T
T-minus108
Guest
On Aug 5, 7:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you get some kind of kick out of calling people 'child'?
T
T-minus108
Guest
On Aug 5, 11:44 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds correct to me, unless ANYTHING is possible.
Sounds correct to me, unless ANYTHING is possible.
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 6, 6:33 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
challenge, therefore you are not entitled to your original position.
contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at all times.
Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because your position
is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.
Actually I do. You see you have been challenged, have not met the
challenge, therefore you are not entitled to your original position.
Then please provide some context that will help us establish that your
contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at all times.
Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because your position
is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 6, 7:36 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
that theory to be weak and you continue claiming that 2+2=3 on bad
evidence, I am allowed in logical discourse to reclaim your
entitlement to make such claim rationally. Now you have a right to
continue making the claim but evidence subtracts you entitlement to
claim it is true without further evidence.
variations and how the brain works.
Then you come back with all this "no" business without any evidence to
back it up.
logic each nd every time you contend my proposals. Arguing is a sub-
genre of logic and if you respond your arguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and
evolution?
machinery is working fine.
way dishonest but you positions and responses do.
If you claim that 2+2=3 and I contend that most good evidence shows
that theory to be weak and you continue claiming that 2+2=3 on bad
evidence, I am allowed in logical discourse to reclaim your
entitlement to make such claim rationally. Now you have a right to
continue making the claim but evidence subtracts you entitlement to
claim it is true without further evidence.
You said something like;
And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random
variations and how the brain works.
Then you come back with all this "no" business without any evidence to
back it up.
How am I lying? Please explain, or the comment remains meaningless.
Logic is not mindless wanking, you yourself are attempting to use
logic each nd every time you contend my proposals. Arguing is a sub-
genre of logic and if you respond your arguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of
quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and
evolution?
Seems i as I am using it means, "the way it appears to me" and this
machinery is working fine.
Your approach appears to be dishonest. I am not saying you are in any
way dishonest but you positions and responses do.
Z
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
On Aug 6, 1:03 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Rockets,
GPS, Lasers, PV Cells, Robots, DVD, USB, and Cruise Missiles,
and let science idiots have the damn planet.
That's so very true, which is why real engineers even built Moon
Rockets,
GPS, Lasers, PV Cells, Robots, DVD, USB, and Cruise Missiles,
and let science idiots have the damn planet.
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 6, 10:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
am right or wrong. Entitlement in logic is a stipulated term used to
alert a debater that they ether can or cannot continue making
particular assertions. It is similar to how in a court of law, after
an objection has been sustained if the party objected to tries to use
the information again the judge orders the information stricken from
the record and threatens to call a mistrial if he/she attempts to use
the refuted information again. In debate class you just lose a few
points every time you re-introduce the information as evidence for
your thesis.
entitlements. After I succeeded in removing your entitlement you
continued to have a right to the failed assertion.
weakened your claims, your entitlement to those claims has been
removed.
participants and observers. You raise the issue of context, the burden
is upon you to be able, if asked, to not only define this context but
to give a criterion or amount of contest. And it would do well to give
simple examples of not enough context, just enough, and to much
context. Please do so, so that we can be informed about how much of
this context you would prefer here.
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding
Impossible Perfection):
if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he
must also address some further point. If you can make these points
more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent
must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that
your opponent isn't up on.
This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy:
it's answering them that's hard.
It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an
argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that
it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the
goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not
for the Vitamin C.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts
not heard of it, I am sorry about that, but not the responsible party.
If your ramblings have been an attempt to refute this internationally
renowned theory, they have failed. Here I will provide some evidence
that this theory exists and is well established in the international
research community.
But first, I suppose it is similar to how I used to make up songs with
a cassette recorder. I would just start playing anything for 5
minutes, play back the tape and pick out some cool sounding parts and
then rif on that for another 5 minutes and so on and out of this
randomness I would continue to select interesting sounding stuff till
I had a collection of near complete songs in one evening.
To model cognitive processing, language construction, and
"intelligence" at a neurophysiological level using darwinian
evolutionary mechanisms requires more than a survival-of-the-fittest
principle. Darwinism is all about the copying success of patterns
(typically DNA strings); here I outline a seconds-to-minutes
competition between different spatiotemporal firing patterns in a
multifunctional cortical workspace. The proposed mechanism for recall
from a passive distributed memory into an active working memory is
analogous to genotypes and phenotypes. The ephemeral working patterns
copy themselves in the manner of wallpaper pattern repeats; they
occupy flexible islands in the workspace (useful for multi-tasking and
analogical reasoning) that compete with one another for the limited
workspace, with a widespread pattern signaling object identification
or readiness to act. Pattern evolution is accelerated by cortical
equivalents of the roles played by climate change and lowered sea
level in island biogeography. Chimeric islands containing a pastiche
of patterns are judged against episodic memories in a way that bears
some correspondence to the known organization of human language
cortex.
http://cogprints.org/23/0/1991Seminars.htm
http://www.mindcreators.com/Images/ND_StagesOfSelection.gif
Variation and selection within neural populations play key roles in
the development and function of the brain. In this article, I review a
population theory of the nervous system aimed at understanding the
significance of these processes. Since its original formulation in
1978, considerable evidence has accumulated to support this theory of
neuronal group selection. Extensive neural modeling based on the
theory has provided useful insights into several outstanding
neurobiological problems including those concerned with integration of
cortical function, sensorimotor control, and perceptually based
behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8094962
So what's Neural Darwinism? Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize in 1972
for his work on immunology. In short, his research showed how the
population of lymphocytes capable of binding to a foreign antigen is
increased by differential clonal multiplication following antigen
discovery, i.e. a lymphocyte finds an antigen and responds with
chemical messages which trigger a massive production of like-formed
lymphocytes to combat the attack. Taken up a level, that is to say
that the human body is capable of creating complex adaptive systems as
a result of local events with feedback.
Okay, so back to the question. Well, Edelman went much, much further
in his interest in selective systems by expanding his work into the
fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology. He put forth a theory
called "neuronal group selection", also known as Neural Darwinism. It
contains three major parts:
1. Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during
development. This creates a diverse primary repetoire by differential
reproduction.
2. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second
selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience
through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic
connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary
repetoire by differential amplification.
3. Reentrant signalling between neuronal groups allow for
spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.
Let's dig into these in turn. They are each fascinating in their own
right. For starters, it would be mathematically impossible for
something as complicated as the brain to be completely blueprinted
point-by-point in the genome (To give perspective, the human brain has
30 billion neurons with an estimated one million billion connections
between them). Nor would we expect the many processes that govern its
biogenesis to be carried out perfectly "to code". And this is in fact
what we see in identical twin studies -- their brains are not
structurally identical. Edelman says not only is that okay, but it is
essential. With neuronal heterogeneity (called degeneracy) it is
possible to test the many circuits with a diverse set of input, see
which neuronal groups respond "appropriately" statistically, and wire
up the brain based on the results.
The first miracle is how the brain creates such variety. The thinking
is that as cells grow, they do not develop in stasis. They are
surrounded by other cells which form collectives. On the cell surface,
adhesion molecules exist, known as CAMs and SAMs. When a CAM meets
another complementary CAM on a neighboring cell, they induce cell
binding. But in doing so, the CAMs "communicate" to their respective
cells that binding has occured. The magic is that the binding
properties of the linked cells are dynamically controlled by the cells
themselves. The result of binding may be each cell creating
dramatically more or less CAMs of the same type on the cell surface
dynamically in response (Other surface modulation mechanisms include
changes in CAM position, polarity, and chemical structure). This
effectively creates a type of signalling which permeates through the
collective cell group. Essentially CAMs act as sensitive dynamic
regulators of cell aggregation and even cell motion. And thus cell
surface modulation helps govern morphogenesis. So morphology depends
on CAM and SAM function. However, CAM and SAM function also depend on
developing morphology. Okay, I'm officially ratholing. For brevity,
let's just finish up by saying that cell proliferation, cell
migration, cell death, arbor distribution and neurite branching are
all governed by selective processes similar to that of aforementioned
cell aggregation.
So this describes the biological formation of these primary repetoires
which would quite naturally bring about variegated anatomical
structure in the brain. But once this wiring is laid down, it is more
or less fixed. But given this numerous and diverse collection of
circuitry, there is bound to be functionally equivalent albeit
anatomically non-isomorphic neuronal groups capable of responding to
certain sensory input. This creates a competitive environment where
groups proficient in their responses to certain input can be "chosen"
over others by altering synaptic efficacies of those portions of the
network corresponding to such groups. This leads to an increased
probability of their response to similar or identical signals at a
future time. This is done by altering synaptic strengths neuron-to-
neuron biochemically. And as we would expect, adjustments to
neurotransmitters allow for neural plasticity along a much quicker
timetable than by anatomical changes.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4846
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/books/Edelman.html
support than the theory of gravity, it qualifies as worthy of debate
and research to test for falsifiability.
In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination
of observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
the burden upon you" merely by requesting more information about your
simple "no" rejection. There is no substance to it and it is to
general of a challenge to be met in any circumstances.
information about neural darwinism above to satisfy your case against
the theory.
lie.
supporting counter-argumentation.
false, therefore you are using logic plain and simple. As you you are
also trapped with using grammar with subjects and predicates when you
explain your position, your position requires logic always. Please
give an example where you did not use logic and grammer without using
logic and grammar, its contradictory and illogical.
trapped on this one.
therefore not mindless wanking but was relevant to the conversation.
In debate class you lose points for all these infractions you know,
and you would probably get a bad grade.
"seems" I mean "the way it appears to me". If you request that I
change my usage in this conversaton I may or may not agree.
typing off the top of my head. But if you desire I would look forward
to many months of these kinds of conversations with you, good
practice.
ship, trying to save face. Maybe it says something about the caliber
of the debating skills of the people you converse with in these
groups.
anything do you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm_n76Dsl0c
Commonly accepted protocols of logic have nothing to do with whether I
am right or wrong. Entitlement in logic is a stipulated term used to
alert a debater that they ether can or cannot continue making
particular assertions. It is similar to how in a court of law, after
an objection has been sustained if the party objected to tries to use
the information again the judge orders the information stricken from
the record and threatens to call a mistrial if he/she attempts to use
the refuted information again. In debate class you just lose a few
points every time you re-introduce the information as evidence for
your thesis.
In logic and law there is a difference between a rights and
entitlements. After I succeeded in removing your entitlement you
continued to have a right to the failed assertion.
Unless you can refute, to some agreed upon degree, the evidence that
weakened your claims, your entitlement to those claims has been
removed.
In debate or rhetoric this is a common ploy easily caught by
participants and observers. You raise the issue of context, the burden
is upon you to be able, if asked, to not only define this context but
to give a criterion or amount of contest. And it would do well to give
simple examples of not enough context, just enough, and to much
context. Please do so, so that we can be informed about how much of
this context you would prefer here.
