just be you having an automatic reflex or something.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: No, I mean markets are not describable in terms of CONSTANT physical relationships as exists in the natural sciences.
Describable? In the case of water flow, we happen to know the relationships, but can't determine the initial conditions.
The point is that the relationships between initial conditions and outcomes are based on constancy in relations, which does not apply to human action.
But even if we didn't know all the physical laws that make up turbulence, we could still determine it's chaotic.
I was talking about markets, not water.
Major_Freedom: I understand chaos THEORY. I studied it. You don't understand that the market is not chaotic.
If you studied it, then you should know that markets are considered by those in the field to be a typical example of a chaotic system.
Fallacy of authority. See this is your problem. You see others say X, and you believe it. You don't think for yourself.
It doesn't matter if others say the market is driven by God.
You are not proving the market is chaotic. You never will because unlike water, unlike the weather, unlike all these natural systems, humans are purpose directed. We are not automatons who behave in accordance with constancy in relations. It is this fact alone that makes the market non-chaotic.
Those economists who characterize the market as chaos don't understand the foundation of the market to be individual purposeful behavior, and they are only looking at the observable statistics and believing that because they cannot find any constancy relations, the market must be chaotic. It is like looking at people go in and out of a library each day, and noticing that the number is random, and then concluding that people act randomly.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: Chaos theory is based on assuming constancy in relations, which the caveat that the full information of the system is not known.
You are very confused.
Hahahahaha, now that's funny. Here I am educating you on yet another topic, showing how confused you are, and there you are saying I'm confused.
You seem to believe you're in an upside down world.
Chaotic systems can include random or other factors.
Random or other factors? Or other factors? How sloppy.
Randomness does not mean indeterminateness. You are so confused. Inability to predict outcomes does not imply lack of constancy in relations. For example, throwing a dice is unpredictable, chaotic models can be used to describe a throw, but at all times, the point I am making that seems to be confusing the living daylights out of you, is that all such models, even the random component, the connections between events are treated as constant and unchanging once they are known/estimated.
This is NOT, again, for the millionth time, applicable to human action, which requires a LACK of constancy in order for us to even consider ourselves to even learn of such constancies in nature.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers in mathematical and economic journals on the mathematical chaos of traffic, markets and web structures. Do you need references?
LOL, more fallacy of authority. Is this all you have? Is that it? Am I going to be subjected to someone whose only talent is looking something up and saying he's right because he can find others who say it?
Now, you might disagree with all these scholars about particular applications. They might all be wrong. But you can't say that the theory depends on 'constancy of relations' in the sense of physical constants. That's simply not the case.
I didn't say in the sense of physical constant numbers. I said constancy in relations in the sense of the concatenation of events, of the "If A, then B" type, these relations are treated as constant, i.e. they are treated as time invariant. Constancy in relations does not mean it depends on constant numbers like Planck's constant. It is the "equal to" sign, the unchanging left hand side and the right hand side of the equation, that does it.
There is no constancy that can enable you to write down a set of inputs, and then predict a particular future action, every time those same inputs are present. You can observe me eating a ham sandwich every day at the same time for 100 days, and you won't be observing a constancy relation. Each day it is a new choice, that could be otherwise.
Major_Freedom: And yet you keep using the weather as an analogy, despite the fact that the differences are so vast that the analogy is moot.
It's not simply an analogy. They are both chaotic systems.
No, the market is not chaotic. The market isn't even a "system." It is a process of human interaction. It is an ethic. It is free trade based on private property rights. Purposefully directed by each individual in a non-chaotic manner.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: There is no "evidence" for word definitions.
Words are defined by general usage
General usage is not objective.
Major_Freedom: They are verbal conventions that can be anything anyone wants them to be.
You can coin terms for the purposes of a discussion, but then you can't conflate those meanings with the general meaning.
I didn't "conflate" those meanings with the general meanings.
You just keep arguing semantics because you can't argue substance.
So you might say "the scientific method is whatever comes into Major_Freedom's head at the moment".
No, that's not what I might say, because it is not something I accept.
We might possibly accede to this definition for the purposes of discussion. But you can't use that to argue NASA isn't using the term "scientific method" correctly.
I didn't say NASA is using the term scientific method "incorrectly." Yet another straw man. I said that definitions are conventions, and so nobody is right or wrong. One can only be right and wrong in their declarative statements, which require meanings of words, that are communicated using definitions. The definitions can be anything.
I didn't say NASA is wrong. I have only ever said that they define the scientific method as positivist based methodologies. OK, fine, let them define it that way. I am not saying they can't do that. I define the scientific method differently, because I include mathematics and logic and praxeological economics into the heading of scientific methods.
The fact that you keep trying to derail this into a game of word play, of a war over word definitions, is a textbook example of someone at the end of their rope who can no longer argue over knowledge, but has to argue over word definitions. It happens very often with people with such limited knowledge. They argue everything they know, then when the shit doesn't stick, they try to find an excuse for why that is, and they start to question the words being used in front of their eyes, as their own knowledge is used up and is emptied.
Zachriel:
Generally, it's best to use terms in their normal sense, and when you coin a term, try to use one where there won't be any confusion.
Nope, I don't buy it. I said since the very start that I define the scientific method to include mathematics and logic and praxeological economics. I said at the very start that the scientific method is not monopolized by positivist based methodologies. I said this a long time ago, and you're pretending as if I changed definitions mid-way, when I certainly did not.
Major_Freedom: Furthermore, You continue to commit the fallacy of authority by constantly referring to authorities and presenting this as proof you are right.
Evidence is not proof.
Irrelevant and not a response to what I just said.
