Poll: how biased are you?

[DominionSeraph]

The brain in a vat is not a significant variation on the cave. The underlying idea is basically the same. Sure Descartes takes it to a slightly different place, but the key concept of the thought experiment is the same.

No, even if I had been familiar with it I wouldn't have used it. Note what I wrote:

OP did not define "objective," nor the elements of "evidence" and "logic" which pertain to it -- i.e., he did not define the logic by which this 'evidence' and 'logic' of his lead to this "objectivity."
I'll illustrate why this is needed, and I won't pussyfoot around by starting small --- here's the level that encompasses nearly all the faults:

Plato's cave does not give us a hard disconnect from "the objective" as it allows the released prisoner to touch upon it. So it doesn't illustrate the problem to the fullest degree, now does it? If I had used it I would've been pussyfooting around. Someone could've come in and said, "Oh, but the philosopher, using the same methods as the prisoners, can be objective. So really I'm completely unbiased, it's just that maybe my world is wrong!"
That stupid philosopher ruins the whole thing and would require a separate step to undermine -- I would have to the additional length of making him a brain in a vat. The Cave is a pointless step back. It doesn't start right at home to connect people to what they know and it doesn't fully illustrate anything in itself, so it just muddles the issue and adds work.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It doesn't start right at home to connect people to what they know and it doesn't fully illustrate anything in itself, so it just muddles the issue and adds work.

Before brains in vats Descartes appealed to a dejin's phantasmagoria to argue, and conclude, as you have.
(if you don't know about this then you are in great company)

There's a good book built on the idea that says that, then, we can only create knowledge if we can replicate it: it's by Kant and it's where the concept of replicatable science comes form.

I've gone off the idea that just because my brain is in a vat it proves I exist. I say I exist because I have desires and I fulfill those. Ephemeral as they may be, they are as real to me as thinking is (something I only do in-order to fulfill some end goal too).


This one time I tried to convince my pre-school-er brother of his non-existence. Upton saying "you aren't real" with his retort "yes I am!" I said "then prove it"... to which he responded by hitting me.


As per the question at hand: We are all 100% bias toward that which moves toward our own intentions.


My intention is to figure out how the hell to talk about Heidegger's ontology without confusing the hell out of very intelligent people.

 

[nonlnear]

No, even if I had been familiar with it I wouldn't have used it. Note what I wrote:

...

Plato's cave does not give us a hard disconnect from "the objective" as it allows the released prisoner to touch upon it. So it doesn't illustrate the problem to the fullest degree, now does it? If I had used it I would've been pussyfooting around. Someone could've come in and said, "Oh, but the philosopher, using the same methods as the prisoners, can be objective. So really I'm completely unbiased, it's just that maybe my world is wrong!"

Plato only managed to arrive at objectivity because he presupposed it. He either didn't realize the full implications of what the cave could do, or he was reluctant to acknowledge it. He built the track and the engine, he just didn't ride it to the end of the line. You've got to give him (or whichever author really came up with it prior to its standard attribution) credit for building the machine so long before it was ever really used.

That stupid philosopher ruins the whole thing and would require a separate step to undermine -- I would have to the additional length of making him a brain in a vat.

Actually you only have to truncate the bit about the outside of the cave being a fairytale playground containing ultimate truth. As long as it is something totally foreign to the newly liberated individual, and you scrub the implicit assumption that reason and perception can develop independently, it works just fine.

The Cave is a pointless step back. It doesn't start right at home to connect people to what they know and it doesn't fully illustrate anything in itself, so it just muddles the issue and adds work.

Is work such a bad thing? You demand too much of words.

I contend this is the entire vanity of objectivity as classically construed. Objectivity can exist just fine when we understand it to be a sandbox we construct to facilitate communication. It's no coincidence that the search for a philosophy set within an objective universe populated by beings defined by (or at least capable of) objective rationality began in earnest when literate cultures emerged. Ditto for monotheism. Once the word was given greater deference than the speaker, it demanded a philosophy that put man beneath his words. That which could be codified was labeled reason, and one of the great vanities of many philosophies is presuming that this "reason" is descriptive of all cognition.