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding
Impossible Perfection):
if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he
must also address some further point. If you can make these points
more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent
must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that
your opponent isn't up on.
This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy:
it's answering them that's hard.
It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an
argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that
it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the
goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not
for the Vitamin C.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts
Actually Neural Darwinism is a well established theory. If you have
not heard of it, I am sorry about that, but not the responsible party.
If your ramblings have been an attempt to refute this internationally
renowned theory, they have failed. Here I will provide some evidence
that this theory exists and is well established in the international
research community.
But first, I suppose it is similar to how I used to make up songs with
a cassette recorder. I would just start playing anything for 5
minutes, play back the tape and pick out some cool sounding parts and
then rif on that for another 5 minutes and so on and out of this
randomness I would continue to select interesting sounding stuff till
I had a collection of near complete songs in one evening.
To model cognitive processing, language construction, and
"intelligence" at a neurophysiological level using darwinian
evolutionary mechanisms requires more than a survival-of-the-fittest
principle. Darwinism is all about the copying success of patterns
(typically DNA strings); here I outline a seconds-to-minutes
competition between different spatiotemporal firing patterns in a
multifunctional cortical workspace. The proposed mechanism for recall
from a passive distributed memory into an active working memory is
analogous to genotypes and phenotypes. The ephemeral working patterns
copy themselves in the manner of wallpaper pattern repeats; they
occupy flexible islands in the workspace (useful for multi-tasking and
analogical reasoning) that compete with one another for the limited
workspace, with a widespread pattern signaling object identification
or readiness to act. Pattern evolution is accelerated by cortical
equivalents of the roles played by climate change and lowered sea
level in island biogeography. Chimeric islands containing a pastiche
of patterns are judged against episodic memories in a way that bears
some correspondence to the known organization of human language
cortex.
http://cogprints.org/23/0/1991Seminars.htm
http://www.mindcreators.com/Images/ND_StagesOfSelection.gif
Variation and selection within neural populations play key roles in
the development and function of the brain. In this article, I review a
population theory of the nervous system aimed at understanding the
significance of these processes. Since its original formulation in
1978, considerable evidence has accumulated to support this theory of
neuronal group selection. Extensive neural modeling based on the
theory has provided useful insights into several outstanding
neurobiological problems including those concerned with integration of
cortical function, sensorimotor control, and perceptually based
behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8094962
So what's Neural Darwinism? Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize in 1972
for his work on immunology. In short, his research showed how the
population of lymphocytes capable of binding to a foreign antigen is
increased by differential clonal multiplication following antigen
discovery, i.e. a lymphocyte finds an antigen and responds with
chemical messages which trigger a massive production of like-formed
lymphocytes to combat the attack. Taken up a level, that is to say
that the human body is capable of creating complex adaptive systems as
a result of local events with feedback.
Okay, so back to the question. Well, Edelman went much, much further
in his interest in selective systems by expanding his work into the
fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology. He put forth a theory
called "neuronal group selection", also known as Neural Darwinism. It
contains three major parts:
1. Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during
development. This creates a diverse primary repetoire by differential
reproduction.
2. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second
selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience
through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic
connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary
repetoire by differential amplification.
3. Reentrant signalling between neuronal groups allow for
spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.
Let's dig into these in turn. They are each fascinating in their own
right. For starters, it would be mathematically impossible for
something as complicated as the brain to be completely blueprinted
point-by-point in the genome (To give perspective, the human brain has
30 billion neurons with an estimated one million billion connections
between them). Nor would we expect the many processes that govern its
biogenesis to be carried out perfectly "to code". And this is in fact
what we see in identical twin studies -- their brains are not
structurally identical. Edelman says not only is that okay, but it is
essential. With neuronal heterogeneity (called degeneracy) it is
possible to test the many circuits with a diverse set of input, see
which neuronal groups respond "appropriately" statistically, and wire
up the brain based on the results.
The first miracle is how the brain creates such variety. The thinking
is that as cells grow, they do not develop in stasis. They are
surrounded by other cells which form collectives. On the cell surface,
adhesion molecules exist, known as CAMs and SAMs. When a CAM meets
another complementary CAM on a neighboring cell, they induce cell
binding. But in doing so, the CAMs "communicate" to their respective
cells that binding has occured. The magic is that the binding
properties of the linked cells are dynamically controlled by the cells
themselves. The result of binding may be each cell creating
dramatically more or less CAMs of the same type on the cell surface
dynamically in response (Other surface modulation mechanisms include
changes in CAM position, polarity, and chemical structure). This
effectively creates a type of signalling which permeates through the
collective cell group. Essentially CAMs act as sensitive dynamic
regulators of cell aggregation and even cell motion. And thus cell
surface modulation helps govern morphogenesis. So morphology depends
on CAM and SAM function. However, CAM and SAM function also depend on
developing morphology. Okay, I'm officially ratholing. For brevity,
let's just finish up by saying that cell proliferation, cell
migration, cell death, arbor distribution and neurite branching are
all governed by selective processes similar to that of aforementioned
cell aggregation.
So this describes the biological formation of these primary repetoires
which would quite naturally bring about variegated anatomical
structure in the brain. But once this wiring is laid down, it is more
or less fixed. But given this numerous and diverse collection of
circuitry, there is bound to be functionally equivalent albeit
anatomically non-isomorphic neuronal groups capable of responding to
certain sensory input. This creates a competitive environment where
groups proficient in their responses to certain input can be "chosen"
over others by altering synaptic efficacies of those portions of the
network corresponding to such groups. This leads to an increased
probability of their response to similar or identical signals at a
future time. This is done by altering synaptic strengths neuron-to-
neuron biochemically. And as we would expect, adjustments to
neurotransmitters allow for neural plasticity along a much quicker
timetable than by anatomical changes.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4846
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/books/Edelman.html
It is a well established theory. Though it has far less evidential
support than the theory of gravity, it qualifies as worthy of debate
and research to test for falsifiability.
In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination
of observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
If I make a claim and the burden of truth is upon me, I do not "shift
the burden upon you" merely by requesting more information about your
simple "no" rejection. There is no substance to it and it is to
general of a challenge to be met in any circumstances.
That is better than a simple "no" contention. Please refer to the
information about neural darwinism above to satisfy your case against
the theory.
This notion continues to be vague since you have not specified the
lie.
The comment was about you general rejection with no explaination or
supporting counter-argumentation.
When you claim I am wrong you are claiming that the proposition is
false, therefore you are using logic plain and simple. As you you are
also trapped with using grammar with subjects and predicates when you
explain your position, your position requires logic always. Please
give an example where you did not use logic and grammer without using
logic and grammar, its contradictory and illogical.
Arguments are always use logic else they are illogical arguments, your
trapped on this one.
The youtube video was about some aspects of arguments, and was
therefore not mindless wanking but was relevant to the conversation.
In debate class you lose points for all these infractions you know,
and you would probably get a bad grade.
Then your saying that thinking is "never" like evolutionary processes?
I am not wrong about what "seems" means to me as I use it. When I say
"seems" I mean "the way it appears to me". If you request that I
change my usage in this conversaton I may or may not agree.
Actually I seem to be doing fine and you are very easy to refute just
typing off the top of my head. But if you desire I would look forward
to many months of these kinds of conversations with you, good
practice.
When I say dishonest I mean that you appear to be defending a sinking
ship, trying to save face. Maybe it says something about the caliber
of the debating skills of the people you converse with in these
groups.
You don't really think this wanking business really accomplishes
anything do you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm_n76Dsl0c
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 7, 10:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
do you. Actually in all your illegal maneuvers below you are
attempting to do just that.
entitlement to those assertions. Therefore every time you attempt to
use them you are in logical violation of commonly accepted protocols.
Do you really think that just saying so means anything?
of logic then logic will allow or disallow. I will present the case
against you and logic itself will deal with you.
undetermined, I might have meant that or not, but you have not
presented much evidence either way it is determined. In the metaphor,
logic is the judge, the most I could possibly do is get you banned
from the internet and that is probably not likely.
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made. Besides I never
claimed to be a judge, that assumption was contingent upon your
presuppositions, stereotypes and bullying style, which I am perfectly
immune to and will challenge till the cows come home.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I argue that you position should have its entitlement withdrawn since;
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because
of this." It is often shortened to simply post hoc.
Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause,"
is a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event
happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.
It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence is
integral to causality it is true that a cause always happens before
its effect. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based only on
the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. That is to
say, it is not always true that the first event caused the second
event.
Post hoc is an example of affirming the consequent. It can be
expressed as follows:
If event A causes event B, then A must have occurred before B.
Event A occurred before event B.
Therefore, A must have caused B.
This line of reasoning is the basis for many superstitious beliefs and
magical thinking, connecting two things that have no actual or logical
connection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I never claimed that this was a debating class. I merely explained
what happens in a debating class. You seem to be jumping to
conclusions that bear the weight of very little warrant.
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I never claimed that this was a debating class. I merely explained
what happens in a debating class. You seem to be jumping to
conclusions that bear the weight of very little warrant.
attack my claim by asserting that me making the claim is making it
simply out of self interest and or circumstances. In some cases, this
fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances
(such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic
background, drug use etc.) instead of and in place of the truth or
falsity of the claim being made.
You see a Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's
interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of
the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them
with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on
their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances
(religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or
falsity of the claim.
You are somehow jumping to conclusions about yourself it seems. Or
maybe logical reasoning is so foreign to you that it sounds like
something a druggy would say, but you have in no way shown or
presented any evidence of whether I am a drug user or not. Please
provide you evidence or withdraw the claim.
entitlement. Its like in grammar class, it you just put out some
gibberish with no grammatical structure like subject, predicates and
objects, you talk nonsense. When you argue without logic you are
illogical and lose your entitlement for what only appears to be a
claim but is no argument at all.
which removes your entitlement to further sustain of those premises.
appeal to context is meaningless. I am not obligated to read your mind
to learn how much context satisfies you and doesn't arouse you to
resentment and name calling and other defeatist technics.
and any thought progression is a miniature replication of millions of
years of evolution, in seconds.
Yes, I do if I can present a stronger case that logic applies here. So
do you. Actually in all your illegal maneuvers below you are
attempting to do just that.
Then you concede that logic convicts you and withdraws your
entitlement to those assertions. Therefore every time you attempt to
use them you are in logical violation of commonly accepted protocols.
I may or may not be wrong but you have not shown how that is the case.
Do you really think that just saying so means anything?
If I can present a more probable argument than you about the protocols
of logic then logic will allow or disallow. I will present the case
against you and logic itself will deal with you.
In my metaphor I never claimed to be the judge. That possibility was
undetermined, I might have meant that or not, but you have not
presented much evidence either way it is determined. In the metaphor,
logic is the judge, the most I could possibly do is get you banned
from the internet and that is probably not likely.
My claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made. Besides I never
claimed to be a judge, that assumption was contingent upon your
presuppositions, stereotypes and bullying style, which I am perfectly
immune to and will challenge till the cows come home.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I argue that you position should have its entitlement withdrawn since;
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because
of this." It is often shortened to simply post hoc.
Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause,"
is a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event
happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.
It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence is
integral to causality it is true that a cause always happens before
its effect. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based only on
the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. That is to
say, it is not always true that the first event caused the second
event.
Post hoc is an example of affirming the consequent. It can be
expressed as follows:
If event A causes event B, then A must have occurred before B.
Event A occurred before event B.
Therefore, A must have caused B.
This line of reasoning is the basis for many superstitious beliefs and
magical thinking, connecting two things that have no actual or logical
connection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
My claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I never claimed that this was a debating class. I merely explained
what happens in a debating class. You seem to be jumping to
conclusions that bear the weight of very little warrant.
My claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about me and this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument I was making, but the reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that my character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made or the quality of the argument being made.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I never claimed that this was a debating class. I merely explained
what happens in a debating class. You seem to be jumping to
conclusions that bear the weight of very little warrant.
This is clearly a Circumstantial ad Hominem in which you attempt to
attack my claim by asserting that me making the claim is making it
simply out of self interest and or circumstances. In some cases, this
fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances
(such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic
background, drug use etc.) instead of and in place of the truth or
falsity of the claim being made.
You see a Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's
interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of
the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them
with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on
their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances
(religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or
falsity of the claim.
You are somehow jumping to conclusions about yourself it seems. Or
maybe logical reasoning is so foreign to you that it sounds like
something a druggy would say, but you have in no way shown or
presented any evidence of whether I am a drug user or not. Please
provide you evidence or withdraw the claim.
I merely made a stronger case that logic convicts you and removes your
entitlement. Its like in grammar class, it you just put out some
gibberish with no grammatical structure like subject, predicates and
objects, you talk nonsense. When you argue without logic you are
illogical and lose your entitlement for what only appears to be a
claim but is no argument at all.
Please explain more what you mean by "it isn't anyway"
I only presented a stronger argument than you, which appealed to logic
which removes your entitlement to further sustain of those premises.
You have not explain how much context is permissible. Until then you
appeal to context is meaningless. I am not obligated to read your mind
to learn how much context satisfies you and doesn't arouse you to
resentment and name calling and other defeatist technics.
Actually some of these researchers think that concentration and focus
and any thought progression is a miniature replication of millions of
years of evolution, in seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGYF8hc70Y
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 8, 10:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
some generation of ideas and selection amongst a pluralistic field of
possibilities, Or comparing some activities of the brain with
evolutionary processes.
Or are you saying that you have a stronger case, by logical reasoning,
that you are not using logic whenever you argue.
If so I think that violates common sense;
Universal skepticism is usually stated in one of two ways.
------------------------------------
[1] - Positive Universal Skepticism:
In its positive form it consists
of the doctrine that man
can know nothing.
This belief can be easily dismissed, because anyone who defends it
finds himself immersed in hopeless absurdities.
In asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a
knowledge claim-which according to his own theory is impossible.
The universal skeptic wishes to
claim truth for a theory that
denies man's ability to arrive
at truth, and this puts the
skeptic in the unenviable
position of uttering
nonsense.
....he cannot even begin to argue for his position, because the
"possibility of knowledge is presupposed in the very possibility of
argument, in the very possibility of having recourse to reasons." [8]
As Francis Parker explains:
There is such a
thing as knowledge.
The assertion of this proposition is necessarily true if there is to
be
any assertion at all, for its contradictory is self-contradictory.
If the assertion
"There is no knowledge"
is true, then it is false
....for that assertion itself purports to be an instance of knowledge.
Thus the only alternative to the recognition of the existence of
knowledge is, as Aristotle said, a return to the vegetative state
where
no assertions whatever can be made.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/b86ea8051203c7f6
Sorry for the snip, but am busy right now. But here are some tools for
establishing your case that the analogy was weak or that you have
formulated counteranalogies which, by the way, is the main way of
refuting analogies. [be back stronger tommorrow, I enjoy pointing your
mistakes]
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
A common form of inductive argument is the argument by analogy. This
is an argument in which a conclusion is drawn about a situation based
on similarities of this situation (analogies) to previous situations.
For example, if we predict that a since it is snowing today a certain
employee will be late because in the past when it was snowing the
employee was late, we are making a probabilistic argument based on an
analogy, the occurrence of snow.
An argument of the form:
s and t share the properties Pl,..., Pm.
s has the property Pn.
Therefore, t has the property Pn.
Argument by Analogy (Invalid)
Argument with (typically) the general form x is like y, x is A, y is
A.
Argument by Analogy (Valid)
Argument which also has the valid form x is like y with respect to
(being or not being) A x is A y is A.
An analogy is a comparison that works on more than one level. Argument
by analogy is good argument when the things you are comparing have
relevant characteristics in common. Watch out for analogies that
overlook significant differences between the things compared. To use
analogy successfully, a writer must clearly demonstrate how the
important characteristics in the example are operative in this case
and why these variables apply here. An analogies that simplify cause
and effect are likely to have problems and be fallacious.
VII Analogy
To make an induction based on an analogy is to draw a conclusion about
one thing based on its similarities to another thing. Consider, for
example, the following argument against a hypothetical military action
in the Philippines.
In the 1960's, America was drawn into a war in an Asian country, with
a terrain largely comprised of jungles, against enemies that we could
not recognize and friends that we could not count on. That war began
slowly, by sending a few "advisors" to help survey the situation and
offer military advice, and it became the greatest military disgrace
that our country has ever known. We all know what happened in Vietnam.
Do we really want a repeat performance in the Phillippines?
##################################################
Fallacy #3 False Analogy
This argument enumerates the similarities between one event and
another event and argues that these similarities will produce a
similar result. While arguments by analogy tend to be very persuasive,
they can very easily fall into the trap of the false analogy, which is
the major fallacy associated with this kind of reasoning. Both valid
and false analogies compare similar things; false analogies, however,
use hasty generalizations as the grounds for comparison. Consider the
following pair of statements.
A war in the Phillippines would be disastrous. Our soldiers had a
terrible time fighting in the jungles in Vietnam, and the terrain
around Manilla is even worse.
If we decide to attack the Phillippines, we should probably do it in
January. We attacked Iraq in January, and look how well that turned
out.
The first of these statements is a valid analogy in that the
comparison meets the test of inductive validity: it takes an
observation (we had a hard time fighting in the jungles of Vietnam),
makes a generalization (it is hard to fight modern warfare in a jungle
terrain), and then applies it to another instance (we would have a
hard time fighting in the jungles of the Phillippines). The second
statement, on the other hand, is a false analogy because, though it
goes through the same process, the inductive leap it makes (we win
wars because we fight them in January) is a hasty generalization.
################################################
Bad Analogy: claiming that two situations are highly similar, when
they aren't. For example,
"The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun
like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump
from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings
of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."
Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the
shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it
is."
Extended Analogy: the claim that two things, both analogous to a third
thing, are therefore analogous to each other. For example, this
debate:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
supported Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
################################################
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
Philosophical analogies approximate the form of mathematical
proportions and therefore might appear to be tight deductive systems.
For example, A is to B as C is to D has the same form as 1/2 = 2/4,
but the "numerators" and "denominators" of philosophical analogies are
never mathematically identical. This ultimately makes mathematical
proportions and philosophical analogies quite different. (See the
difference between parallel and analogical arguments below.) It makes
them inductive arguments, an argument that does not lead to necessary
truths. Only deductive arguments give us truths that are true in all
cases and without exceptions, e.g., the truths of logic, math, and
geometry.
In assessing the value of philosophical analogies, we must ask two
questions: Are the things compared similar? and are the things similar
in the particular respect in question? If these two questions can be
answered in the affirmative, then a convincing argument from analogy
probably exists.
In his book Practical Logic, Monroe C. Beardsley contends that there
is no such thing as an argument from analogy. "Analogies illustrate,
and they lead to hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy becomes
fallacious when the analogy is used as a reason for a principle" (p.
107). Beardsley does, however, give a good example of an analogy which
is "strong" and which can be used to represent one thing as another.
This is the analogy of a map: "The dots on the map are not very much
like actual cities, and the lines on the map are not all like
mountains or wet like rivers.... But the structure of the map, if it
is a good one, corresponds to the structure of the country it
represents. That is, the shapes of the states are like the shapes on
the map; ...and the relative distances between actual cities are like
the relative distances between the dots on the map" (p. 106). It is
clear that such analogies can be very helpful in clarifying the form
and structure of some arguments, even to the point of discrediting a
specific argument.
Parallels vs. Analogies
A parallel argument: all elements are equal or similar in all
essential particulars;
Or at least identical syntactical elements in corresponding positions.
Analogies have neither of these features.
Mathematical ratios are perfect parallel deductive arguments.
................................................
Another widely used mode of philosophical argument is analogical
reasoning. Philosophical analogies approximate the form of
mathematical proportions and therefore might appear to be tight
deductive systems. For example, A is to B as C is to D has the same
form as 1/2=2/4, but the "numerators" and "denominators" of
philosophical analogies are never mathematically identical. This
ultimately makes mathematical proportions and philosophical analogies
quite different. It makes then inductive arguments by the definitions
above.
In assessing the value of philosophical analogies, we must ask two
questions: Are the things compared similar? and are the things similar
in the particular respect in question? If these two questions can be
answered in the affirmative, then a convincing argument from analogy
probably exists.
In his book Practical Logic Monroe C. Beardsley contends that there is
no such thing as an argument from analogy. "Analogies illustrate, and
they lead to hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy becomes
fallacious when the analogy is used as a reason for a principle" (p.
107).
Beardsley does, however, give a good example of an analogy which is
"strong" and which can be used to represent one thing as another. This
is the analogy of a map: "The dots on the map are not very much like
actual cities, and the lines on the map are not all like mountains or
wet like rivers...But the structure of the map, if it is a good one,
corresponds to the structure of the country it represents. That is,
the shapes of the states are like the shapes on the map;...and the
relative distances between actual cities are like the relative
distances between the dots on the map" (p. 106).
################################################
Analogy and Similarity
As a first step in analysis, we can represent the structure of an
argument by analogy as follows:
1. A and B are similar
2. A has property P
_______________________
3. B has property P
A and B are two things being compared: skill in tennis and the art of
reasoning.
The conclusion is that B has a certain property: the art of reasoning
must be acquired by practice.
The argument is that B has this property because it is similar to A,
which has the property. The art of reasoning must be acquired by
practice because it is similar to tennis in being a skill.
A premise about tennis can yield a conclusion about logic only on the
assumption that tennis and logic are similar.
If two things are similar, they must be similar in some particular
respect--in shape, color, function, or whatever. To put it
differently, two things are similar because they share some property.