But when it comes to the definition of words, a dictionary is a good place to start.
Which dictionary? They're not all the same. Why should I defer to one random dictionary you find on the web, rather than my own dictionary? Does that make you mad? Deal with it.
Absent other information, a valid appeal to authority is usually considered convincing.
You didn't make a valid appeal to authority. You made an invalid appeal to authority by insinuating that you are right because the authority agrees. Not only is that a non sequitur, but this is not even about a declaration of an objective truth. It is a word definition game. Definitions are not objective declarations, deal with it. If you don't like my definitions, deal with it. If you think I ought to use different definitions, then I won't, I'll continue to use the ones I use, deal with it. You can't say I am wrong to do any of this, and I know that makes you mad because you want so desperately to use definitions in the hopes that you can be right about something, anything.
Major_Freedom: It is a non sequitur to assert that because an authority says so, it MUST be right.
We provided a short description of when and where an appeal to authority is appropriate.
You didn't make an appropriate appeal to authority, because you insinuated that because the authority says so, it must be true. That is a non sequitur.
When you use words contrary to their usual sense, you should probably expect to confuse people rather than communicate.
LOL, no, you're not going to be able to escape through this excuse of being confused because of word definitions. You are factually incorrect and confused because you hold incorrect ideas regarding human action and thus the market. The definitions of words that I have used have been very clear, and very unambiguous, since the start, and so you can't say you got confused because of word definitions. You only started playing this word game after you could not back up your assertions with any supporting premises. I have asked numerous questions of you that have gone completely unanswered.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: And I submit that NASA is biased, because their area of expertise is not economics, but the hard sciences...
Certainly, sometimes the term science includes mathematics and logic.
Holy shit on a stick. Is your memory THAT bad? I knew your memory was for shit, but I am now convinced that your brain is malfunctioning. You're saying the above as if this is the first time this has come up. This is almost identical to what you said prior. We already established that science can include mathematics and logic. This is old news.
How in the hell can you expect to participate in a 327 comment debate if your memory is shit? Or maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe we're having a 327 comment debate BECAUSE your memory is shit.
Either way, you had better improve your memory pronto, because the last thing I want to do is repeat not only what I said a million times, but I also have to go out of my way to show you what you said that you forgot.
It used to include studying the Bible for moral truths. But you seems to be bent on using the term for reasons unrelated to the discussion, as if you wanted the imprimatur of science without having to do the work.
LOL, oh please. The fact that you want to mislabel economic science as something supernatural, in the desperate hopes of smearing its prestige, is so bloody obvious.
I know you only want to do this, because you use weasel words like "you seem to be...", and "as if you wanted...", rather than "you really are", and rather than "you do want".
And what's this? Without having to do the work? There is good work and there is wasteful work. Wasteful work in economics is collecting data and trying to find an equation out of the data that explains market phenomena, which leads to subjectivism and piecemeal social engineering. Good work is reading as much as you can, and educating yourself as much as you can.
Logic and self-reflection are I will argue the most difficult, the most time consuming, and the most complex endeavors that a thinking mind can engage in. The human brain is the most complex system on Earth that we humans know of.
I know these endeavors are the most difficult because even the world's most brilliant people make logical errors concerning themselves as thinking and acting entities. Even Nobel Prize winning economists make logical errors.
Zachriel:
Otherwise, why would you insist upon using the term contrary to common usage.
The same reason people insist that words be redefined from their original definition and turned into a new definition, after which it becomes commonly accepted, such that you insist on using it rather than some other definition.
It has to do with wanting to make clearer arguments.
For example, the definition of inflation. Originally, the definition of inflation was an increase in the supply of money. The definition of inflation later turned into an increases in prices. Why? My guess is that inflation went through a sort of natural selection process whereby the new definition was needed to prolong it after more and more people realized it was printing of money. To keep it going, the definition changed into rising prices, that way, printing money could be sustained, and the focus would shift on business enterprises who set prices, rather than the central bank that prints money.
I define inflation in its original sense, because defining inflation as rising prices doesn't ground the definition on an explanation for why prices are rising. By defining inflation as an increase in the money supply, it makes it much more clear the reason for why prices are rising.
Knowing why prices are rising is more important than knowing prices are rising. Those who want to protect the inflationary system (the central bank) have an incentive to insist that inflation be defined as rising prices only, that way, they can keep printing money and as long as consumer prices don't rise too much, inflation is low.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: You didn't say knowledge until now.
Sorry, typo. Learning, to gain skill at a task through experience.
LOL, paging Dr. Freud.
If you take away "knowledge", then we're back at square one again.
Why did you add it, and why did you take it away? Why not keep the word "knowledge"? Afraid that you'll go down the path of concluding that squirrels don't learn, that humans do learn, thus making you distinct and alone?
Major_Freedom: I am not a squirrel so I can't make the same logical inference as I can with other humans.
Hate to tell you this, but you're not all that much different from a squirrel. You share a common ancestor not so long ago.
You don't hate to say that, you like to say that, because you like to attack human reason.
I am not that common ancestor. Yes, we're biologically very similar, but we are different enough and that alone is reason to stop trying to find ourselves in squirrels, and realize that at some point, we're going to have to accept that we are distinct and separate from squirrels in a way that cannot be compared to squirrels.
Squirrels even share the same basic brain structure with a cerebrum.
"same basic" is proof you know they're not the same in actual structure.
You can't have arguments with squirrels for example.
Zachriel:
In any case, you say you can learn. But, per your stated test about self-reflection (and as we can't self-reflect your mental states), that might just be you having an automatic reflex or something.
