Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

A definition is

.."it is a method of obtaining your expectations from what you know"

I need to mull this over until I've got it clear. That's different than trying to set up ranges of attributes in order to classify something new when you come across it. You're coming at it from an operational point of view, from a predictive vantage point.
The thought experiment that you pointed InfiniteNow to is a perfect case in point.
I have two choices, really. I can stand and watch and then see if what happens agrees with my understanding of what should have happened. Or I can try to anticipate what will happen. If I do the latter, I might not focus on what takes place because I'll be busy trying to anticipate. And that method might skew what I see. I'd say the proper thing to do would be to watch.
And were I to anticipate, I'd use my understanding of time and now and of how things work. And in this particular case the person would immediately disappear, but that, I think, is beside the point.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

You're coming at it from an operational point of view, from a predictive vantage point.

From an operational point of view: no! The definition of an explanation can not be constrained to some operational view other than the fact that it must be based on what you know and must yield some expectations of some kind. From a predictive vantage point: yes! If you are completely in the dark as to what is going to happen, I would say you lack an explanation. Now against that statement, I could point out the rather trivial explanation, "what happens happens because the gods want it to happen"; but I doubt most people who put forth that explanation really believe it. They always seem to have some additional information about that god and his desires: i.e., they seldom consider themselves to be completely in the dark. And generally, they also seem to have expectations!

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I have two choices, really. I can stand and watch and then see if what happens agrees with my understanding of what should have happened.

How can you know if what happens agrees with your understanding if your understanding yields no expectations at all?

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Or I can try to anticipate what will happen.

Doesn't "try to anticipate" mean little more than express (or at least think about) your expectations? This is why I said no to the "operational point of view". The only issue of interest here currently (in this thread) is the definition of "an explanation": a method of generating expectations from what you know.

My point is that, if you have an explanation, your expectations are constrained to be in accordance with the explanation: i.e., there exists some method of determining those expectations. How you achieve this is of no concern to me at all; my interest goes no farther than the fact that, if an explanation exists, a method must exist. You keep bringing in issues which do not touch on my concern in any way. Your biggest error is trying to bring more to the discussion than is required.

Have fun – Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

[Doctordick]

In reviewing the posts I have made to this forum, I found myself surprised at the lack of interest in establishing a consensus as to what constitutes a rational discussion. In particular, that there was no response to my last post to ldsoftwaresteve.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you are completely in the dark as to what is going to happen, I would say you lack an explanation. ... How can you know if what happens agrees with your understanding if your understanding yields no expectations at all? ... The only issue of interest here currently (in this thread) is the definition of "an explanation": a method of generating expectations from what you know.

My point is that, if you have an explanation, your expectations are constrained to be in accordance with the explanation: i.e., there exists some method of determining those expectations. How you achieve this is of no concern to me at all; my interest goes no farther than the fact that, if an explanation exists, a method must exist. You keep bringing in issues which do not touch on my concern in any way. Your biggest error is trying to bring more to the discussion than is required.

Are you all saying my complaints are trivial or don't you understand my complaints?

In particular, no one ever responded to my comment:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You are wasting all your time thinking about the very simple mechanism I have set up to handle three very important facts: that all explanations are based on knowing less than everything, that your knowledge changes and sometimes what you think you know is wrong. My position is that these three fact are basic limitations on any explanation and have far reaching consequences.

What is your opinion? Are these not true statements? Do you think they are insignificant when it comes to rational analysis of your explanations? Or is it possible that you all think you understand exactly what the consequences of these limitations are? I am totally in the dark as to what you think!

Have fun – Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Damn.

I was nice and comfortable and existing in blissful contemplation of nothing, basically dead, and here you go waking me up.

Allow me to rip off my shirt and tie myself to the pole again.

Let me wake up gradually. And then understand that the end result might not be fully conscious.