So the first task is to identify the respect in which A and B are
similar, to identify the property they have in common. In some cases,
this property is stated explicitly, but in others it isn't.
In the argument about tennis and logic, the property is stated
explicitly: they are both skills.
We'll use the letter S to stand for the property that A and B have in
common, the property that makes them similar. We can reformulate the
first premise in an argument by analogy as follows:
1. A and B have property S
2. A has property P
_____________________________
3. B has property P
We can go on to ask the next--crucial--question. What is the
relationship between S and P? If there is no connection between these
two properties, then the conclusion does not follow.
So the strength of the argument depends on the likelihood of a
connection between the properties involved, and our goal in evaluating
an argument by analogy is to estimate this likelihood.
........................................
Analysis of Arguments by Analogy
Once we have identified the property that A and B are supposed to have
in common--the property we're labeling S--we can put an argument by
analogy into a standard format. This format includes an inductive step
and a deductive step, and it allows us to evaluate the argument by
using what we have already learned about induction and deduction.
To see how this works, let's continue with the analogy between tennis
and reasoning.
The common property here is that both are skills, and the relevance of
this property is that skills must be learned by practice.
Tennis is a particular instance in which a skill requires practice,
and it serves as inductive evidence for a generalization about all
skills; this generalization is then applied deductively to the case of
reasoning.
The first step in the argument is the inductive one, supporting the
generalization that all skills require practice. This generalization
serves as a premise in the second step, which is deductive, a
categorical syllogism.
That premise expresses the link between skills and practice, and
without this premise, we have no basis for the conclusion.
The other premise says that reasoning is a skill--it states the
property that makes reasoning similar to tennis.
Two items being compared:
Logic and tennis
The respect in which they are similar:
They are both skills
The consequence of the similarity:
Being learned by practice
Inductive Part:
INSTANCE:
Tennis is a skill and tennis is learned by practice.
GENERALIZATION:
Therefore, all skills are learned by practice.
Deductive Part:
1. All skills are learned by practice.
2. Logic is a skill.
3. Therefore, logic is learned by practice.
..................................................
Evaluation of Arguments by Analogy:
Rules for Evaluation
The first rule is to consider the number and variety of the positive
instances. In the case of an analogy where we have only a single
instance, the key question to ask is whether increasing the number or
variety would affect the argument.
In the analogy between reasoning and tennis, tennis is a physical
skill, but the generalization is about all skills: physical, mental,
social, and so forth. So we need to consider whether examples from the
other categories would confirm the generalization.
The second rule is to look for disconfirming instances.
In the analogy between reasoning and tennis, can you find examples of
skills that are not learned by practice? If so, this counts against
the generalization that all skills are learned by practice.
Counteranalogies--in this case, similarities between logic and other
types of skills that are not learned by practice--are one of the most
effective ways of rebutting an argument by analogy.
The third rule is to consider the initial plausibility of a
generalization, the plausibility that there could be a connection
between subject and predicate--in this case, between S and P.
Given everything we know about skills, for example, it is quite
plausible to think that they are acquired by practice.
........................................
Evaluation of Arguments by Analogy:
Finding the Middle Term
In some cases, it is easy to identify the middle term, especially if
the argument explicitly mentions what A and B have in common.
In many cases, however, the common property is not mentioned
explicitly; there may be more than one common property, and it may not
be clear which ones are relevant to the conclusion.
A useful technique is to construct a table of similarities and
differences. In outline, the table would look like the following:
A B
S1 S1
Similarities S2 S2
S3 S3
Differences D1 D1
D2 D2
____
P P
The two columns represent the properties of A and B. Because the
conclusion of the argument is the claim that B is P, we put P at the
bottom and draw a line above it in the B column to indicate that it is
supposed to follow from information available in the rest of the
table.
S1, S2, S3, and so forth--there could be any number--are similarities
between A and B, properties that they share and that are candidates
for the role of the middle term.
To decide which of them is the middle term, we ask which of them seem
connected to P. If they are all relevant, then the middle term is a
combination: S1 + S2 + S3 . . . Usually, however, we can throw some of
the similarities out as irrelevant to the analogy.
It's a good idea to include any differences (D1, D2, . . .) as well,
because we must consider these when we evaluate the inductive element
in the argument.
Once we have selected the most plausible middle term, and analyzed the
argument accordingly, we need to evaluate the inductive step.
We are supporting a claim about B on the basis of its similarity to A,
so A is the only instance available to support the generalization.
Also, we have seen that a single instance usually does not provide
very much evidence for a general proposition.
In this respect, an argument by analogy is a kind of logical shortcut,
and it is a relatively weak mode of argument. Nevertheless, such
arguments vary a great deal among themselves in their degree of
strength, and we can assess their strength by applying our rules for
evaluating generalizations.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/welcome.htm
#########################################################
An analogy is a similarity or likeness between things in some
circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely
different. In mathematics, an equation between ratios; as, Napier's
analogies an explaining of something by comparing it point by point
with something else. In biology, similarity in function between parts,
dissimilar in origin and structure: distinguished from homology. In
logic, the inference that certain admitted resemblances imply probable
further similarity. In linguistics, the process by which new or less
familiar words, constructions, or pronunciations conform with the
pattern of older or more familiar (and often unrelated) ones: as,
energize is formed from energy by analogy with apologize from
apology.
Analogy is a sort of similarity. It is, we could say, similarity on a
more definite and more conceptual level. Yet we can express ourselves
al little more accurately. The essential difference between analogy
and the other kinds of similarity lies, it seems to me, in the
intentions of the thinker. Similar objects agree with each other in
some aspect. If you intend to reduce the aspect in which they agree to
definite concepts, you regard those similar objects as analogous. If
you succeed in getting down to clear concepts, you have clarified the
analogy.
Analogical thought is dependent on high-level perception in a very
direct way. When people make analogies, they are perceiving some
aspects of the structures of two situations - the essences of those
situation, in some sense - as identical. These structures, of course,
are a product of the process of high-level perception . . .
Analogical thought further provides one of the clearest illustrations
of the flexible nature of our perceptual abilities. Making an analogy
requires highlighting various different aspects of a situation, and
the aspects that are highlighted are often not the most obvious
features. The perception of a situation can change radically,
depending on the analogy we are making. . .
Furthermore, not only is analogy-making dependent on high-level
perception, but the reverse hods true as well: perception is often
dependent on analogy-making itself. The high-level perception of one
situation in terms of another is ubiquitous in human thought . . . In
the large or the small, such analogical perception - the grasping of
one situation in terms of another - is so common that we tend to
forget that what is going on is, in fact, analogy. Analogy and
perception are tightly bound together.
It is useful to divide analogical thought into two basic components.
First there is the process of situation-perception, which involves
taking the data involved with a given situation, and filtering and
organizing them in various ways to provide an appropriate
representation for a given context. Second, there is the process of
mapping. This involves taking the representations of two situations
and finding appropriate correspondences between components of one
representation with components of the other to produce the match-up
that we call analogy.
Our conceptual networks are intricately structured by analogical and
metaphorical mappings, which play a key role in the synchronic
construction of meaning and in its diachronic evolution. Parts of such
mappings are so entrenched in everyday thought and language that we do
not consciously notice them; other parts strike us as novel and
creative. The term metaphor is often applied to the latter,
highlighting the literary and poetic aspects of the phenomenon. But
the general cognitive principles at work are the same, and they play a
key role in thought and language at all levels . . .
Analogical mapping is so commonplace that we take it for granted. But
it is one of the great mysteries of cognition. Given the richness of
the domains and their complexity, how are the "right" schemas
consistently extracted, elaborated, and applied to further mappings?
The aspects of analogy that are relevant for present purposes, they
include:
domain mapping from a source onto a target;
extraction of an induced schema (of frame)
extension, fluidity, and reanalysis." (p102)
According to the standard lore, the two main modes of inference
corresponding to learning from experience are analogy and induction.
Loosely speaking, analogy (in the inferential sense) is the transfer
of information from one situation to another, similar one, and
induction is the acquisition of general principles from collections of
individual experiences . . .
Introspection and anecdotal evidence suggest analogy as a common form
of reasoning in humans. Tasks involving recognition of structural
similarity between objects, an important component of analogical
reasoning, figure heavily in tests of human intelligence; an early
study of such tests, intellectual ability can be defined as the
ability to reason by analogy from awareness of relations between
experienced characters. . . .
.. . . What the definition amounts to is that analogical inference
takes place when further similarities between situations are inferred
from known similarities.
################################################
Flow Chart for Analyzing Arguments by Analogy: Part IIIa
http://tinyurl.com/cffk
These rules are implemented in a working computer program: NETMET. You
can download NETMET
http://ww2.wpunj.edu/cohss/Philosophy/FACULTY/esteinha/netmet.zip
http://www.dimensionalthinking.net/analogy.html
How is your case stronger? We were talking about an analogy between
some generation of ideas and selection amongst a pluralistic field of
possibilities, Or comparing some activities of the brain with
evolutionary processes.
Or are you saying that you have a stronger case, by logical reasoning,
that you are not using logic whenever you argue.
If so I think that violates common sense;
Universal skepticism is usually stated in one of two ways.
------------------------------------
[1] - Positive Universal Skepticism:
In its positive form it consists
of the doctrine that man
can know nothing.
This belief can be easily dismissed, because anyone who defends it
finds himself immersed in hopeless absurdities.
In asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a
knowledge claim-which according to his own theory is impossible.
The universal skeptic wishes to
claim truth for a theory that
denies man's ability to arrive
at truth, and this puts the
skeptic in the unenviable
position of uttering
nonsense.
....he cannot even begin to argue for his position, because the
"possibility of knowledge is presupposed in the very possibility of
argument, in the very possibility of having recourse to reasons." [8]
As Francis Parker explains:
There is such a
thing as knowledge.
The assertion of this proposition is necessarily true if there is to
be
any assertion at all, for its contradictory is self-contradictory.
If the assertion
"There is no knowledge"
is true, then it is false
....for that assertion itself purports to be an instance of knowledge.
Thus the only alternative to the recognition of the existence of
knowledge is, as Aristotle said, a return to the vegetative state
where
no assertions whatever can be made.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/b86ea8051203c7f6
Sorry for the snip, but am busy right now. But here are some tools for
establishing your case that the analogy was weak or that you have
formulated counteranalogies which, by the way, is the main way of
refuting analogies. [be back stronger tommorrow, I enjoy pointing your
mistakes]
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
A common form of inductive argument is the argument by analogy. This
is an argument in which a conclusion is drawn about a situation based
on similarities of this situation (analogies) to previous situations.
For example, if we predict that a since it is snowing today a certain
employee will be late because in the past when it was snowing the
employee was late, we are making a probabilistic argument based on an
analogy, the occurrence of snow.
An argument of the form:
s and t share the properties Pl,..., Pm.
s has the property Pn.
Therefore, t has the property Pn.
Argument by Analogy (Invalid)
Argument with (typically) the general form x is like y, x is A, y is
A.