Why do you insist that squirrels learn, but then when the topic is humans, you question learning? Are you a human hater?
You're still confused.
We can't even coherently regard ourselves as automatic reflex automatons. Even claiming that you are learning about how we behave according to automatic reflexes, would make the claim that we do behave according to automatic reflexes, self-contradictory. Your argument to me that we only automatically reflex, I cannot even consider that to be an argument that is intended to refute my argument that we do learn. If it was just your automatic reflex, then it would be like considering whether a rustling of the wind that whispered "you're wrong" is actually an argument that refutes my argument.
If your noise and symbol creation is what you're clearly displaying it to be, namely, an attempt to refute my argument, then it would silly to then say that it's really just an automatic reflex, a noise, and nothing more. Should I take this symbol creation you're sending to me as nothing but an automatic reflex, in which case I won't consider it as a refutation, or should I take your symbol creation you're sending to me as a purposeful attempt to refute my argument that humans act and learn?
If you say the former, then there is no reason for me to even accept it. I will treat it as I treat the rustling of the wind. If you say the latter, then you must admit that humans act which is not an automatic reflex. In that case, I may rethink my position, but only for one second, because right away I'll know that you just admitted humans act, which means automatic reflexes is not what you are doing in your symbol creations.
Zachriel: If you studied it, then you should know that markets are considered by those in the field to be a typical example of a chaotic system... There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers in mathematical and economic journals on the mathematical chaos of traffic, markets and web structures. Do you need references?
Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority.
No, it's a valid appeal to authority and certainly is a stronger argument than you waving your hands. We have cited experts in mathematics and economics publishing research on mathematical chaos of markets and traffic; and cited the founders of chaos theory who discovered some of the basic principles of chaos by studying markets.
Major_Freedom: Why do you insist that squirrels learn, but then when the topic is humans, you question learning?
We're just trying to get a consistent understanding. As you have defined learning in terms of self-reflection, we can't conclude you are capable of learning. You say we can infer the capability of learning by observing behavior, but when we tried a standard experiment with rodents, you objected.
It is unlikely anyone is reading this far into the thread, and you are seemingly just making automated responses to stimuli, so there isn't much point in continuing.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority."
No, it's a valid appeal to authority and certainly is a stronger argument than you waving your hands.
No, it's an invalid appeal to authority because of its argumentative form. It doesn't matter who you reference, if you argue it's right because authority X says so, then that's an invalid appeal to authority.
All arguments must be backed by logic and evidence. Conclusive claims from authorities do not qualify.
We have cited experts in mathematics and economics publishing research on mathematical chaos of markets and traffic;
Another fallacious appeal to authority.
and cited the founders of chaos theory who discovered some of the basic principles of chaos by studying markets.
Yet another appeal to authority fallacy.
"Major_Freedom: Why do you insist that squirrels learn, but then when the topic is humans, you question learning?"
We're just trying to get a consistent understanding.
We? Who else is there besides you?
You can't understand by continually refusing to address the topic and instead introduce red herrings about squirrels.
As you have defined learning in terms of self-reflection, we can't conclude you are capable of learning.
You again just contradicted yourself.
You cannot make that argument to ME unless you are presupposing that I am capable of learning what it is you are arguing.
You say we can infer the capability of learning by observing behavior, but when we tried a standard experiment with rodents, you objected.
That's because rodents don't make arguments or propositions. Humans do.
It is unlikely anyone is reading this far into the thread
Aww, you want to give up?
and you are seemingly just making automated responses to stimuli, so there isn't much point in continuing.
No, I am choosing to respond every single time. The fact that you say "seemingly" is proof you don't have an argument.
Major_Freedom: No, it's an invalid appeal to authority because of its argumentative form.
This is the form of the argument;
Case #1: We have acquired several opinions from independent specialists and they concur that she has cancer. It is reasonable to believe she does have cancer, and to recommend actions based on that belief.
Case #2: Several independent laboratories have determined that the DNA of the blood on the defendant's hands were from the victim. Defendant: I object! That's a fallacy of authority!!
Case #3
Zachriel: Hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been published since the inception of chaos theory in journals of mathematics, networks and economics, that study mathematical chaos inherent in markets and other human activities. Details found in these papers lends reasonable support to the claim that markets and other human activities can exhibit mathematical chaos.
Major_Freedom: Is not.
Major_Freedom: No, I am choosing to respond every single time.
Per your stated standard, we can't know that. You could simply be automatically responding to stimuli. No way to know.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: No, it's an invalid appeal to authority because of its argumentative form."
This is the form of the argument
Yes, this is the form:
You make a claim. I challenge it. You cite authorities rather than logic and evidence.
Fallacy of authority.
Zachriel: Is not.
"Major_Freedom: No, I am choosing to respond every single time."
Per your stated standard, we can't know that.
False. Per my standard, we can know that. It is necessary for me to even address your response as an intentional refutation, rather than just a noise that results from tapping a tabletop.
You could simply be automatically responding to stimuli. No way to know.
False, I do know. It is logically impossible for me to consider myself as past causally determined. We went over this, I provided source material about this, so there is no excuse for you to be making the same errors.
If it were true that you are just responding automatically to stimuli, then I could not even consider your words, your symbols on this site, to be an argument intended to refute mine. I would have to classify it as mere random automaton response a la tapping the table. But if I do that, then your symbols will no longer even be an argument made with the intention of correcting me.
My standard is not what you believe it is. It is not a standard that must compel us to view actors as automatons. My standard is that this is logically impossible.
Major_Freedom: You make a claim. I challenge it. You cite authorities rather than logic and evidence.
Yes, that's what you did alright.