Rational discussion takes place mostly inside our own minds, with ourselves. It consists of contemplating what-ifs and bouncing them against our understanding of what is. The 'what ifs' might be donations from someone else or they might come from direct observations, but until they get used internally and get tossed against our map, no discussion really takes place.

When you and I 'discuss' this subject, even if it's the methodology behind rational discussion, at best we are providing each other with a donation for internal discussion? And, what is very painful to contemplate is that I might not be making any good donations.

[questor]

Dr. Dick, has it ocurred to you that this discussion is no longer interesting to participants? perhaps with the war, Darfur, taxes, immigration, the threat of Hillary Clinton as a wartime president and other issues of interest, maybe it's just not important to break our heads on the boulders of what is ''Rational
Discussion'' when most of us can communicate with each other and be understood. not to belittle your expert efforts, but who cares?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I don't agree Questor.
Our society is perishing from irrationality and we no longer believe that existence can be understood or at the very least we no longer believe we are capable of doing so. Oh, there are some. But society? No way. Perhaps because there is so much bullshit piled on top of bullshit. And we let ourselves be led from one news flash to another.
So, this might be the most important subject of all and the fact that some don't find it interesting might be the most damning evidence of our society's irrationality.
And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.
It has to do with the cleanliness of our concepts and the orderliness of our understanding. Most of us can't climb the slope he's run up. It's too slippery, not because of him but because of us. Because the slope is in our minds. It's our map, our terrain. It's something we build ourselves and we've mostly done a piss poor job. Myself included.
There, I've wielded the whip on myself.

[questor]

Steve, if you finally ''get it'', let me know. you and Dr. have been at this for...
a year? if what he says is so arcane that only he understands it, then how would it benefit anyone else? your message to me was rational and understood. i trust that this one to you is the same. life is complicated enough that we don't need to muddy the water further. that being said, i am not trying to interfere with your dialogue and i hope the Dr. continues to have fun.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Rational discussion takes place mostly inside our own minds, with ourselves. It consists of contemplating what-ifs and bouncing them against our understanding of what is.

Well, that I would agree with and I am quite surprised to find someone express it here. But, I would caution you that, if you think that was the subject of this thread, I am afraid you have totally missed the point. It appears that the world is divided into two kinds of people: those who think “rational discussion” does not require a definition and myself.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The 'what ifs' might be donations from someone else or they might come from direct observations, but until they get used internally and get tossed against our map, no discussion really takes place.

Discussion, Smispussin; the question is, what rules do you use to classify a discussion (by which I think you mean “an exchange of information”) as “rational”?

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

And, what is very painful to contemplate is that I might not be making any good donations.

Good donations? We could begin by asking what indications do you use to decide the rationality of others?

Originally Posted by questor

Dr. Dick, has it occurred to you that this discussion is no longer interesting to participants?

Has it “occurred” to me? Why of course it has occurred to me! Anyone with any ability to reason would find that most people posting on this forum have no interest in being rational. I was merely hoping there might be a few out there.

Originally Posted by questor

... maybe it's just not important to break our heads on the boulders of what is ''Rational
Discussion'' when most of us can communicate with each other and be understood. not to belittle your expert efforts, but who cares?

If all you are interested in is “irrational communication” have fun; it's something you all seem to do quite well.

Kant's "mock wars" are apparently the essence of modern philosophical communication and I wouldn't want to “break your bird” so to speak. Just thought I would test the waters.

Ah, while I was typing this, “Steve” has posted again. And, sir, I think you are dead on the mark except for one simple error.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.

I don't believe that for a moment. It is quite easy to be lead into “mock battles” by misunderstandings and emotional compulsions and I am as guilty of that as is anyone here. As I read back over my posts, I have often been carried away with tangent issues that add more confusion to the mix than clarity. None of us are rational enough to maintain a well oiled rational discussion for long without serious assistance; and I include myself in that criticism. What I have been trying to get across is actually quite simple: we need a succinct method of determining if a particular assertion is to be classified as “rational” or “irrational”.