 

[nonlnear]

If you don't mind then I'll be a bit pedagogical in my going through your response.

Not at all. I actually enjoy it.

While I don’t think that everything has been thought of, I do think that if we appeal to other’s ideas then we can get a better grounding of where we are going. Could you imagine spending a lifetime only to re-create the collected works of Marx, only to find out that “communism” Isn’t the big-bad, but rather proof you wasted your life?

I don't really hold communism out to be a "big bad" at all. It suffers from the usual shortcomings of attempting to build a logically (or otherwise) consistent model of [any significant piece of] human behavior and construct a hypothetical world in its image. It is a very human thing to do, and a worthwhile endeavor. The obsession so many people have with originality is utterly banal. The fact that an idea is as old as the hills doesn't mean that struggling to own it for oneself is a waste of time.

His appeal is probably taken better from the influence of hegemonic forces that have a historical influence on praxis. I wouldn’t dismiss labor simply as the imbuing of human spirit and worth into an item, but rather praxis and accompanying practical rationality (as it relates to history and powerful societal influences) as a key focus that goes against the simplistic scientific-realism of a positivist world-view regarding social order.

This I think is what my biggest and most enduring take-away was: that context is always important. Corollary: if you don't perceive that context is relevant to a question about humans, you haven't stepped back far enough.

Marx was an amazing thinker. Add to that the fact that he was a good writer too. The scope of his work is virtually unmatched. So many of his predictions about capitalism and other political-economic systems were spot on that I can't believe he is not read by every high school student. (Well, actually I can...) It's just a shame IMHO that he insisted on venturing into eschatology. On the other hand, when that little slice of his work is taken with the right amount of salt it is still very useful as an illustration of what his idealized hopes were.

Rand is a bad anti pragmatist. If anything I think she was arguing FOR liberal socialism by making such mindless arguments; but then seeing how many people think she’s got the right ideas just goes to show you can fool some of the people all of the time…

I actually agree with a few of her one-liners, but don't take that as saying I subscribe to her philosophy! I don't really hold the sloppiness of her philosophy against her. After all, I don't hold that morality/ethics/values ought to be derived from one's philosophy. IMHO it generally is the other way 'round, despite many philosophers' attempts to make it appear otherwise.

Nietzsche is an interesting writer. He’s got two distinct forms of thought to be drawn: nihilism and post structuralism; or at least that’s what’s attributed to him. In truth post-structuralism comes out of John Paul Sartre “being and nothingness”. Unfortunately, this is actually a very poor take on reflecting on Heidegger using a nihilistic Nietzchian lens. It dismisses the physical-real in a way that loses touch with the authenticity of “being” that Heidegger is going for.

The thing that struck me about Nietzsche was his pervasive joy. I didn't get around to reading any of his work until, well, later than my youth, primarily because I had allowed my impression of him to be shaped by pedestrian notions of nihilism. It was entirely plausible to me that a philosopher could have become prominent by dressing up a philosophy of dour nothingness in elaborate words so I never devoted the time to read him. When I did I was transported. Again, while I adopted bits of his approach I can't say that I am a follower of Nietzsche. However it was refreshing to see that there is a joy that seems to be held in common between great minds of such diverse perspectives. Rand and Nietzsche are philosophical opposites in so many ways, but their common depiction of spontaneous joy (not necessarily happiness) was available for those who live heroic lives is quite compelling.

There’s a strong argument by Descartes regarding this in a letter he wrote to (later to be quean) Elisabeth. Essentially, he argues for reification if the reified thing is linked to something that has a potentiality for existence. I disagree with the abstraction of quantification as a reality as there’s always a tolerance and even more so there’s a cone < of variance cutting across phenomenon (a normal distribution of normality of variance, if you will).

I'm not sure any more what "potentiality for existence" means. While I'm not a determinist, I view the perception of time as an information constraint. IMHO what gets labeled as "potentiality for existence" is merely human imagination, coupled with a bit of vanity.

From that perspective Bayesian probabilistic thinking is the only reasonable perspective; unless fine controls are implemented to keep the physical-real within specific tolerances.