Argument by Analogy (Valid)
Argument which also has the valid form x is like y with respect to
(being or not being) A x is A y is A.
An analogy is a comparison that works on more than one level. Argument
by analogy is good argument when the things you are comparing have
relevant characteristics in common. Watch out for analogies that
overlook significant differences between the things compared. To use
analogy successfully, a writer must clearly demonstrate how the
important characteristics in the example are operative in this case
and why these variables apply here. An analogies that simplify cause
and effect are likely to have problems and be fallacious.
VII Analogy
To make an induction based on an analogy is to draw a conclusion about
one thing based on its similarities to another thing. Consider, for
example, the following argument against a hypothetical military action
in the Philippines.
In the 1960's, America was drawn into a war in an Asian country, with
a terrain largely comprised of jungles, against enemies that we could
not recognize and friends that we could not count on. That war began
slowly, by sending a few "advisors" to help survey the situation and
offer military advice, and it became the greatest military disgrace
that our country has ever known. We all know what happened in Vietnam.
Do we really want a repeat performance in the Phillippines?
##################################################
Fallacy #3 False Analogy
This argument enumerates the similarities between one event and
another event and argues that these similarities will produce a
similar result. While arguments by analogy tend to be very persuasive,
they can very easily fall into the trap of the false analogy, which is
the major fallacy associated with this kind of reasoning. Both valid
and false analogies compare similar things; false analogies, however,
use hasty generalizations as the grounds for comparison. Consider the
following pair of statements.
A war in the Phillippines would be disastrous. Our soldiers had a
terrible time fighting in the jungles in Vietnam, and the terrain
around Manilla is even worse.
If we decide to attack the Phillippines, we should probably do it in
January. We attacked Iraq in January, and look how well that turned
out.
The first of these statements is a valid analogy in that the
comparison meets the test of inductive validity: it takes an
observation (we had a hard time fighting in the jungles of Vietnam),
makes a generalization (it is hard to fight modern warfare in a jungle
terrain), and then applies it to another instance (we would have a
hard time fighting in the jungles of the Phillippines). The second
statement, on the other hand, is a false analogy because, though it
goes through the same process, the inductive leap it makes (we win
wars because we fight them in January) is a hasty generalization.
################################################
Bad Analogy: claiming that two situations are highly similar, when
they aren't. For example,
"The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun
like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump
from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings
of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."
Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the
shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it
is."
Extended Analogy: the claim that two things, both analogous to a third
thing, are therefore analogous to each other. For example, this
debate:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
supported Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
################################################
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
Philosophical analogies approximate the form of mathematical
proportions and therefore might appear to be tight deductive systems.
For example, A is to B as C is to D has the same form as 1/2 = 2/4,
but the "numerators" and "denominators" of philosophical analogies are
never mathematically identical. This ultimately makes mathematical
proportions and philosophical analogies quite different. (See the
difference between parallel and analogical arguments below.) It makes
them inductive arguments, an argument that does not lead to necessary
truths. Only deductive arguments give us truths that are true in all
cases and without exceptions, e.g., the truths of logic, math, and
geometry.
In assessing the value of philosophical analogies, we must ask two
questions: Are the things compared similar? and are the things similar
in the particular respect in question? If these two questions can be
answered in the affirmative, then a convincing argument from analogy
probably exists.
In his book Practical Logic, Monroe C. Beardsley contends that there
is no such thing as an argument from analogy. "Analogies illustrate,
and they lead to hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy becomes
fallacious when the analogy is used as a reason for a principle" (p.
107). Beardsley does, however, give a good example of an analogy which
is "strong" and which can be used to represent one thing as another.
This is the analogy of a map: "The dots on the map are not very much
like actual cities, and the lines on the map are not all like
mountains or wet like rivers.... But the structure of the map, if it
is a good one, corresponds to the structure of the country it
represents. That is, the shapes of the states are like the shapes on
the map; ...and the relative distances between actual cities are like
the relative distances between the dots on the map" (p. 106). It is
clear that such analogies can be very helpful in clarifying the form
and structure of some arguments, even to the point of discrediting a
specific argument.
Parallels vs. Analogies
A parallel argument: all elements are equal or similar in all
essential particulars;
Or at least identical syntactical elements in corresponding positions.
Analogies have neither of these features.
Mathematical ratios are perfect parallel deductive arguments.
................................................
Another widely used mode of philosophical argument is analogical
reasoning. Philosophical analogies approximate the form of
mathematical proportions and therefore might appear to be tight
deductive systems. For example, A is to B as C is to D has the same
form as 1/2=2/4, but the "numerators" and "denominators" of
philosophical analogies are never mathematically identical. This
ultimately makes mathematical proportions and philosophical analogies
quite different. It makes then inductive arguments by the definitions
above.
In assessing the value of philosophical analogies, we must ask two
questions: Are the things compared similar? and are the things similar
in the particular respect in question? If these two questions can be
answered in the affirmative, then a convincing argument from analogy
probably exists.
In his book Practical Logic Monroe C. Beardsley contends that there is
no such thing as an argument from analogy. "Analogies illustrate, and
they lead to hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy becomes
fallacious when the analogy is used as a reason for a principle" (p.
107).
Beardsley does, however, give a good example of an analogy which is
"strong" and which can be used to represent one thing as another. This
is the analogy of a map: "The dots on the map are not very much like
actual cities, and the lines on the map are not all like mountains or
wet like rivers...But the structure of the map, if it is a good one,
corresponds to the structure of the country it represents. That is,
the shapes of the states are like the shapes on the map;...and the
relative distances between actual cities are like the relative
distances between the dots on the map" (p. 106).
################################################
Analogy and Similarity
As a first step in analysis, we can represent the structure of an
argument by analogy as follows:
1. A and B are similar
2. A has property P
_______________________
3. B has property P
A and B are two things being compared: skill in tennis and the art of
reasoning.
The conclusion is that B has a certain property: the art of reasoning
must be acquired by practice.
The argument is that B has this property because it is similar to A,
which has the property. The art of reasoning must be acquired by
practice because it is similar to tennis in being a skill.
A premise about tennis can yield a conclusion about logic only on the
assumption that tennis and logic are similar.
If two things are similar, they must be similar in some particular
respect--in shape, color, function, or whatever. To put it
differently, two things are similar because they share some property.
So the first task is to identify the respect in which A and B are
similar, to identify the property they have in common. In some cases,
this property is stated explicitly, but in others it isn't.
In the argument about tennis and logic, the property is stated
explicitly: they are both skills.
We'll use the letter S to stand for the property that A and B have in
common, the property that makes them similar. We can reformulate the
first premise in an argument by analogy as follows:
1. A and B have property S
2. A has property P
_____________________________
3. B has property P
We can go on to ask the next--crucial--question. What is the
relationship between S and P? If there is no connection between these
two properties, then the conclusion does not follow.
So the strength of the argument depends on the likelihood of a
connection between the properties involved, and our goal in evaluating
an argument by analogy is to estimate this likelihood.
........................................
Analysis of Arguments by Analogy
Once we have identified the property that A and B are supposed to have
in common--the property we're labeling S--we can put an argument by
analogy into a standard format. This format includes an inductive step
and a deductive step, and it allows us to evaluate the argument by
using what we have already learned about induction and deduction.
To see how this works, let's continue with the analogy between tennis
and reasoning.
The common property here is that both are skills, and the relevance of
this property is that skills must be learned by practice.
Tennis is a particular instance in which a skill requires practice,
and it serves as inductive evidence for a generalization about all
skills; this generalization is then applied deductively to the case of
reasoning.
The first step in the argument is the inductive one, supporting the
generalization that all skills require practice. This generalization
serves as a premise in the second step, which is deductive, a
categorical syllogism.
That premise expresses the link between skills and practice, and
without this premise, we have no basis for the conclusion.
The other premise says that reasoning is a skill--it states the
property that makes reasoning similar to tennis.
Two items being compared:
Logic and tennis
The respect in which they are similar:
They are both skills
The consequence of the similarity:
Being learned by practice
Inductive Part:
INSTANCE:
Tennis is a skill and tennis is learned by practice.
GENERALIZATION:
Therefore, all skills are learned by practice.
Deductive Part:
1. All skills are learned by practice.
2. Logic is a skill.
3. Therefore, logic is learned by practice.
..................................................
Evaluation of Arguments by Analogy:
Rules for Evaluation
The first rule is to consider the number and variety of the positive
instances. In the case of an analogy where we have only a single
instance, the key question to ask is whether increasing the number or
variety would affect the argument.
In the analogy between reasoning and tennis, tennis is a physical
skill, but the generalization is about all skills: physical, mental,
social, and so forth. So we need to consider whether examples from the
other categories would confirm the generalization.
The second rule is to look for disconfirming instances.
In the analogy between reasoning and tennis, can you find examples of
skills that are not learned by practice? If so, this counts against
the generalization that all skills are learned by practice.
Counteranalogies--in this case, similarities between logic and other
types of skills that are not learned by practice--are one of the most
effective ways of rebutting an argument by analogy.
The third rule is to consider the initial plausibility of a
generalization, the plausibility that there could be a connection
between subject and predicate--in this case, between S and P.
Given everything we know about skills, for example, it is quite
plausible to think that they are acquired by practice.
........................................
Evaluation of Arguments by Analogy:
Finding the Middle Term
In some cases, it is easy to identify the middle term, especially if
the argument explicitly mentions what A and B have in common.
In many cases, however, the common property is not mentioned
explicitly; there may be more than one common property, and it may not
be clear which ones are relevant to the conclusion.
A useful technique is to construct a table of similarities and
differences. In outline, the table would look like the following:
A B
S1 S1
Similarities S2 S2
S3 S3
Differences D1 D1
D2 D2
____
P P
The two columns represent the properties of A and B. Because the
conclusion of the argument is the claim that B is P, we put P at the
bottom and draw a line above it in the B column to indicate that it is
supposed to follow from information available in the rest of the
table.
S1, S2, S3, and so forth--there could be any number--are similarities
between A and B, properties that they share and that are candidates
for the role of the middle term.
To decide which of them is the middle term, we ask which of them seem
connected to P. If they are all relevant, then the middle term is a
combination: S1 + S2 + S3 . . . Usually, however, we can throw some of
the similarities out as irrelevant to the analogy.
It's a good idea to include any differences (D1, D2, . . .) as well,
because we must consider these when we evaluate the inductive element
in the argument.
Once we have selected the most plausible middle term, and analyzed the
argument accordingly, we need to evaluate the inductive step.
We are supporting a claim about B on the basis of its similarity to A,
so A is the only instance available to support the generalization.
Also, we have seen that a single instance usually does not provide
very much evidence for a general proposition.
