4 ms·

Hmm - fair enough. By this (valid!) argument, _any_ statement about the world is misinformative, because there's always an implicit caveat of "...if my percepti

by scubbo 2y ago

Hmm - fair enough. By this (valid!) argument, _any_ statement about the world is misinformative, because there's always an implicit caveat of "...if my perceptions of the world are accurate reflections of its state, and if I'm correct in believing that other people (who report their perceptions of the world to me) are in fact other people and not just hallucinations". I personally think it's fair to take that assumption as baseline in any discussion not specifically about epistemology, since, without it, any discussion will founder (and, _if_ that assumption is taken as an axiom, I still maintain that it's not misinformation to make the ~~true~~ overwhelmingly-supported-by-my-perceptions-and-my-perceptions-of-other-people's-perceptions statement that "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale") - but you are certainly technically correct.

roenxi 2y ago
It is a bit more than a technicality. If we start from the position that our perceptions are accurate something interesting happens. 1) If we start by assuming our perceptions are accurate; we can reasonably conclude that we are a product of evolutionary forces. 2) Those evolutionary forces mean our perceptions are subject to the anthropic principle - ie, heavily biased away from truth and towards things that cause conscious patterns to reoccur and reproduce. 3) Therefore there is strong reason to believe our perceptions aren't accurate reflections of the state of the world, because if we are in a universe where accurate perception of reality means we won't bother to reproduce or wouldn't see ourselves as conscious, we are likely be unable to perceive those aspects of it. So I'm quite happy to contend that our perceptions are probably critically flawed, because they are heavily biased towards making us believe things about ego, self, in- and out-groups, etc that are probably inconsistent with accurately perceiving reality. Under that lens, perceiving time itself jumps out as something that might be an evolutionary adaption rather than the true state of things. Those baseline assumptions that allow the conversation to happen are therefore probably wrong. Although, humorously, that does mean there isn't much point discussing the topic unless you just like playing around with nonsense. Long and the short of it; we can't escape what is "obviously true" to us. Although I don't think you were challenging that part of the conversation.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > 1) If we start by assuming our perceptions are accurate; we can reasonably conclude that we are a product of evolutionary forces. You already have an ontological and epistemic problem here, demonstrating how easy it is to get these things wrong. Luckily, we've culturally trained ourselves to give less than zero shits about correctness on this topic, so it "is" "all good".
mistermann 2y ago
> By this (valid!) argument, _any_ statement about the world is misinformative, because there's always an implicit caveat of "...if my perceptions of the world are accurate reflections of its state, and if I'm correct in believing that other people (who report their perceptions of the world to me) are in fact other people and not just hallucinations". a) Simply explicitly reveal your axioms in the statement of your case, problem solved. (Good luck finding them all though, especially the ones not on Normative Human Reality's radar though lol) b) The "just" in "and not just hallucinations" is a big part of why humans are unable to understand what's going on, or understand that they do not understand (which is core to the implementation of "is", which "determines" what "is" going on). > I personally think it's fair to take that assumption as baseline in any discussion not specifically about epistemology.... "Fair" is culture, not science/logic, and the culture you live in very often (perhaps even usually) values being incorrect. It insists on it. > ...since, without it, any discussion will founder Good! Our never ending mass self-deception during our oh so enjoyable (mandatorily so) conversations is the problem. > (and, _if_ that assumption is taken as an axiom, I still maintain that it's not misinformation to make the ~~true~~ overwhelmingly-supported-by-my-perceptions-and-my-perceptions-of-other-people's-perceptions statement that "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale") - but you are certainly technically correct. a) Sure, if you disallow epistemology. b) Is "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale" the(!) point of contention here (in the opinion of all participants)?
- scubbo 2y ago
  > "Fair" is culture, not science/logic Yep, this is true. I was speaking casually and using "fair" as slang for "helpful, reasonable, and widely-assumed". And yes, "widely-assumed" is also cultural - but in this context, that _is_ relevant, because I assume that those I'm speaking with are making common and reasonable assumptions within our shared culture, just like I assume that the words that I use mean (roughly) the same thing to me as they do to you. Otherwise, communication and collaboration are impossible unless we construct language from first principles in every discussion. Which leads neatly to the next point... >> without it, any discussion will founder > Good! If you think is is preferable to have discussions that go nowhere and yield no helpful outcome in order to remain _technically_ (not-in)correct, vs. taking a small number of reasonable assumptions as axioms ("our perceptions are _probably_ not hallucinations most of the time") which allow us to reach helpful conclusions that increase human happiness, then you and I will never be able to reach agreement on basically anything. > Is "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale" the(!) point of contention here (in the opinion of all participants) I don't know - if I try to put myself in your position, it seems to be that I cannot assume or know anything, and thus that I cannot make any claims about the opinions of any participants (or even that they exist), and thus banana wombat elaborate polyhedron.