If you are talking about how best to understand what staistics says about an experiment I would agree that the Bayesian perspective is more compelling than that of classical probabilists. If you were making a connection to how one ought to think about the relationship between mathematics as

That said, economics is the reified connection to purchasing power which is not real and is, in fact, created by the exchange of (not the existence of) slips of paper. As such connecting numbers to money doesn’t make any sense at all unless looked at from a probabilistic standpoint.

I am unconvinced that economics is the reified anything. Economics is a sandbox of psychology. The fact that it pretended to answer questions about the simultaneous behavior of large numbers of people before psychology ever tried is only an illustration of the field's self-importance. And if a field appears to have an overly-inflated view of its significance relative to psychology, well that's not a good sign...

The behavioral economists are on to something though. They are a refreshing development.

Burger and Luckmann look at how “objective reality” is created; no doubt it’s a modern take on many older thoughts, but who the hell cares, right?

I'll get back to you when I've red a bit of Burger and Luckmann.

There’s this pre-Socratic poet that wrote about an awakening. People realize that there is only the one thing, everything is inter-connected and the shades and lines we draw between “objects” Is only a matter of how we intend to use them. If we take our human-intervention out of the mix we are all one thing and if we put human-perspective back in everything is in a state of flux. You can awaken to this knowledge, truly understand it, but when you to back to sleep and start using “things” as “things” then you forget your awakened state like someone waking from a dream forgets a dream.
So this is a move toward pragmatism, when everything is socially constructed and all physical real is one thing, then what has utility is also socially constructed.
[/quote]The more I read about social constructivism the more I am convinced that I am not really one of them either. I have come to thoroughly believe that all social constructs are social constructs. However having become immune to "believing" (that is, ascribing significance to the notion that a packaged set of words can ever communicate anything significant about a postulated superior objective reality - if such a thing "exists"*) in anything such as country, a philosophy, law, moral norms, etc. All these things are just a bunch of people doing stuff. If they stopped acting like these social constructs existed they would fail to "exist".

However I don't hold that all cognition is built on social constructs. Despite my belief that perceived objects don't have an objective reality, object perception is clearly not dependent on socialization (although it may of course be affected by it). There is a more animal "connectedness" to the world that I have embraced with regard to more complex thought structures as well. It is hard to consciously embrace this more animal connectedness, as words are obviously social constructs too, so thought that is processed in words is already divorced from this more immediate form of cognition.

After dismissing the notion that there is one philosophical system that I will cleave to 'til death do us part, I dismiss them all as social constructs and now pick them up when they suit my purpose. I don't put them down flippantly or contemptuously, but simply when they no longer suit my goal.

* Please excuse my loose usage of the word exist. When I put it in quotes, I hope its meaning is clear enough form the context. I don't always mean it in the same way. I don't have much philosophical jargon, as I am merely a pedestrian reader with greater than average patience.

 

[cave_dweller]

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't hold that morality/ethics/values ought to be derived from one's philosophy. IMHO it generally is the other way 'round, despite many philosophers' attempts to make it appear otherwise.

This is the nature of human bias 🙂.

IMHO what gets labeled as "potentiality for existence" is merely human imagination, coupled with a bit of vanity.

I&#8217;m writing a paper on entrepreneurship that argues the same thing.

The behavioral economists are on to something though. They are a refreshing development.

crossing psychology with business is essentially what I&#8217;m doing 🙂

All these things are just a bunch of people doing stuff. If they stopped acting like these social constructs existed they would fail to "exist"

Semiotics acknowledges the physicality of the message and the experiential-definition of its interpretation.

I don't have much philosophical jargon, as I am merely a pedestrian reader with greater than average patience.

There are three ways in which things exist:
The ontic, this is the physical real, the buss that smashes into you when you walk into the street.

The epistemic, this is &#8220;knowing&#8221;, on this level we create concepts and generalize information into knowledge.

And what Heidegger calls

The ontological: this is the extension of &#8220;self&#8221; into things and ideas as it relates to pragmatic ends.

Your method of adding and dropping philosophical meaning to adjust your tool-box for expressing your world view is done ontologically.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts

If you have no way of understanding the reality you perceive you will perceive it in an abstract way that you do understand.

LOL @ the antics of idiots.

yep.