In this respect, an argument by analogy is a kind of logical shortcut,
and it is a relatively weak mode of argument. Nevertheless, such
arguments vary a great deal among themselves in their degree of
strength, and we can assess their strength by applying our rules for
evaluating generalizations.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/welcome.htm
#########################################################
An analogy is a similarity or likeness between things in some
circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely
different. In mathematics, an equation between ratios; as, Napier's
analogies an explaining of something by comparing it point by point
with something else. In biology, similarity in function between parts,
dissimilar in origin and structure: distinguished from homology. In
logic, the inference that certain admitted resemblances imply probable
further similarity. In linguistics, the process by which new or less
familiar words, constructions, or pronunciations conform with the
pattern of older or more familiar (and often unrelated) ones: as,
energize is formed from energy by analogy with apologize from
apology.
Analogy is a sort of similarity. It is, we could say, similarity on a
more definite and more conceptual level. Yet we can express ourselves
al little more accurately. The essential difference between analogy
and the other kinds of similarity lies, it seems to me, in the
intentions of the thinker. Similar objects agree with each other in
some aspect. If you intend to reduce the aspect in which they agree to
definite concepts, you regard those similar objects as analogous. If
you succeed in getting down to clear concepts, you have clarified the
analogy.
Analogical thought is dependent on high-level perception in a very
direct way. When people make analogies, they are perceiving some
aspects of the structures of two situations - the essences of those
situation, in some sense - as identical. These structures, of course,
are a product of the process of high-level perception . . .
Analogical thought further provides one of the clearest illustrations
of the flexible nature of our perceptual abilities. Making an analogy
requires highlighting various different aspects of a situation, and
the aspects that are highlighted are often not the most obvious
features. The perception of a situation can change radically,
depending on the analogy we are making. . .
Furthermore, not only is analogy-making dependent on high-level
perception, but the reverse hods true as well: perception is often
dependent on analogy-making itself. The high-level perception of one
situation in terms of another is ubiquitous in human thought . . . In
the large or the small, such analogical perception - the grasping of
one situation in terms of another - is so common that we tend to
forget that what is going on is, in fact, analogy. Analogy and
perception are tightly bound together.
It is useful to divide analogical thought into two basic components.
First there is the process of situation-perception, which involves
taking the data involved with a given situation, and filtering and
organizing them in various ways to provide an appropriate
representation for a given context. Second, there is the process of
mapping. This involves taking the representations of two situations
and finding appropriate correspondences between components of one
representation with components of the other to produce the match-up
that we call analogy.
Our conceptual networks are intricately structured by analogical and
metaphorical mappings, which play a key role in the synchronic
construction of meaning and in its diachronic evolution. Parts of such
mappings are so entrenched in everyday thought and language that we do
not consciously notice them; other parts strike us as novel and
creative. The term metaphor is often applied to the latter,
highlighting the literary and poetic aspects of the phenomenon. But
the general cognitive principles at work are the same, and they play a
key role in thought and language at all levels . . .
Analogical mapping is so commonplace that we take it for granted. But
it is one of the great mysteries of cognition. Given the richness of
the domains and their complexity, how are the "right" schemas
consistently extracted, elaborated, and applied to further mappings?
The aspects of analogy that are relevant for present purposes, they
include:
domain mapping from a source onto a target;
extraction of an induced schema (of frame)
extension, fluidity, and reanalysis." (p102)
According to the standard lore, the two main modes of inference
corresponding to learning from experience are analogy and induction.
Loosely speaking, analogy (in the inferential sense) is the transfer
of information from one situation to another, similar one, and
induction is the acquisition of general principles from collections of
individual experiences . . .
Introspection and anecdotal evidence suggest analogy as a common form
of reasoning in humans. Tasks involving recognition of structural
similarity between objects, an important component of analogical
reasoning, figure heavily in tests of human intelligence; an early
study of such tests, intellectual ability can be defined as the
ability to reason by analogy from awareness of relations between
experienced characters. . . .
.. . . What the definition amounts to is that analogical inference
takes place when further similarities between situations are inferred
from known similarities.
################################################
Flow Chart for Analyzing Arguments by Analogy: Part IIIa
http://tinyurl.com/cffk
These rules are implemented in a working computer program: NETMET. You
can download NETMET
http://ww2.wpunj.edu/cohss/Philosophy/FACULTY/esteinha/netmet.zip
http://www.dimensionalthinking.net/analogy.html
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 9, 9:19 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
determined empiricism. To put it in layman's terms, you would have a
hard time accounting for all origins of ideas.
being right, like when I typed 2+2=4, then you must change "always" to
"sometimes" or some sense of that quantification. See how logic will
convict you. If I present the example it would clearly show your
quantification "always" to be contradictory and would be similar to
saying that you are in two places at once, which would be extremely
metaphysical.
necessarily use logic?
same simple negative exclamations with no support from you. But I can
go back to that post and address some of you points, if you call them
that.
Oh ya, back for a minute, anyway you claimed that;
This is a bold set of statements that are clear based upon under
determined empiricism. To put it in layman's terms, you would have a
hard time accounting for all origins of ideas.
Actually when I stepped in your were already debating the analogy.
What is wrong? Rather vague on your part.
If I find even one example in any of these posts between me and you,
being right, like when I typed 2+2=4, then you must change "always" to
"sometimes" or some sense of that quantification. See how logic will
convict you. If I present the example it would clearly show your
quantification "always" to be contradictory and would be similar to
saying that you are in two places at once, which would be extremely
metaphysical.
Oh then you concede that whenever you use language to argue that you
necessarily use logic?
I took it out because most of it was just a bunch of repeats of the
same simple negative exclamations with no support from you. But I can
go back to that post and address some of you points, if you call them
that.
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 9, 11:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
terrible logic.
dissonance theory to explain attitude formation and change. According
to the theory, there is a tendency to seek consistency among their
cognitions (i.e., ideas, beliefs, opinions). Cognitive dissonance is
the state of tension one feels after making a decision, taking an
action, or being exposed to some information that is contrary to a
prior attitude (Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752). The state of tension
is psychologically unpleasant, so something must change to reduce the
dissonance -- usually the prior attitude.
When you shout "wanka tanka!" you reveal that you are becomming more
"aroused" [state of tension is psychologically unpleasant] by me.
Geez man, gotta give it away so easily.
besides and analogy.
Definitions of analogy on the Web:
* an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably
agree in others
* drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some
respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy
to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter
is built up"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+analogy
for lacking evidence on your part. You make a claim that something is
wrong and merely point to something and say that, with your finger
pointing.
don't you say so? You blame the arousal logic brings up in you on me?
is been in these groups way to long to even remember what that feels
like. Your skills at bullying "seem" 2nd rate at best, compared to the-
best.
like just making comments and small talk like about the whether?
Here is the problem, plain and simple;
Good luck trying to argue, what might be a good point, with such
terrible logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QJCoIQjt4
Ha. If you only knew how to argue rationally. Look at this again;
During the late 1950's Leon Festinger developed the cognitive
dissonance theory to explain attitude formation and change. According
to the theory, there is a tendency to seek consistency among their
cognitions (i.e., ideas, beliefs, opinions). Cognitive dissonance is
the state of tension one feels after making a decision, taking an
action, or being exposed to some information that is contrary to a
prior attitude (Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752). The state of tension
is psychologically unpleasant, so something must change to reduce the
dissonance -- usually the prior attitude.
When you shout "wanka tanka!" you reveal that you are becomming more
"aroused" [state of tension is psychologically unpleasant] by me.
Geez man, gotta give it away so easily.
When you said something is not like something else, what is it then,
besides and analogy.
Definitions of analogy on the Web:
* an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably
agree in others
* drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some
respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy
to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter
is built up"
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+analogy
This wanker business is really an appeal to ridicule as a replacement
for lacking evidence on your part. You make a claim that something is
wrong and merely point to something and say that, with your finger
pointing.
Oh, a comment, like an opinion right? Look if you don't like logic why
don't you say so? You blame the arousal logic brings up in you on me?
Is that when happens when you get in corner, you get desperate? Man I
is been in these groups way to long to even remember what that feels
like. Your skills at bullying "seem" 2nd rate at best, compared to the-
best.
Oh, not necessarily right, you might have been doing something else,
like just making comments and small talk like about the whether?
Sounds like good lyrics to a rock song.
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 10, 2:32 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
nothing like something else, this without providing any evidence for
you theory os dis-similarity.
exercise frequently and am in good shape and I am not a wanker.
You need to review some logical reasoning skills unless you never had
any and you might want to find a book or read about it online since
you are easy prey to anyone who knows logic. The people in the groups
you argue in must not know much logic since you have hypertrophied
into some sort of winner there.
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
And please do explain when and when not you prefer to take some parts
out to preserve space.
Actually it is a problem since you are claiming that something is
nothing like something else, this without providing any evidence for
you theory os dis-similarity.
I know logic pretty good, studied and did it since I was a kid. I
exercise frequently and am in good shape and I am not a wanker.
You need to review some logical reasoning skills unless you never had
any and you might want to find a book or read about it online since
you are easy prey to anyone who knows logic. The people in the groups
you argue in must not know much logic since you have hypertrophied
into some sort of winner there.
You talk about context but don't describe how much you prefer.
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Can you explain how it is reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking,
or is this just something that works on people in the groups you hang
out in?
Are you sure there was ever anything to your argument to begin with?
And please do explain when and when not you prefer to take some parts
out to preserve space.
I
Immortalist
Guest
Neural Dawrinism
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
I
Immortalist
Guest
Please explain what they can see for themselves. This sounds like a
dodge in order to hide weak arguments on your part.
I provided evidence, therefore by the logic of contradiction it is not
I but you that you are referring to since you didn't provide any
evidence for your contention, you just kept saying "false" without
showing why it is false.
Here is an outline of the theory snip the context at will;
Neural Dawrinism
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
I claim I have studied logic since I was young and you say false. If I
cannot or do not want to reveal any evidence for having studied it
that doesn't necessarily mean that I am a pathological liar. What
makes you decide this possible outcome?
You said something about "lard ass" or something and I being a semi-
hard bodied individual responded that I exercise alot. It looks like
your mentioning of "lard-ass" or whatever you said was completely
irrelevant. Please withdraw the proposal if you desire relevance to
the topic.
How so? It seems your the one making all the absurd comments, calling
names predicting things about people you couldn't possibly know. I was
poking around your comments in other group and I see that I am not
special but that your abuse if pretty much pointed at people you for
some reason don't like or people like me that you probably cannot
beat.
This original context, do you mean that you want to post everything?
The place where I post from only lets me post about 20 posts this big
a day, so that is my motive snipping.
>
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 10, 7:26 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
analogy with the same argument form that has a false conclusion or to
show how some . The theory of Neural Darwinism stands until you can
negate some parts of it or show how the attributes of evolutionary
processes and brain processes do not share some common relationship
with another property
-----------------------------
You see I stand accused by you of commiting a False Analogy. You
claimed that the activities of the brain and evolutionary processes
are "nothing" alike.
In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar
in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with
another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B
must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B).
