Metaphysics as an Error

[Luis Dias]

Data is what data tells us it is. I see.

Is data capable of "saying" things?

Notwithstanding that, all you are doing here is sticking your fingers in your ears and proclaiming that you have no intention of entertaining anything I have to say.

Ahhh projection. Aren't you the one doing psychoanalysis?

Just whitewashing each post I make as 'navelgazing' is not just inflamatory and rude, it's also a cop-out.

Ahahah. Ah.

More of the same.

Bye.

I see you don't answer any of the relevant questions yet again. Bye bye now, troll.

[Luis Dias]

Not any more valid than there is in analysing a natural drainage system and trying to sort the water and the channels into different ontologic categories for the purposes of saying what a drainage basin actually, really-o, truly-o IS.

Yeah, sure, a drainage channel is just a bunch of missing sand. Electrical conductivity is the movement of holes inside a conductor. You know the drill. If you like tautologies, "a model is a model is a model", to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

Not my target, SD. I was mentioning the fact that the "model", or "metaphor" of the distinction between hardware and software is not useful but rather misleading and disturbing in the study of the brain. I.e., it's a bad "model" or "metaphor" to anyone studying the brain.

[Surendra Darathy]

Not any more valid than there is in analysing a natural drainage system and trying to sort the water and the channels into different ontologic categories for the purposes of saying what a drainage basin actually, really-o, truly-o IS.

Yeah, sure, a drainage channel is just a bunch of missing sand. Electrical conductivity is the movement of holes inside a conductor. You know the drill. If you like tautologies, "a model is a model is a model", to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

Not my target, SD. I was mentioning the fact that the "model", or "metaphor" of the distinction between hardware and software is not useful but rather misleading and disturbing in the study of the brain. I.e., it's a bad "model" or "metaphor" to anyone studying the brain.

Well, it's a very interesting point to discuss, about what makes for a "good model" or a "bad model". Here we get into the theory-ladenness of observation, not a subject to induce me to pass out warm fuzzies.

That said, I find the drainage-channel analogy far more stimulating than the hardware-software analogy.

Nevertheless, I will not bite anyone's head off for exploring how we can assess useful models from the other kind in researching the brainium. I happen to agree that the software-hardware dichotomy is mainly useful for operating computers, and proposing that the brainium is a computer is next door to proposing that the universe is a computer.

teee heee heee

[FBM]

...Bye bye now, troll.

[Surendra Darathy]

...Bye bye now, troll.

What? You're supposing that

More of the same.

Bye.

is a resignation and departure instead of not-so-subtle provocation. Jamest has logged back into the forum at least twice since posting that, over the course of less than an hour. Check your logs. You can do it -- empirically.

[SpeedOfSound]

...Bye bye now, troll.

What? You're supposing that

More of the same.

Bye.

is a resignation and departure instead of not-so-subtle provocation. Jamest has logged back into the forum at least twice since posting that, over the course of less than an hour. Check your logs. You can do it -- empirically.

But Clearly and necessarily he would have to Observe empirically wouldn't he? Without considering the Observer your request is fatally flawed.

[Luis Dias]

Well, it's a very interesting point to discuss, about what makes for a "good model" or a "bad model". Here we get into the theory-ladenness of observation, not a subject to induce me to pass out warm fuzzies.

Well one should ask a scientist then. Is the metaphor of the 4 elements a good choice to "understaaan'" the world?

That said, I find the drainage-channel analogy far more stimulating than the hardware-software analogy.

Well one has his own sexual preferences I guess...

Nevertheless, I will not bite anyone's head off for exploring how we can assess useful models from the other kind in researching the brainium. I happen to agree that the software-hardware dichotomy is mainly useful for operating computers, and proposing that the brainium is a computer is next door to proposing that the universe is a computer.

It may well be a "computer", but it's not your laptop. The interconnectivity, the modularity, the whole architecture of the brain is very different in process and in design from the ones built inside Intel's factories. We are talking about a "machine" that builds itself up in a manifolding way.

teee heee heee

So you think you said something remarkable? teee heee heee...

[Surendra Darathy]

But Clearly and necessarily he would have to Observe empirically wouldn't he? Without considering the Observer your request is fatally flawed.

What now? Do we want to go for "naive realism"? In other words, inference is not allowed. This is the hangup of the woo crowd - an inability to sort out just what is happening across collecting and analysing data.

Collecting data is simple. Deciding what data to collect is not. Every science ministry or NSF/DOE/NIH committee selecting which proposals to fund is doing this. The real agony of the woo heads is that they cannot get funded to study astral projection.

[Surendra Darathy]

So you think you said something remarkable?

Saying something remarkable is marked by getting funded to study the consequences of having said it. The food chain. The prize in the bottom of the crackerjack box Hurt Locker.

A lot of ultimately-worthless research gets funded, I am sure we both agree. There is no teleology, to paraphrase Yoda.

[SpeedOfSound]

I see you lurking jamest. Answer my post above so we can get on to your observer hypothesis.

[jamest]

...Bye bye now, troll.

What? You're supposing that

More of the same.

Bye.

is a resignation and departure instead of not-so-subtle provocation. Jamest has logged back into the forum at least twice since posting that, over the course of less than an hour. Check your logs. You can do it -- empirically.

I resigned?



Nah, I wouldn't do that to you guys. This brand of bothers will never be broken.

[jamest]

I see you lurking jamest. Answer my post above so we can get on to your observer hypothesis.

I'm supposed to be doing an assignment. I just keep popping my head in to see the latest developments, but I don't really have time for any lengthy discussion right now. And I really do wish that you would elucidate or link me to a post so that I know what you're asking me.

[Luis Dias]

I now reckon that the problem is one of communication.



Oh, and yes, let me use it too, since it's so popular these days:

[Surendra Darathy]

I now reckon that the problem is one of communication.

"Google is your friend". Actually, googling "Google is your friend" is one of the more interesting recursive exercises in googling.

The whole point of the science-metaphysics divide is about the difference between research and wibbling. It's not a guarantee that a particular piece of research is worthwhile. And we all know the problems Teuton had with quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[FBM]

If anybody wishes to lodge a formal complaint about another member's behavior, please write it out in clear terms and, if applicable, report the post in which the offense occurred. Really, we don't like to ride herd on anybody, so specificity would really do a lot towards resolving legitimate complaints. Gracias.