 

[werepossum]

I merely pointed out the disconnect between any valid logic and your "+1". That your failure to properly apply such a simple meme ties in with your obvious difficulties in getting anything else right is also entertaining.

>07:13 PM
>07:13 PM

Next time you might want to spend at least a minute thinking before you make that leap on a passing bandwagon.

LOL @ the antics of idiots.

You honestly think it takes a minute to read and comprehend thirty-one words?

Sorry, that was needlessly cruel.

You honestly feel it takes a minute to read and comprehend thirty-one words?

The only reason it took a minute to read and comprehend your wall of mental masturbation was my uncontrollable laughter which at times made it too difficult to read the screen. Nonlnear made a perfectly cogent point, albeit one already factored into Woolfe's original post ("I'm curious about peoples' subjective assessments of their degree of bias"), in explaining his personal answer. You then attempted to make largely the same point in order to dismiss the entire poll, but in a way that makes yourself look intelligent, completely missing that Woolfe (who actually IS intelligent) conceded the poll's inherent limitations in his initial post.

Kid, every time you try to look smarter than everyone here, you are laughably transparent. EVERY time. If you want to appear as anything other than a pretentious buffoon convinced that the world is too stupid to recognize his genius, try to provide thoughtful (or at least humorous) answers to the questions. I've actually seen you do that, exactly one time.

 

[cybrsage]

You honestly think it takes a minute to read and comprehend thirty-one words?

Sorry, that was needlessly cruel.

You honestly feel it takes a minute to read and comprehend thirty-one words?

The only reason it took a minute to read and comprehend your wall of mental masturbation was my uncontrollable laughter which at times made it too difficult to read the screen. Nonlnear made a perfectly cogent point, albeit one already factored into Woolfe's original post ("I'm curious about peoples' subjective assessments of their degree of bias"), in explaining his personal answer. You then attempted to make largely the same point in order to dismiss the entire poll, but in a way that makes yourself look intelligent, completely missing that Woolfe (who actually IS intelligent) conceded the poll's inherent limitations in his initial post.

Kid, every time you try to look smarter than everyone here, you are laughably transparent. EVERY time. If you want to appear as anything other than a pretentious buffoon convinced that the world is too stupid to recognize his genius, try to provide thoughtful (or at least humorous) answers to the questions. I've actually seen you do that, exactly one time.

His intelligence is so much higher than yours, you cannot even begin to understand his intelligence. You trying to understand him is like an ant trying to understand God. You are just that far below him on the intelligence ladder.

Or at least he insinuates such. He is just so much smarter than the rest of us he does not even realize we simply point and laugh at him. I was going to quote his poorly written sentence in his post at the top of this page (such an elite intelligence should not make simple mistakes like that, right?), but I am not a writing nazi. 🙂

 

[DominionSeraph]

You honestly think it takes a minute to read and comprehend thirty-one words?

Damn you fail hard.
Those thirty one words were in reference to my post, which was considerably longer than thirty one words. And since your post doesn't follow from the literal content of those thirty one words it does indicate that you were only having a mindless reaction to the tone of the post and not the content.
You saw it was an attack and you threw your hat in with him, thinking to win by bandwagon effect as you know that the only hope you have of scoring a single point against me lies in such invalid logic.

completely missing that Woolfe (who actually IS intelligent) conceded the poll's inherent limitations in his initial post.

LOL, as though an attack manufactured out of thin air does anything but show that you are nothing.
woolfe9999 made no comment whatsoever regarding true subjectivity/objectivity in his post. His use of "ideology", his statement, "Bias is not something you have or don't have," and his concentration on political leanings indicate that he was talking about a completely different realm than I was. There is nothing in my post about political ideology or leanings -- that is faaar down the ladder. I backed things WAY up from where woolfe was. So your insinuation that woolfe covered my post in his OP is laughable and shows that you just can't keep up.

You're out of your league here.

 

[cybrsage]

Damn you fail hard.

Resorting to using profanity shows you have a weak mind.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Resorting to using profanity shows you have a weak mind.

There are bad ass motherfucking masters and there are sorry ass salves.

As nietzsche would put it.