Zachriel: {multiple relevant citations}
Major_Freedom: Is not!
Zachriel: {more citations}
Major_Freedom: I object! Fallacy of authority!
Major_Freedom: False, I do know.
Of course you would say that even if you were just automatically responding to stimuli.
Major_Freedom: My standard is not what you believe it is. It is not a standard that must compel us to view actors as automatons. My standard is that this is logically impossible.
This is what you said:
Major_Freedom: Learning, again, for the millionth time, cannot be observed, it can only ever be understood via self-reflection.
So we can't know if you are learning.
Meanwhile, a rat navigates a familiar maze without taking any wrong turns and gets the cheese.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You make a claim. I challenge it. You cite authorities rather than logic and evidence."
Yes, that's what you did alright.
Yes, that's what you did alright. Cite authority instead of logic and evidence. Fallacy of authority.
Major_Freedom: You are committing the fallacy of authority because you are presenting citations of people who agree with you rather than presenting logic and evidence.
Zachriel: Am not! Here's more citations to prove you're wrong about me only providing citations.
Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority once again.
Zachriel: Is not! I will now say, and then repeat, that I only provided citations of those who agree, rather than logic and evidence.
Major_Freedom: Fallacy of authority once again.
Zachriel: Is not!
"Major_Freedom: False, I do know."
Of course you would say that even if you were just automatically responding to stimuli.
I would say that if I wasn't automatically responding to stimuli.
So who's right? Clearly we can't go on the basis of observation alone, since the motions would be the exact same.
Therefore, the dispute has to be settled cognitively. That means (hahaha) you have to use logic.
Oops I win.
"Major_Freedom: My standard is not what you believe it is. It is not a standard that must compel us to view actors as automatons. My standard is that this is logically impossible."
This is what you said:
Yes, this is what I said:
"Major_Freedom: Learning, again, for the millionth time, cannot be observed, it can only ever be understood via self-reflection."
So we can't know if you are learning.
You can't even say that without presupposing me being able to learn what it is you are saying.
Meanwhile, a rat navigates a familiar maze without taking any wrong turns and gets the cheese.
Humans aren't rats.
Major_Freedom: Cite authority instead of logic and evidence.
That still doesn't constitute a fallacy of authority.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. So to review,
Zachriel: {multiple relevant citations}
Major_Freedom: Is not!
Zachriel: {more citations}
Major_Freedom: I object! Fallacy of authority!
In any case, we are not making an appeal to authority, but to the evidence contained in the studies we cited.
Major_Freedom: I would say that if I wasn't automatically responding to stimuli.
So you say.
Major_Freedom: So who's right?
According to your statement, "learning can only ever be understood via self-reflection", then we can't know whether you are 'learning' or not.
Major_Freedom: You can't even say that without presupposing me being able to learn what it is you are saying.
No. We are commenting for the benefit of our readers who are capable of "becoming skilled at a task through experience".
Zachriel: Meanwhile, a rat navigates a familiar maze without taking any wrong turns and gets the cheese.
Somehow or other, the rats have remembered the path to the cheese. What do you call it to have a memory of something? Nawlege? Something like that.
Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats.
No, though they do share a common ancestor. But rats can "become skilled at a task through experience". What's the word again, for "becoming skilled at a task for experience"?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: Cite authority instead of logic and evidence."
That still doesn't constitute a fallacy of authority.
It does as long as you continue to claim that you are right and I am wrong on the basis of this.
An appeal to authority is valid when...
You aren't making a valid appeal to authority, because you are claiming you are right on the basis of the authority.
So to review,
Yes, to review,
Major_Freedom: That's a fallacy of authority. Please cite logic and evidence instead.
Zachriel: {multiple relevant citations}
Major_Freedom: That is still fallacy of authority.
Zachriel: Is not! Here are the citations again.
Major_Freedom: It will continue to be a fallacy of authority to assert that you are right and that I am wrong on the sole basis of citing authorities who agree with you, and failing to provide logic and evidence based premises.
Zachriel: Is not! I provided citations.
Major_Freedom: That's what makes it fallacy of authority.
Zachriel: Is not! I will say again I provided citations.
etc
In any case, we are not making an appeal to authority, but to the evidence contained in the studies we cited.
No, you are making a fallacy of authority, and what you cited are authority's choice for word definitions, so there isn't any "evidence" nor "studies."
"Major_Freedom: I would say that if I wasn't automatically responding to stimuli."
So you say.
It's what must be presupposed if I am going to take your words as an attempt at a refutation, rather than just meaningless noise.
"Major_Freedom: So who's right?"
According to your statement, "learning can only ever be understood via self-reflection", then we can't know whether you are 'learning' or not.
You are understanding the meaning of learning through self-reflection when you infer it in me by making the above statement.
That learning must be understood does not mean that you can never say others are learning.
"Major_Freedom: You can't even say that without presupposing me being able to learn what it is you are saying."
No. We are commenting for the benefit of our readers who are capable of "becoming skilled at a task through experience".
I think you had better become skilled first before you can claim to be able to "benefit" other readers, in ways other than knee slapping amusement.
Somehow or other, the rats have remembered the path to the cheese. What do you call it to have a memory of something? Nawlege? Something like that.
Memories can be false.
"Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats."
No, though they do share a common ancestor.
The entire universe shares a common beginning and has remained sharing a commonality.
It is of no significance to what humans are in themselves, apart from all other entities, that humans share some common past with other entities.
But rats can "become skilled at a task through experience". What's the word again, for "becoming skilled at a task for experience"?
Humans aren't rats.
Major_Freedom: It does as long as you continue to claim that you are right and I am wrong on the basis of this.