In order to do that we need to first answer another related question. We need to “understand” the concept of “rational”: i.e., what does one mean when they use the word? That question brings us immediately to a third question (which may very well be the most serious question of all): how does one manage to classify things as “understood” or “not understood”?

Now, that question seems to me to be answerable. But we can get back that question later, the only important factor here is that the chain of thought above be recognized as rational and that brings me back to the opening post of this thread. I think the following statement is the single most important issue brought up there.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In my head, the term "rational thought" implies the idea being expressed makes sense: i.e., it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity. Under that view, the adjective rational does not always imply "logical". The view also makes it apparent that "rational statements" (though they seem to make sense) are not necessarily valid, a point anyone familiar with the development of science should be aware. That is, very bright people have made errors in their beliefs from time to time; but that does not mean that those beliefs were irrational.

Perhaps it could be beneficial to reread that entire post. I am hoping you might come to understand what my introduction of the concept of “squirrel thought” was all about.

Hi questor, it seems you have also posted while I was fixing my answer to Steve. I have no real argument with you at all. I simply don't think you understand what I am saying. The only question I would like you to think about is, how did you come to the conclusion that Steve's message to you was both rational and understood? And, was that conclusion rational. Now I am not trying to suggest it wasn't; all I am saying is that, in my head, you are fundamentally saying that “it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity”. The issue I am trying to bring forward is that such a decision can arise through two very different mechanisms: one mechanism is commonly referred to as “logic” meaning the result can be defended through detailed logic and another which simply cannot be defended (at least not in the form of a logical proof). The second is a “gut” thing; where your subconscious lets you know the result is acceptable.

All I am trying to do is develop a rational discussion of the issue of maintaining rationality. And it is my opinion that direct recognition of these two very different mechanisms is essential. They have very different powers and very different weaknesses and, if we fail to recognize these differences we tie our own hands, so to speak, when we try to be rational. We ourselves are putting our own thoughts onto that “slippery slope” Steve has referred to.

There is a very great difference between being "wrong" and being "irrational" and our thoughts are much clarified if that difference is kept in mind.

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Ok. I'm slowly waking up.

The two mechanisms I think I can understand.

Logic is identifying stuff in such a way that we don't have contradictory understanding.

Our emotions are like rapid response guards that tell us something about the internal structure and how it's faring against the tick of the clock. They're metric machines in that they measure the stuff that has meaning. The end result is how we feel.

It gets back to thinking rationally. That's the rock falling into the water. All else is just ripples. If the components of thinking are logic and emotions, then I'm ok with that. It's the rational part that turns the slope slippery.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Our society is perishing from irrationality and we no longer believe that existence can be understood or at the very least we no longer believe we are capable of doing so. Oh, there are some. But society? No way.

Hi Steve,

Long time. It's nice to see you around, and I hope you are well and keeping your head in the clouds, feet off the ground, and upward curvature on your lips.

Per the quote above, I caution you though not to generalize... or, at the very least, try to avoid it. The above is your own reflective dialog symbolizing your own version of reality... it is YOUR reality, but still only a subset of ALL reality. The map is not the territory.

So, this might be the most important subject of all and the fact that some don't find it interesting might be the most damning evidence of our society's irrationality.

Who is this uber-Being capable of judging the rationality from pure obejectivity? What judge in this question wears the no-bias cap? [/Rhetorical Question]

And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.

With this I disagree. I've stated this before, and will reiterate here. Dick is so wrapped up in his concept that he is unable to adequately convey understanding of that reality to others. He has dwindled his personal reality to an increasingly smaller subset of reality itself, so much so that he is unable to relate to others.

Curious, since all of his posts surround his concept of understanding that he is so incapable of meeting others at a point of mutual understanding. Dick is an attacking elitist, and far from a good teacher.

Don't be fooled by man who claims to walk on water, especially when they are incapable of helping you walk beside them.