The culturally: requirement that we not "cuss" is actually a misinterpretation of a passage in Ephesians that says only that which is good for edification should come from our mouths.

I found DS's post highly edifying.

 

[werepossum]

His intelligence is so much higher than yours, you cannot even begin to understand his intelligence. You trying to understand him is like an ant trying to understand God. You are just that far below him on the intelligence ladder.

Or at least he insinuates such. He is just so much smarter than the rest of us he does not even realize we simply point and laugh at him. I was going to quote his poorly written sentence in his post at the top of this page (such an elite intelligence should not make simple mistakes like that, right?), but I am not a writing nazi. 🙂

LOL So true.

Damn you fail hard.
Those thirty one words were in reference to my post, which was considerably longer than thirty one words. And since your post doesn't follow from the literal content of those thirty one words it does indicate that you were only having a mindless reaction to the tone of the post and not the content.
You saw it was an attack and you threw your hat in with him, thinking to win by bandwagon effect as you know that the only hope you have of ever scoring a single point against me lies in such invalid logic.



LOL, as though an attack manufactured out of thin air does anything but show that you are nothing.
woolfe9999 made no comment whatsoever regarding true subjectivity/objectivity in his post. His use of "ideology", his statement, "Bias is not something you have or don't have," and his concentration on political leanings indicate that he was talking about a completely different realm than I was. There is nothing in my post about political ideology or leanings -- that is faaar down the ladder. I backed things WAY up from where woolfe was. So your insinuation that woolfe covered my post in his OP is laughable and shows that you just can't keep up.

You're out of your league here.

I "threw my hat in" simply because nonlnear found a new and humorous way to point out that you're a pretentious idiot. At this point, finding a new and humorous way of doing that is a pretty big accomplishment. It wasn't an attack, there is no win or lose. He just pointed out what every single person in the thread already knew. Believe me, neither of us has any intention of arguing with you; we're merely pointing and giggling.

 

[DominionSeraph]

His intelligence is so much higher than yours, you cannot even begin to understand his intelligence. You trying to understand him is like an ant trying to understand God. You are just that far below him on the intelligence ladder.

Or at least he insinuates such. He is just so much smarter than the rest of us he does not even realize we simply point and laugh at him.

... and you don't even grasp that your first paragraph shows why your laughter attaches to nothing. I am a god compared to you. The concept of "DominionSeraph" that your weak mind has assembled from the paltry few memes you have available to you isn't even a shadow of me. You take what evidence I give and try to make them fit a known pattern, but none of your patterns touch my intellect, never mind encompass it. And being that my motivations have been modified by my perspective which has been modified by my intellect, my motivations are beyond you as well.

Oh, and werepossum is not you. I rate that he has substantial underlying intelligence that's simply held back in a few places by sloppy technique. If he and I were to speak the same language I think he'd work things through quite quickly.
He has shown that he is capable of real analysis, while I've never seen any such thing from you.

:whiste:

Me: 4.63 posts per day
Him: 4.62 posts per day
You: 42.33 posts per day

:hmm:

While proving nothing in itself it does allow for and does hint at a certain... disparity.

I'm rather curious as to how he sees you. Is he completely besotted by your adulation and usefulness as a cheerleader? Does he instead stand partly apart, keeping you on hand for the times his words fail him and distancing himself from you when they do not? Or does he see you as a rather useless piece of flotsam?

 

[DCal430]

I am willing to be that people on the left tend to be more objective than they think they are. While people on the right tend to be more bias than they think they are. A left mind is more of an open mind while a right one is more of a closed mind.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I "threw my hat in" simply because nonlnear found a new and humorous way to point out that you're a pretentious idiot.

And yet he landed not one true blow in the skirmish that followed. We ended at "respect for the source of the idea," and with him throwing out a rhetorical question regarding a two-step process when my task was complete in one. (At least I hope it was rhetorical. If he was actually trying to argue that I should've dredged up an esoteric example to pad my case when the only real reason to do so would be for the sake of appearance... 😱 😀)

My level of pretension was not shown to be in excess of what I can support.
You may be upset that you weren't consulted but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

we're merely pointing and giggling.