The evidence is found in the citations to research on mathematical chaos and its application to markets provided above. We can provide the citations, but we can't make you read it.
Major_Freedom: You are understanding the meaning of learning through self-reflection when you infer it in me by making the above statement.
We don't know you learn. So far, you haven't exhibited much ability in that respect. You still repeatedly misrepresent our position after several weeks of conversation.
Major_Freedom: That learning must be understood does not mean that you can never say others are learning.
You can say anything. The question is what you can show.
Major_Freedom: Memories can be false.
Sure they can. Meanwhile, the rat navigates a familiar maze without any wrong turns in order to get the cheese.
Major_Freedom: The entire universe shares a common beginning and has remained sharing a commonality.
Humans and rats share a somewhat more recent ancestor, about 1% of a cosmic age ago.
Major_Freedom: It is of no significance to what humans are in themselves, apart from all other entities, that humans share some common past with other entities.
Of course it's of significance. Organisms are what they are because of what they were.
Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats.
No, but both organisms can be become skilled at a task through experience. There's a word for that. Rhymes with fern?
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: It does as long as you continue to claim that you are right and I am wrong on the basis of this."
The evidence is found in the citations to research on mathematical chaos and its application to markets provided above. We can provide the citations, but we can't make you read it.
That is not evidence. That is mathematical models.
"Major_Freedom: You are understanding the meaning of learning through self-reflection when you infer it in me by making the above statement."
We don't know you learn.
You are presupposing it every time you make an argument to me, intending to "teach" me about something you are allegedly right about and to get me to reject what I am allegedly wrong about.
Again you are contradicting yourself.
So far, you haven't exhibited much ability in that respect.
LOL, this is how you want to interpret you being tutored by someone more intelligent than you.
You still repeatedly misrepresent our position after several weeks of conversation.
False. You haven't once shown how I am "misrepresenting" your position. You've only been claiming it without showing why.
"Major_Freedom: That learning must be understood does not mean that you can never say others are learning."
You can say anything. The question is what you can show.
I have shown it.
You continue to presuppose I am capable of learning because you keep sending me your arguments that are intended to "teach" me something. In reality of course, I am teaching you, but whatever.
"Major_Freedom: Memories can be false."
Sure they can. Meanwhile, the rat navigates a familiar maze without any wrong turns in order to get the cheese.
Humans are not rats. I am talking about humans. If your mind is so fixated on rats, then either you're a rat scientist, or you have a mental problem. Gee, I wonder which.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: The entire universe shares a common beginning and has remained sharing a commonality."
Humans and rats share a somewhat more recent ancestor, about 1% of a cosmic age ago.
Humans are not rats. I am addressing that which we do not share with rats, which we have and they don't.
"Major_Freedom: It is of no significance to what humans are in themselves, apart from all other entities, that humans share some common past with other entities."
Of course it's of significance. Organisms are what they are because of what they were.
False. Organisms were not something prior in the evolutionary chain. Your fallacious Platonic philosophical worldview is acting up again. Now you are viewing the complex chain of a branch in the tree of evolution as somehow being the life and process of a single "ideal type" organism that has undergone various changes in the "Earthly" realm.
When one considers a human, it is wrong to say "this human used to be an ape." No, that human used to be physical matter that went from the natural world, to their parents, and then towards them. "They" are humans and nothing else.
It is of no significance to what a human IS in themselves, that they are the result of an evolutionary process that began with other animals in the past.
You see, your problem is that you don't want to view yourself as temporal and spatially limited. You want to view yourself as having a "spirit" that has travelled from animal to animal in the evolutionary chain, from cell to fish to rodent to ape to human. This is why you view yourself as being "something else" in the past.
It's this religious mystical meanderings that explains reincarnation. It's the perpetual human tendency to want to transcend time and space limitations because it can be thought of.
"Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats."
No, but both organisms can be become skilled at a task through experience. There's a word for that. Rhymes with fern?
Humans can learn things through self-reflection in addition to experiencing external objects. Rats cannot be claimed to be able to do that. Humans can.
Humans aren't rats.
Humans aren't rats. I know you might believe yourself to being a rat, but humans aren't rats.
Did your parents call you a rat by any chance? You certainly have a fixation on them.
Major_Freedom: That is not evidence. That is mathematical models.
Handwaving. Everything in science is based on models. They are judged by their fit to the data. You had raised fallacious objections previously. If you want to raise actual objections, it means looking at the studies to try and understand why generations of scientists have reached the conclusion that markets exhibit mathematical chaos, and how engineers successfully use chaos theory to predict traffic patterns.
Major_Freedom: You are presupposing it every time you make an argument to me, intending to "teach" me about something you are allegedly right about and to get me to reject what I am allegedly wrong about.
Nope. We comment for the benefit of our readers.
Zachriel: Meanwhile, the rat navigates a familiar maze without any wrong turns in order to get the cheese.
Major_Freedom: I am addressing that which we do not share with rats, which we have and they don't.
Rats and humans both learn.
Major_Freedom: Organisms were not something prior in the evolutionary chain.
That's like saying your grandparents weren't something.
Major_Freedom: Your fallacious Platonic philosophical worldview is acting up again. Now you are viewing the complex chain of a branch in the tree of evolution as somehow being the life and process of a single "ideal type" organism that has undergone various changes in the "Earthly" realm.
That's just silly. There's no "ideal type" organism in biology.
Major_Freedom: When one considers a human, it is wrong to say "this human used to be an ape."
You're right! Because humans ARE apes.
Major_Freedom: It is of no significance to what a human IS in themselves, that they are the result of an evolutionary process that began with other animals in the past.