In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such
as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even
if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they
are the same size. Many languages have culturally idiosyncratic idioms
for invalid analogies or comparisons.
Such false analogies are likened to "comparing apples and oranges" in
English and to "comparing apples and péars" in Dutch. In Serbian, a
false analogy is likened to "comparing grandmothers and frogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
Refutation by Means of Devising a Logical Analogy
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_analogy.html
Determining Invalidity
Refutation by Logical Analogy
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/LogAnalogy.htm
Sorry, the normal process of refuting an analogy is to make a counter-
analogy with the same argument form that has a false conclusion or to
show how some . The theory of Neural Darwinism stands until you can
negate some parts of it or show how the attributes of evolutionary
processes and brain processes do not share some common relationship
with another property
-----------------------------
You see I stand accused by you of commiting a False Analogy. You
claimed that the activities of the brain and evolutionary processes
are "nothing" alike.
In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar
in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with
another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B
must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B).
In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such
as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even
if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they
are the same size. Many languages have culturally idiosyncratic idioms
for invalid analogies or comparisons.
Such false analogies are likened to "comparing apples and oranges" in
English and to "comparing apples and péars" in Dutch. In Serbian, a
false analogy is likened to "comparing grandmothers and frogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
Refutation by Means of Devising a Logical Analogy
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_analogy.html
Determining Invalidity
Refutation by Logical Analogy
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/LogAnalogy.htm
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 10, 8:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[random_variety] [chance_variations.]
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition.
The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it
might face in life,
so its solution is to manufacture
a huge and rather [random_variety]
of immune cell types.
All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there is an
invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right response
characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in great
numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
...Reproduction involves the copying of
patterns, sometimes with small
[chance_variations.]
Creativity may not always be a matter of copying errors and
recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the brain is going
to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism for editing
out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-fitting ones
in a next generation.
---------------------------------------------
Neural Dawrinism
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
<begin unsnip of further found supports from onboard data base>
...- NEURAL DARWINISM
IN THE EARLY STAGES of development, neurons travel freely in the
brain, though guided in general pathways by genetic instruction. As
they float around, some divide into more neurons, some die, and others
settle down at permanent sites and make connections with neighbors,
building the brain's complex circuitry. Genes provide the basic
guidelines that control how the neurons form functioning networks. But
the precise chemical environment influences which neurons connect with
which.
All of our brains have the same general features that make us human,
but each neural connection is unique, reflecting a person's special
genetic endowment and life experience. Circuit connections are made
stronger or weaker throughout a lifetime according to use. Neurologist
and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman, head of the Neuro-sciences
Institute at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California, calls the
process neural Darwinism. Connections that cope well with the sensory
inputs they receive, which they can convert into effective actions,
stay intact and become strong. Those that do not, die off in a process
that resembles natural selection. Neurons and the circuits they form
part of compete with other neurons for survival, and those that are
best adapted to the environment survive. The environment around us-
what we ingest and inhale, the amount and type of light and sound-
actually changes the physical interconnection of synapses within the
brain, providing us with more efficient circuitry, and allowing each
of us to develop an exclusive brain suited to our particular needs.
Neural Darwinism is the theory that explains why the brain needs to be
plastic, that is, able to change as our environment and experiences
change. That is why we can learn in the first place, and unlearn too,
and why people with brain injuries can recover lost functions. The
concept also underlies two of the mantras of this book. "Neurons that
fire together wire together" means that the more we repeat the same
actions and thoughts-from practicing a tennis serve to memorizing
multiplication tables-the more we encourage the formation of certain
connections and the more fixed the neural circuits in the brain for
that activity become. "Use it or lose it" is the corollary: if you
don't exercise brain circuits, the connections will not be adaptive
and will slowly weaken and could be lost.
A user's guide to the brain:
perception, attention, and
the four theaters of the brain
John J. Ratey.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375701079/
Epistemologists find a number of problems with finding an meta-
justification standard for justifying emperical beliefs.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs including completely
justified sceptical beliefs.
The 7 propositions seem to eliminate the possibility of emperical
justification of any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to
this untruthfullness of human beliefs in three ways which deal with
the apparent "regress" of one belief depending upon another which
depends upon another and so on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way.
If we think about justification moving in a linear direction, with one
proposition becomeing the justification for another we run into an
viscious regress that doesnt seem to end. It can be open ended and go
on forever or it can become circular where each support depending on
the last leads to the same supports over time. This is how scepticism
defeated foundationalism. It seems that all we were left with a hope
for escape from this dilemma of no certain knowledge is a modified
version of the circular argument. Instead of a linear regress of
justifiactions we seek a nonlinear context of groups of evidences or
propositions emerging more evidence than other means of gaining
supports from evidences and propositions. Though we close the circle,
different circlular arguments, corespond to, predict, and manilulate,
events in the world, than other such arguments. If we have a
competition amoungst such partial certainties, we gain at least the
best knowledge we can find.
The activities of the brain is how they show up, duh.
[random_variety] [chance_variations.]
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition.
The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it
might face in life,
so its solution is to manufacture
a huge and rather [random_variety]
of immune cell types.
All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there is an
invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right response
characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in great
numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
...Reproduction involves the copying of
patterns, sometimes with small
[chance_variations.]
Creativity may not always be a matter of copying errors and
recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the brain is going
to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism for editing
out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-fitting ones
in a next generation.
---------------------------------------------
Neural Dawrinism
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
<begin unsnip of further found supports from onboard data base>
...- NEURAL DARWINISM
IN THE EARLY STAGES of development, neurons travel freely in the
brain, though guided in general pathways by genetic instruction. As
they float around, some divide into more neurons, some die, and others
settle down at permanent sites and make connections with neighbors,
building the brain's complex circuitry. Genes provide the basic
guidelines that control how the neurons form functioning networks. But
the precise chemical environment influences which neurons connect with
which.
All of our brains have the same general features that make us human,
but each neural connection is unique, reflecting a person's special
genetic endowment and life experience. Circuit connections are made
stronger or weaker throughout a lifetime according to use. Neurologist
and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman, head of the Neuro-sciences
Institute at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California, calls the
process neural Darwinism. Connections that cope well with the sensory
inputs they receive, which they can convert into effective actions,
stay intact and become strong. Those that do not, die off in a process
that resembles natural selection. Neurons and the circuits they form
part of compete with other neurons for survival, and those that are
best adapted to the environment survive. The environment around us-
what we ingest and inhale, the amount and type of light and sound-
actually changes the physical interconnection of synapses within the
brain, providing us with more efficient circuitry, and allowing each
of us to develop an exclusive brain suited to our particular needs.
Neural Darwinism is the theory that explains why the brain needs to be
plastic, that is, able to change as our environment and experiences
change. That is why we can learn in the first place, and unlearn too,
and why people with brain injuries can recover lost functions. The
concept also underlies two of the mantras of this book. "Neurons that
fire together wire together" means that the more we repeat the same
actions and thoughts-from practicing a tennis serve to memorizing
multiplication tables-the more we encourage the formation of certain
connections and the more fixed the neural circuits in the brain for
that activity become. "Use it or lose it" is the corollary: if you
don't exercise brain circuits, the connections will not be adaptive
and will slowly weaken and could be lost.
A user's guide to the brain:
perception, attention, and
the four theaters of the brain
John J. Ratey.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375701079/
It is an inductive belief based probabilistic theory, and therefore;
Epistemologists find a number of problems with finding an meta-
justification standard for justifying emperical beliefs.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs including completely
justified sceptical beliefs.
The 7 propositions seem to eliminate the possibility of emperical
justification of any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to
this untruthfullness of human beliefs in three ways which deal with
the apparent "regress" of one belief depending upon another which
depends upon another and so on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way.
If we think about justification moving in a linear direction, with one
proposition becomeing the justification for another we run into an
viscious regress that doesnt seem to end. It can be open ended and go
on forever or it can become circular where each support depending on
the last leads to the same supports over time. This is how scepticism
defeated foundationalism. It seems that all we were left with a hope
for escape from this dilemma of no certain knowledge is a modified
version of the circular argument. Instead of a linear regress of
justifiactions we seek a nonlinear context of groups of evidences or
propositions emerging more evidence than other means of gaining
supports from evidences and propositions. Though we close the circle,
different circlular arguments, corespond to, predict, and manilulate,
events in the world, than other such arguments. If we have a
competition amoungst such partial certainties, we gain at least the
best knowledge we can find.
T
T-minus108
Guest
On Aug 12, 3:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll agree with that.T-minus108 <foltz...@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
T-minus108 <foltz...@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Wrong.
Sounds correct to me,
More fool you.
unless ANYTHING is possible.
The other obvious possibility is that there are a number of possibilitys
that arent impossible and that only one of those is actually the truth..
You can implode between the ears now.
I beleive it is relevant to say sir Athur Conan doyle never
said that there could only be one truth remaining.... count it
You cant have more than one truth in the sense that he meant that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I
Immortalist
Guest
It doesn't mean that there necessarily is or isn't any random process
involved in new ideas, but if some ideas result from random events,
unrelated to train of deliberate thought and experimentation, they
would at least necessarily include the activities of the brain.
Besides in the text I offered it was stated in support of the
necessary and sufficient satisfaction of the case;
"Creativity may not always be a matter of copying errors and
recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the brain is going
to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism for editing
out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-fitting ones
in a next generation." [see text below for context]
The implication being that even in well thought out thinking
strategies, the evolutionary analogy may apply.
Neural Dawrinism
...Edelman wrote that just as animals compete for food and living
space in the struggle for life, so sensations had to compete for space
on the mapping surfaces of the brain. Every moment would begin with a
battle in which some networks of activity would blossom, gaining the
neural territory needed to become conscious-level percepts, while
other, weaker, nerve ensembles withered away. Over the course of about
a tenth of a second or so, there would be a struggle in which only the
'fittest' patterns survived. Crucially, one of the factors determining
the success or failure of a new sensation was the support it received
from higher levels of the brain. If a sensation was anticipated, or
deemed important in some other way, positive feedback from higher
areas would help swell the mapping activity, elevating it above the
general clamour. Edelman called this feedback between levels of
processing a 're-entrant circuit'...
...This evolutionary angle on consciousness came naturally to Edelman
because of his own work in immunology. Edelman's Nobel prize had come
from helping prove that immune cells are produced through a
selectionist competition. The problem for the body is that it cannot
predict what kinds of bugs or viruses it might face in life, so its
solution is to manufacture a huge and rather random variety of immune
cell types. All these cells float in the bloodstream. Then, when there
is an invader, whichever immune cell happens to have the right
response characteristics will be stimulated to reproduce itself in
great numbers, rapidly swamping the disease...
Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
The mind is at every stage a theatre of simultaneous possibilities.