by scubbo 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

It is a bit more than a technicality. If we start from the position that our perceptions are accurate something interesting happens. 1) If we start by assuming our perceptions are accurate; we can reasonably conclude that we are a product of evolutionary forces. 2) Those evolutionary forces mean our perceptions are subject to the anthropic principle - ie, heavily biased away from truth and towards things that cause conscious patterns to reoccur and reproduce. 3) Therefore there is strong reason to believe our perceptions aren't accurate reflections of the state of the world, because if we are in a universe where accurate perception of reality means we won't bother to reproduce or wouldn't see ourselves as conscious, we are likely be unable to perceive those aspects of it. So I'm quite happy to contend that our perceptions are probably critically flawed, because they are heavily biased towards making us believe things about ego, self, in- and out-groups, etc that are probably inconsistent with accurately perceiving reality. Under that lens, perceiving time itself jumps out as something that might be an evolutionary adaption rather than the true state of things. Those baseline assumptions that allow the conversation to happen are therefore probably wrong. Although, humorously, that does mean there isn't much point discussing the topic unless you just like playing around with nonsense. Long and the short of it; we can't escape what is "obviously true" to us. Although I don't think you were challenging that part of the conversation.

mistermann 2y ago
> 1) If we start by assuming our perceptions are accurate; we can reasonably conclude that we are a product of evolutionary forces. You already have an ontological and epistemic problem here, demonstrating how easy it is to get these things wrong. Luckily, we've culturally trained ourselves to give less than zero shits about correctness on this topic, so it "is" "all good".

mistermann 2y ago

> By this (valid!) argument, _any_ statement about the world is misinformative, because there's always an implicit caveat of "...if my perceptions of the world are accurate reflections of its state, and if I'm correct in believing that other people (who report their perceptions of the world to me) are in fact other people and not just hallucinations". a) Simply explicitly reveal your axioms in the statement of your case, problem solved. (Good luck finding them all though, especially the ones not on Normative Human Reality's radar though lol) b) The "just" in "and not just hallucinations" is a big part of why humans are unable to understand what's going on, or understand that they do not understand (which is core to the implementation of "is", which "determines" what "is" going on). > I personally think it's fair to take that assumption as baseline in any discussion not specifically about epistemology.... "Fair" is culture, not science/logic, and the culture you live in very often (perhaps even usually) values being incorrect. It insists on it. > ...since, without it, any discussion will founder Good! Our never ending mass self-deception during our oh so enjoyable (mandatorily so) conversations is the problem. > (and, _if_ that assumption is taken as an axiom, I still maintain that it's not misinformation to make the ~~true~~ overwhelmingly-supported-by-my-perceptions-and-my-perceptions-of-other-people's-perceptions statement that "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale") - but you are certainly technically correct. a) Sure, if you disallow epistemology. b) Is "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale" the(!) point of contention here (in the opinion of all participants)?

scubbo 2y ago
> "Fair" is culture, not science/logic Yep, this is true. I was speaking casually and using "fair" as slang for "helpful, reasonable, and widely-assumed". And yes, "widely-assumed" is also cultural - but in this context, that _is_ relevant, because I assume that those I'm speaking with are making common and reasonable assumptions within our shared culture, just like I assume that the words that I use mean (roughly) the same thing to me as they do to you. Otherwise, communication and collaboration are impossible unless we construct language from first principles in every discussion. Which leads neatly to the next point... >> without it, any discussion will founder > Good! If you think is is preferable to have discussions that go nowhere and yield no helpful outcome in order to remain _technically_ (not-in)correct, vs. taking a small number of reasonable assumptions as axioms ("our perceptions are _probably_ not hallucinations most of the time") which allow us to reach helpful conclusions that increase human happiness, then you and I will never be able to reach agreement on basically anything. > Is "human history is vanishingly-short on a universal scale" the(!) point of contention here (in the opinion of all participants) I don't know - if I try to put myself in your position, it seems to be that I cannot assume or know anything, and thus that I cannot make any claims about the opinions of any participants (or even that they exist), and thus banana wombat elaborate polyhedron.