😀
And so it appears you have failed my test as to whether you know how to compensate for confirmation bias. :biggrin:

Or do you wish to assert that every conservatard here has merely been playing ultra-stupid all along just to troll me into that one conclusion? :sneaky: :thumbsup:
If you were all to lift masks and step out shining with brilliance, it would deny me my belief in that first conclusion. :hmm: Somehow I think I could live with that. 😀

 

[cybrsage]

..I am a god compared to you...

😀 Stop it, you are making me laugh too hard! 😀

Whew...oh no! 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

Oh my...whew...breathe....ok, better now.

I am sorry, when I read this part I started laughing hysterically at you. Your dyslexia hit strongly when you typed that. I understand you actually meant to say:

..I am a dog compared to you...

It is ok, we expect you to mess up a lot. It makes us laugh. Princess Luna cried when she found out you were falsly claiming to be from her land, though. She is preparing to move, burning the place as she leaves it forever behind her, just to be rid of the stain you are creating. You should be ashamed of yourself. Fluttershy is already hooked on smack, trying to deaden the pain of being even remotely connected to you. Just shameful.

No intentional misquoting as a means of insults.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[cybrsage]

Me: 4.63 posts per day
Him: 4.62 posts per day
You: 42.33 posts per day

While proving nothing in itself it does allow for and does hint at a certain... disparity.

Look, I found a logical fallacy in use! Such a "god" as yourself would NEVER fall into the trap of using a logical fallacy, would you?

Say it isn't so! The mental giant is actually not one! GASP! THE HORROR!

😀 You are funny, I think I will keep you.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Somehow I think I could live with that.

Then I think you underestimate your own bias ;-).

A left mind is more of an open mind while a right one is more of a closed mind.

You underestimate the influence ignorance and personal-benefit can have on the intelligent.

 

[cybrsage]

A left mind is more of an open mind while a right one is more of a closed mind.

You underestimate the influence ignorance and personal-benefit can have on the intelligent.

That fruit was very low hanging...I felt kinda dirty when I started to respond to it...sort of felt like I was picking on a mentally handicapped kid. I left it alone.

Your response to his "godlike" intellectual statement was very tasteful, though. Well put.

 

[woolfe9999]

I haven't visited the board since Friday. One more brief entry here, then I'd rather let the thread die so I can put up a second poll that is done publicly.

The purpose of this poll is to explore the psychology of peoples' cognitive self-awareness. I am not interested in epistemology in this context. Accordingly, the quantum of evidence/certainty of what we know is not relevant. The existence of objective reality is a working assumption as it must be for any rational discussion of pretty much anything, other than the issue in and of itself.

I want to assess how one's subjective sense of one's own degree of bias relates to other observable factors about the individual, such as his or her professed ideology (or lack thereof), the certitude with which that person expresses opinions, his or her demonstrated degree of openness to opposing views, and his or her general posting style. In that sense, the poll IS a partial fail because it was not made into a public poll. However, keep in mind that part of the reason for this poll is to satisfy my own personal curiosity about these issues (and the curiosity of any others interested), and in that sense, it can't be judged a fail by anyone else because no one else can be aware of the extent to which the poll has served that purpose.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

I am going to venture a guess and say that the proverbial well has been poisoned and the forthcoming public poll results will not mirror this one. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

I am going to venture a guess and say that the proverbial well has been poisoned and the forthcoming public poll results will not mirror this one. Hopefully I am wrong.

Could be. Perhaps I should wait on the order of months rather than weeks.

 

[3chordcharlie]

An impressive 44% of ATOT is more objective than average, and only 11% are less objective.

This should make for some intelligent debate, how exciting!

<--- Has trouble accurately gauging own degree of bias.

 

[monovillage]

Could be. Perhaps I should wait on the order of months rather than weeks.

I can be a jerk and a horse's ass at times, but when you post the poll, i'll answer it as honestly as I can.

 

[piasabird]

Everyone has some Bias even if they dont admit it. If you realize you have Bias it is easier to look past your learned attitudes and consider the other side. Logic is not always the answer to everything. Sometimes logic can even be used to back up bias trains of thought. For instance you could say one group of people are bad because everywhere they are there is a higher crime rate. You may even be able to prove this using logic and facts.