Consciousness consists in the comparison of these with each other, the
selection of some, and the suppression of the rest by the reinforcing
and inhibiting agency of attention. The highest and most elaborated
mental products are filtered from the data chosen by the faculty next
beneath, out of the mass offered by the faculty below that, which mass
in turn was sifted from a still larger amount of yet simpler material,
and so on. The mind, in short, works on the data it receives very much
as a sculptor works on his block of stone.
Note that mine is not a rival theory to such forms of neural
selectionism (except insofar as they claim to extend to the James-
Piaget-Popper aspect of consciousness). Rather, the ephemeral copying
competitions that I emphasize rest on the broad foundation of such
longer-term selectionism, which forms part of the environment that
biases cloning success (and faux faxing) on my short time scale of
milliseconds to minutes. As such, my ephemeral copying competitions
are one layer up from the connectionist layer, though they feed back
to it when altering the synaptic strengths, just as Edelmans reentry
also shapes connectivity changes...
Six Essential Aspects of The Darwinian Process
Reproduction involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small
chance variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying
errors and recombination, but it is reasonable to expect that the
brain is going to make some use of this elementary darwinian mechanism
for editing out the nonsense and emphasizing variations on the better-
fitting ones in a next generation.
Natural selection alone isn't sufficient for evolution, and neither is
copying alone -- not even copying with selection will suffice. I can
identify six essential aspects of the creative darwinian process that
bootstraps quality.
1. There must be a reasonably complex
pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow
(indeed, that which is copied may serve
to define the pattern).
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be
produced by chance.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete
with one another for occupation of a limited
work space. For example, bluegrass and crab
grass compete for back yards.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted
environment, for example, how often the grass
is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one
pattern more of the lawn than another.
That's natural selection.
6. There is a skewed survival to reproductive
maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile
mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults
who successfully mate (sexual selection), so new
variants always preferentially occur around the
more successful of the current patterns.
THE CEREBRAL CODE
Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics
of the Mind. By William H. Calvin
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The brain is, according to current theories, more like an ecosystem
than a machine, and many of its systems are in constant competition
with one another all of our lives, in a process that the Nobel
laureate Gerald Edelman has called "neural Darwinism." These networks
of synapses, Edelman argues, are more than a vast communicative
infrastructure; each network in the brain is striving against the
others for feedback from the outside world...
...- NEURAL DARWINISM
IN THE EARLY STAGES of development, neurons travel freely in the
brain, though guided in general pathways by genetic instruction. As
they float around, some divide into more neurons, some die, and others
settle down at permanent sites and make connections with neighbors,
building the brain's complex circuitry. Genes provide the basic
guidelines that control how the neurons form functioning networks. But
the precise chemical environment influences which neurons connect with
which.
All of our brains have the same general features that make us human,
but each neural connection is unique, reflecting a person's special
genetic endowment and life experience. Circuit connections are made
stronger or weaker throughout a lifetime according to use. Neurologist
and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman, head of the Neuro-sciences
Institute at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California, calls the
process neural Darwinism. Connections that cope well with the sensory
inputs they receive, which they can convert into effective actions,
stay intact and become strong. Those that do not, die off in a process
that resembles natural selection. Neurons and the circuits they form
part of compete with other neurons for survival, and those that are
best adapted to the environment survive. The environment around us-
what we ingest and inhale, the amount and type of light and sound-
actually changes the physical interconnection of synapses within the
brain, providing us with more efficient circuitry, and allowing each
of us to develop an exclusive brain suited to our particular needs.
Neural Darwinism is the theory that explains why the brain needs to be
plastic, that is, able to change as our environment and experiences
change. That is why we can learn in the first place, and unlearn too,
and why people with brain injuries can recover lost functions. The
concept also underlies two of the mantras of this book. "Neurons that
fire together wire together" means that the more we repeat the same
actions and thoughts-from practicing a tennis serve to memorizing
multiplication tables-the more we encourage the formation of certain
connections and the more fixed the neural circuits in the brain for
that activity become. "Use it or lose it" is the corollary: if you
don't exercise brain circuits, the connections will not be adaptive
and will slowly weaken and could be lost.
A user's guide to the brain:
perception, attention, and
the four theaters of the brain
John J. Ratey.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375701079/
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 12, 8:40 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin said;
pattern constancy functions. "Some" well thought out ideas are just
that.
I responded to your quantification of the likeness of random process
errors to new ideas as "nothing like" each other. By standard form
syllogistic translation "nothing" need to mean "all times are [not]
times when X", else it cannot be translated from regular language into
Predicate & Boolian Logic.
Translation Tips
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt6_1.html
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e09.htm
involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small chance
variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying errors
and recombination..." Anything held in the focus of attention is a
reverberating circuit and some patterns that have been shown to travel
around to various parts of the brain need a spreading mechanism. But
your opening up a can of worms here, one of my favorite ones; are you
prepared to debate neurophysiology? [another little thingy I studied
for decades]
In reverberating circuits, the input signal travels through a system
of neurons and each of these neurons will make synapses with neurons
on a previously traveled portion of the pathway. The impulse
reverberates by being sent through the circuit continuously till a
neuron is inhibited. So, an input from neuron A goes to neuron B and
on to neuron C and then on to neuron D and then it goes back to neuron
A (or it could go to neuron B) and repeat the cycle again till one
neuron (whether it be neuron A, neuron B, neuron C, or neuron D)
becomes inhibited and cannot function. A reverberating circuit is
involved with sleep-wake cycles, breathing, motor activities, and
short-term memory. Ever walk with your arms swinging? That has a lot
to do with reverberating circuits.
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=143&page=2
REVERBERATING CIRCUITS link the cerebellum (the fissured organ at
right center of each picture) to the sensory nerves which connect
tactile, visual, proprioceptive and auditory sense organs to the
cerebrum. While part of the messages from these organs goes to the
cerebrum, part detours through the cerebellum, then "reverberates"
through the cerebrum to the cerebellum. It is thought that these
circuits server a feedback function. Proprioceptive impulses from
muscles may reach more than one cerebral center.
http://www.dyslexiaonline.com/information/brain/reverb_circuits.html
...All of this raises the possibility of self-reexciting loops, not
unlike the reverberating circuits postulated for the spinal cord by
Rafael Lorente de Nó in 1938, in the very first volume of the Journal
of Neurophysiology. If the synaptic strengths are high enough, and the
paths long enough to escape the refractory periods that would
otherwise limit re-excitation, closed loops of activity ought to be
possible, impulses chasing their tails. Moshe Abeles, whose Jerusalem
lab often observes more than a dozen cortical neurons at a time, has
seen some precise impulse timing of one neuron, relative to another,
in premotor and prefrontal cortex neuron ensembles. It is unknown
whether or not these firing patterns represent reverberation, in
Lorente's original sense of recirculating loops. These long, precisely-
timed firing patterns are important for the notion of spatiotemporal
patterns that I will later develop.
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/bk9ch2.htm
If the pattern's the thing, how is it transmitted from the left side
of the brain to the right side? Or from front to back? We can't send
it like a mail parcel, so consider the problems of telecopying, of
making a distant copy of a local pattern. Is there a NeuroFax
Principle at work?...
...Copying for a faux fax is going to be needed for cerebral cortex,
even if simpler nervous systems, without a long-distance problem, can
operate without copying. Copying might also be handy for promoting
redundancy. But there is a third reason why copying might have proved
useful in a fancy brain: darwinism...
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/bk9ch1.htm
I can be a witness for the defense.
Kevin said;
RodSpeed said
I agree that "some" new ideas are not based upon various errors in
pattern constancy functions. "Some" well thought out ideas are just
that.
I responded to your quantification of the likeness of random process
errors to new ideas as "nothing like" each other. By standard form
syllogistic translation "nothing" need to mean "all times are [not]
times when X", else it cannot be translated from regular language into
Predicate & Boolian Logic.
Translation Tips
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt6_1.html
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e09.htm
There is plenty of evidence for the assertion that; "Reproduction
involves the copying of patterns, sometimes with small chance
variations. Creativity may not always be a matter of copying errors
and recombination..." Anything held in the focus of attention is a
reverberating circuit and some patterns that have been shown to travel
around to various parts of the brain need a spreading mechanism. But
your opening up a can of worms here, one of my favorite ones; are you
prepared to debate neurophysiology? [another little thingy I studied
for decades]
In reverberating circuits, the input signal travels through a system
of neurons and each of these neurons will make synapses with neurons
on a previously traveled portion of the pathway. The impulse
reverberates by being sent through the circuit continuously till a
neuron is inhibited. So, an input from neuron A goes to neuron B and
on to neuron C and then on to neuron D and then it goes back to neuron
A (or it could go to neuron B) and repeat the cycle again till one
neuron (whether it be neuron A, neuron B, neuron C, or neuron D)
becomes inhibited and cannot function. A reverberating circuit is
involved with sleep-wake cycles, breathing, motor activities, and
short-term memory. Ever walk with your arms swinging? That has a lot
to do with reverberating circuits.
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=143&page=2
REVERBERATING CIRCUITS link the cerebellum (the fissured organ at
right center of each picture) to the sensory nerves which connect
tactile, visual, proprioceptive and auditory sense organs to the
cerebrum. While part of the messages from these organs goes to the
cerebrum, part detours through the cerebellum, then "reverberates"
through the cerebrum to the cerebellum. It is thought that these
circuits server a feedback function. Proprioceptive impulses from
muscles may reach more than one cerebral center.
http://www.dyslexiaonline.com/information/brain/reverb_circuits.html
...All of this raises the possibility of self-reexciting loops, not
unlike the reverberating circuits postulated for the spinal cord by
Rafael Lorente de Nó in 1938, in the very first volume of the Journal
of Neurophysiology. If the synaptic strengths are high enough, and the
paths long enough to escape the refractory periods that would
otherwise limit re-excitation, closed loops of activity ought to be
possible, impulses chasing their tails. Moshe Abeles, whose Jerusalem
lab often observes more than a dozen cortical neurons at a time, has
seen some precise impulse timing of one neuron, relative to another,
in premotor and prefrontal cortex neuron ensembles. It is unknown
whether or not these firing patterns represent reverberation, in
Lorente's original sense of recirculating loops. These long, precisely-
timed firing patterns are important for the notion of spatiotemporal
patterns that I will later develop.
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/bk9ch2.htm
If the pattern's the thing, how is it transmitted from the left side
of the brain to the right side? Or from front to back? We can't send
it like a mail parcel, so consider the problems of telecopying, of
making a distant copy of a local pattern. Is there a NeuroFax
Principle at work?...
...Copying for a faux fax is going to be needed for cerebral cortex,
even if simpler nervous systems, without a long-distance problem, can
operate without copying. Copying might also be handy for promoting
redundancy. But there is a third reason why copying might have proved
useful in a fancy brain: darwinism...
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/bk9ch1.htm
I
Immortalist
Guest
"Just that means," some ideas are ideas that are well thought out and
may not be due to copying errors.
I
Immortalist
Guest
What would constitute having been "established"? A gave alot of
theoretical information and it hasn't been countered by you.