Well, humans ARE apes. And of course it is of significance because it helps us understand what humans are.
Major_Freedom: You want to view yourself as having a "spirit" that has travelled from animal to animal in the evolutionary chain, from cell to fish to rodent to ape to human.
You're being silly again. We said nothing about spirits traveling through evolutionary trees, whatever that's supposed to mean.
However, traits do inherit. That means you have the modified traits of your parents, and they of your grandparents, and they of the primitive apes from which you evolved.
Major_Freedom: Humans can learn things through self-reflection in addition to experiencing external objects. Rats cannot be claimed to be able to do that. Humans can.
So your point concerns self-reflection? So we can finally agree that rats can learn? Gee whiz.
As for self-reflection, that trait is shared by many simians, as well as elephants and dolphins.
Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats.
No, they're not. Though they do learn.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: That is not evidence. That is mathematical models."
Handwaving. Everything in science is based on models. They are judged by their fit to the data.
I said mathematical models, not models. Try to pay attention.
You had raised fallacious objections previously.
You haven't shown ANY of my previous arguments as fallacious.
If you want to raise actual objections, it means looking at the studies to try and understand why generations of scientists have reached the conclusion that markets exhibit mathematical chaos, and how engineers successfully use chaos theory to predict traffic patterns.
They all ignore the purposeful human element.
If I observe how many people go in and out of a library every day, and I ignore the purposeful human element, then I will conclude that humans behave randomly. But if I self-reflect, and understand human behavior to be one of acting persons, then I will not make the random conclusion. I will say each individual is acting non-randomly, with a purpose.
Scientists who study inanimate matter, and engineers who study traffic patterns, are not adding anything by saying the traffic patterns resemble a particular mathematical chaos model subject to certain assumptions.
"Major_Freedom: You are presupposing it every time you make an argument to me, intending to "teach" me about something you are allegedly right about and to get me to reject what I am allegedly wrong about."
Nope. We comment for the benefit of our readers.
You're again contradicting yourself. Not only are you presupposing learning by arguing "Nope" to me, but also by presuming that you can "benefit" your readers (which is hilarious by the way) through sending arguments over a website, you are presupposing that they are able to learn what your arguments mean and what they are intended to show. You are indeed presupposing that other humans learn.
You can't even deny this to me without contradicting yourself yet again, because your argument will have to be presupposed as being capable of being learned by those you are speaking to.
The proof of this is your usage of the word "benefit." The learning part is hidden in that concept.
People cannot possibly "benefit" from your arguments unless they learn what you mean and what you are trying to say.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: I am addressing that which we do not share with rats, which we have and they don't."
Rats and humans both learn.
You haven't proven that rats "learn". You have only at best shown that a certain animal responds in a certain way to certain external stimuli.
If both rats and humans can "learn", as if there is only one learning, then you should be able to argue with a rat just like you argue with a human.
"Major_Freedom: Organisms were not something prior in the evolutionary chain."
That's like saying your grandparents weren't something.
No, it's like me saying I am not my grandparents. I am evolved from them, but I am my own entity. There is not one entity that existed the whole time, taking the form of my grandparent and then me. We are two different entities.
"Major_Freedom: Your fallacious Platonic philosophical worldview is acting up again. Now you are viewing the complex chain of a branch in the tree of evolution as somehow being the life and process of a single "ideal type" organism that has undergone various changes in the "Earthly" realm."
That's just silly.
I know. But that's what you said.
There's no "ideal type" organism in biology.
Then stop presuming it the way you did above.
"Major_Freedom: When one considers a human, it is wrong to say "this human used to be an ape."
You're right! Because humans ARE apes.
Yes, but what I meant was it is wrong to look at a human and say "this human used to be a pre-human ape" as in, australopithicus or whatever. A human is an ape, but a human is not the ape it evolved from.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: It is of no significance to what a human IS in themselves, that they are the result of an evolutionary process that began with other animals in the past."
Well, humans ARE apes. And of course it is of significance because it helps us understand what humans are.
Only up to a point. Since we are not the same as that which we evolved from, it means that in order to know what you are fully, you must do so without any similarity reference to any other creature. At some point, you're going to have to stop trying to find similarities between you and other creatures, and start finding differences. Similarities AND differences is how we understand things fully. If all you do is focus on similarities, then you will never be able to discern what it is that an entity truly IS.
This is a difficult thing for a collectivist Platonist like you to be able to do, because you've rejected reason as your primary tool for cognition, and thus rejected your individuality. It's why you keep referring to yourself as an individual by saying "we" all the time.
In your traumatized mind, you don't even see yourself as an individual, and that is why you aren't able to think at a high enough level to be able to understand sciences that require self-reflection, such as economics. You're ignorant of economics because you're ignorant of your own individuality.
You will never understand the world, you will never understand others, if you don't understand yourself. You're a thinking entity. Thinking entities know more about the world and about others when they know what they are. If they don't know what they are, they can't know anything else.
It would be like someone handing you a tool that you have no idea what it is, and yet you expect to be able to use it properly. No. You have to know what you are and what tool you have, before you can use it and learn about other things.
Zachriel:
"Major_Freedom: You want to view yourself as having a "spirit" that has travelled from animal to animal in the evolutionary chain, from cell to fish to rodent to ape to human."
You're being silly again. We said nothing about spirits traveling through evolutionary trees, whatever that's supposed to mean.
It's what you said. That's what your words said. If that is not what you believe, then you said something you didn't mean.
However, traits do inherit. That means you have the modified traits of your parents, and they of your grandparents, and they of the primitive apes from which you evolved.
I have my own traits.
"Major_Freedom: Humans can learn things through self-reflection in addition to experiencing external objects. Rats cannot be claimed to be able to do that. Humans can."
So your point concerns self-reflection? So we can finally agree that rats can learn? Gee whiz.
I never agreed to that before and I didn't agree with it just there. I said humans can self-reflect. I didn't say anything about rats.
Humans aren't rats. You need to address what it is that mentally distinguishes you from rats. Yes, you'll probably feel a cosmic alienation by doing so, and you'll probably feel a little anxious, a little scared, a little alone, and that might lead you to believing that you're thinking the wrong things, but the fact that you are not a rat means that at some point, you're going to have to learn what you are in your mental capacity that is different from rats. That is when you can know yourself more, and thus the world around you more.
Focus your mind on you being the center of the universe. Don't think of yourself outside yourself, because that's impossible. Put your meandering spirit back into yourself and take ownership of it and recognize it as yours. Everything you think is yours. Imagine yourself as being the only consciousness in the universe, and then after that, recognize that there are other independent consciousnesses in the universe. Recognize that your consciousness is unique, but powerful enough to recognize other consciousnesses and be able to interact with them in order to improve your own. Don't sacrifice yourself and live for others. Don't sacrifice others to live for you.
Do not feel diminished even if a million people die, because no individual should be diminished in any way for any reason, ever.
As for self-reflection, that trait is shared by many simians, as well as elephants and dolphins.
Then you should be able to have an argument on mortality with them.
Oops.
"Major_Freedom: Humans aren't rats."
No, they're not. Though they do learn.
You still haven't proven that. You cannot prove that they are learning as opposed to automatically responding to external stimuli.
Major_Freedom: I said mathematical models, not models.
So is Newton's Theory of Gravity. In the case of mathematical chaos, there is a rich literature concerning markets and network routing, among other phenomena.
Major_Freedom: You haven't shown ANY of my previous arguments as fallacious.
You argued, fallaciously, that networks composed of human decisions (such as network traffic) can't exhibit mathematical chaos due to some ill-described property of human decision-making.
Major_Freedom: They all ignore the purposeful human element.
That's the neat thing about chaos theory. You don't have to know. If someone starts an airport in Chicago in the early days of flight, for whatever reason (maybe he's an airplane hobbiest), then preferential attachment may result in it becoming a major hub for airline traffic generations later.
Major_Freedom: If I observe how many people go in and out of a library every day, and I ignore the purposeful human element, then I will conclude that humans behave randomly.
Traffic patterns aren't random, as any careful observer will note. Again, you illustrate your confusion.
Major_Freedom: Scientists who study inanimate matter, and engineers who study traffic patterns, are not adding anything by saying the traffic patterns resemble a particular mathematical chaos model subject to certain assumptions.
Traffic isn't even, and traffic isn't random. It's chaotic. Chaos theory can help determine when a given traffic configuration will become overly congested or break down.
Major_Freedom: you are presupposing that they are able to learn what your arguments mean and what they are intended to show. You are indeed presupposing that other humans learn.
We are quite certain humans and rats can learn, according to our understanding of the term. But you apparently understand the term differently.
Major_Freedom: You haven't proven that rats "learn".
It's easy enough to show that rats and humans can "become skilled at a task through experience". A quick look at the dictionary shows that this a standard definition of learning.
Major_Freedom: If both rats and humans can "learn", as if there is only one learning, then you should be able to argue with a rat just like you argue with a human.
No point arguing with a rat, but one can argue with a squirrel.
Major_Freedom: A human is an ape, but a human is not the ape it evolved from.
That's right. And the human inherited traits from that primitive ape.
Major_Freedom: Similarities AND differences is how we understand things fully.
That's right.
Zachriel: Organisms are what they are because of what they were.
This is apparently the statement that is causing you such consternation. The plural "organisms" refers to generations of populations. It should be pretty obvious in context. It has nothing to do with Platonism or whatever else you have been going on about.
Major_Freedom: I have my own traits.
Sure, but a great many of your traits are inherited. Here's a few:
Eukaryote cell structure with nucleus?
Metazoa, that is, ingest other organisms for nourishment?
Deuterostome, an alimentary canal with a hole at one end for ingestion, and another at the other end for excretion?
Chordate, a head with an array of sense organs?
Vertebrate, a series of bones containing a nerve cord?
Tetrapod, bony limbs with complex ankles and wrists?
Amniote, females of your species have eggs with a protective membrane?
Mammals, mammary glands? Heterodont dentition? Complex brain capable of "become skilled at a task through experience".
Eutherian, born live?
Primate, flexible shoulder?
Hominidae, tailess?
Homo, use of tools?
Homo sapiens sapiens, heavy reliance on social organization for delivery of goods and services.
Major_Freedom: You cannot prove that they are learning as opposed to automatically responding to external stimuli.
Per our understanding of learning, rats certainly can learn, because they can "become skilled at a task through experience". So can computers for that matter. As for what you consider learning, which has something to do with introspection, well, there's no way to tell about you or the rat. The rat seems to be learning.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: I said mathematical models, not models.
So is Newton's Theory of Gravity. In the case of mathematical chaos, there is a rich literature concerning markets and network routing, among other phenomena.
The literature that models the markets on chaos are fundamentally flawed.
Major_Freedom: You haven't shown ANY of my previous arguments as fallacious.
You argued, fallaciously, that networks composed of human decisions (such as network traffic) can't exhibit mathematical chaos due to some ill-described property of human decision-making.
Humans don't "exhibit" mathematical anything. Mathematics is a mental tool for human action. All mathematical chaos models presuppose a constancy in relations. No such constancy exists for human action.
Major_Freedom: They all ignore the purposeful human element.
That's the neat thing about chaos theory. You don't have to know. If someone starts an airport in Chicago in the early days of flight, for whatever reason (maybe he's an airplane hobbiest), then preferential attachment may result in it becoming a major hub for airline traffic generations later.
Notice how you just completely abandoned mathematical chaos, and instead spoke about "preference", as soon as you gave an example concerning human action. Preference is subjective.
Major_Freedom: If I observe how many people go in and out of a library every day, and I ignore the purposeful human element, then I will conclude that humans behave randomly.
Traffic patterns aren't random, as any careful observer will note.
I never said traffic patterns are random. I spoke about the number of people going in and out of a library each day. Again you illustrate your inability to focus on the arguments at hand because you lack the ability to contribute.
Major_Freedom: Scientists who study inanimate matter, and engineers who study traffic patterns, are not adding anything by saying the traffic patterns resemble a particular mathematical chaos model subject to certain assumptions.
Traffic isn't even, and traffic isn't random. It's chaotic. Chaos theory can help determine when a given traffic configuration will become overly congested or break down.
No, chaos theory cannot help with that at all. Chaos theory requires constancy assumptions. In the real world, humans act.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: you are presupposing that they are able to learn what your arguments mean and what they are intended to show. You are indeed presupposing that other humans learn.
We are quite certain humans and rats can learn, according to our understanding of the term. But you apparently understand the term differently.
You changed your definition. You inadvertently included the word "knowledge", but then after I showed you that this precludes you from making any certain statement about rats, you quickly backracked. Well, that concept "knowledge" is something that you cannot know rats are acquiring. There is no observational difference for rats between automatic reflexes and acquiring knowledge and choosing to act. You can only be certain that you learn and acquire knowledge, via self-reflection. You cannot self-reflect as a rat.
Your definition of learning does not preclude automatic reflexes and non-acting behavior.
Major_Freedom: You haven't proven that rats "learn".
It's easy enough to show that rats and humans can "become skilled at a task through experience". A quick look at the dictionary shows that this a standard definition of learning.
This definition does not preclude automatic reflexes to external stimuli. A rock that is slowly eroded due to rain can also be observationally "skilled at a task through experience." It is experiencing rain and wind, and it is becoming skilled at eroding.
Your error here is a failure to grasp the fact that the concepts "experience", "skilled", all presuppose an understanding through self-reflection. They are not derived through observation. If you say a rat becomes "skilled" at reaching a piece of food, and this is derived observationally, then the same thing can be said about a rock that becomes "skilled" at eroding through "experiencing" the elements.
Since your claims lack a rational foundation, you are relegate to semantics, of saying "this is the dictionary definition, and this satisfies what I am seeing." That is crude and incomplete.
Major_Freedom: If both rats and humans can "learn", as if there is only one learning, then you should be able to argue with a rat just like you argue with a human.
No point arguing with a rat, but one can argue with a squirrel.
It's clear your claims are baseless, since you habitually resort to such nonsense.
A human cannot argue with a squirrel.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: A human is an ape, but a human is not the ape it evolved from.
That's right. And the human inherited traits from that primitive ape.
Humans have traits that primitive apes do NOT have. That is what makes humans homo sapiens and not the apes they evolved from.
While you're desperately searching for similarities, you're ignoring the differences, the very differences that make us human and enable us to think and act as humans.
The more you deny your own reality, the more you continue to see yourself in other things, the less you will see you for what you are that no other animal is.
Major_Freedom: Similarities AND differences is how we understand things fully.
That's right.
I know that's right, there is no need for you to verify it. Your problem is that you are completely ignoring the differences. It's why you cannot help but distract yourself by rats and squirrels.
This is apparently the statement that is causing you such consternation.
No, it didn't cause me consternation. It only revealed your own ignorance and I chose to expose it. Evolution contains additions and changes, and not just carrying over the same genes and chemical properties. You say humans are what they are because of past organisms humans evolved from. But that's incomplete. We are what we are not only because of what past organisms were, but because of mutations and genetic changes along the way. We are a legitimately new, distinct species.
The plural "organisms" refers to generations of populations. It should be pretty obvious in context. It has nothing to do with Platonism or whatever else you have been going on about.
Your context is wrong, and the claim you made is not even correct in that context.
Zachriel:
Major_Freedom: I have my own traits.
Sure, but a great many of your traits are inherited.
Glad you agree that humans have their own traits.
Those differences, along with the similarities to other entities, are what makes us humans what we are. It is that single concept "I" that underlies my thinking and acting, and everyone else's "I" is what underlies their thinking and acting.
You choose to ignore the differences and distinctions, whereas I consider BOTH the similarities and differences.
This is why I am not afraid of staying in the context of humans, while you feel compelled to talk about rats, squirrels, and other animals.
Major_Freedom: You cannot prove that they are learning as opposed to automatically responding to external stimuli.
Per our understanding of learning, rats certainly can learn, because they can "become skilled at a task through experience".
No, you cannot be certain of that. The concept "experience" itself cannot have meaning that rests on the concept of experience. Yet it is experience that you have with the rat. Therefore, you cannot say the rat is learning anything by simply observing it. You are inferring the rat learns because you self-reflect on yourself as capable of learning.
But you're not a rat, and so your inference is invalid.
So can computers for that matter. As for what you consider learning, which has something to do with introspection, well, there's no way to tell about you or the rat. The rat seems to be learning.
There is a way to tell about me. *I* can tell about me. You can tell about you. The rat has to tell about itself, but it does not.
Post a Comment