Goffman on Frame Analysis and Lakoff on metaphor, I hope. Their best contributions. — Isaac
It's nit that we actually want everyone to be like us — Isaac
Will have to get to the rest later. I still really want to see what will drive us to form abstractions like "intention" that we'll use in more sophisticated analysis. — Srap Tasmaner
what failure would force me to consider an abstract element of my action, and of yours, called the "intention"? That's more work, so why do we do it? — Srap Tasmaner
nteresting but pessimist and depressive news we should to check out about the new variant...
What is the Mu variant of COVID-19 the WHO is now monitoring? — javi2541997
"variant porn". — Olivier5
Presumably the only reason to bother parsing intention and friends here is to make better predictions than we can make just using the action itself. — Srap Tasmaner
Non-branching trees we talk about as intentions, both for ourselves and for others. (This is consonant with current neuroscience, right? We act, for reasons we know not, and if needed bolt-on a retrodiction of that action and call it the intention we had when we acted.) Non-branching trees are cheaper, and we will resist giving them up even when surprised. — Srap Tasmaner
I keep emphasizing the same-as-me strategy because it does seem like the cheapest baseline available, but your (Goffmanesque?) scripts and part-playing are similar, right? — Srap Tasmaner
Acknowledging that you diverged on purpose is the last thing I want to do, because then to predict you I'll have to engage in expensive research (i.e., talk to you, which is not so bad, talk is cheap, but in this case I'll also have to listen to you and that blows). — Srap Tasmaner
Yes, I'm tempted to say scripts are cheaper. The trouble with same-as-me, is that it always has caveats, it requires the assessment of sameness. Scripts tend to already accommodate variety. — Isaac
I'm stepping out of role, by not getting vaccinated, or being insufficiently just-like-them, but the response is to assume I've done so mistakenly? I'm not sure that quite describes the responses, seems like there's more to it. — Isaac
Sadly, this is starting to look like something you'd want to design experiments for and the armchair phase might be done. — Srap Tasmaner
same-as-me can assume you're not getting vaccinated because there's something you don't know (that I do), or don't understand (that I do), or indeed that you've made a mistake, some error of reasoning (that I didn't). You having your own reasons, also valid, is the absolute last resort. — Srap Tasmaner
There may even be some general exasperation at having to go all the way to the end of the list of options for dealing with you -- you've cost people precious calories, and at each step towards the next more expensive option there's this hope that we're about to be done, right before that hope is dashed. — Srap Tasmaner
If we can adopt roles just by changing clothes, then it seems unlikely that an all pervasive just-like-me system is in play. — Isaac
What we could say, I suppose, is that we still have a just-like-me judgement system when we're within roles (ie judging someone in the same role as us). — Isaac
I honestly have no idea what value the "just-like-me" idea has. It is An Idea I Had, so I've been screwing around with it. — Srap Tasmaner
everyone who has an opinion about another's behavior has faced the same choice, or some variation on the same choice, as those they are judging, which is a little unusual — Srap Tasmaner
people do have a surprising amount to say about the behavior they expect of their fellow discussers -- "I don't have the burden of proof, you do," "Why won't you answer my question?!" "Why do you keep bringing that up, I've already addressed it!" and the rest. Maybe it's just that within a discussion there are a number of different roles available and we tend both to lose track and make too much of which role each participant is supposed to be playing at the moment. — Srap Tasmaner
People use this as an accusation -- "Of course, you'd think that, because you're a tree-hugging Gaia worshiper." This amounts to a claim that I have reasons for my beliefs but your beliefs are caused, which might be the most widely held belief on the forum. — Srap Tasmaner
Except, of course, it's all bullshit because the idea that people are truly assessing reasons like philosophical jewellers examine a diamond for flaws is nonsense. The decision comes first, then the assessment of reason to find sufficient flaws to justify it. — Isaac
First, even if our reasons are rationalizations, they can be "good" or "bad": not all stories make sense. — Srap Tasmaner
the psychologists fallacy — Hanover
but can't I believe that my beliefs are fully determined by my state and my environment, rather than a matter of free choice — Srap Tasmaner
The "fixed" part is just empirically false, but can't I believe that my beliefs are fully determined by my state and my environment, rather than a matter of free choice, and just note that what I read, the arguments people make to me, and so on, are also part of my environment, and go into modifying my state? — Srap Tasmaner
If you take seriously the idea that your beliefs are beyond your control, you have no reason to debate your beliefs. — Hanover
Telling me I'm stuck arguing for X because my ilk just believes that way — Hanover
if determinism is true, then beliefs are not rationally, but causally, determined — Janus
Whatever that means, if anything. — Srap Tasmaner
So I'm inclined to pass by the whole question as ill-formed, and I'm not at all inclined to throw in with either side. — Srap Tasmaner
That is, our justifications are mere self preservation rationalizations. — Hanover
What's the problem with saying this is often, pre-reflectively, the case, but that with sufficient self examination the tendency may be overcome, and you might actually change your mind? — Janus
our justifications are mere self preservation rationalizations — Hanover
rationalization as well and therefore useless — Hanover
I've always thought that compatibilism is a fudge, though, because the logics of determinism and freedom just don't mesh with one another. — Janus
So I'm inclined to pass by the whole question as ill-formed, and I'm not at all inclined to throw in with either side. There's plenty of other stuff to think about. — Srap Tasmaner
if an argument is presented that implicates an unworkable logical outcome, that can't be ignored simply because it broaches a topic not of personal interest — Hanover
Here I am slowly peeling back the lid so that the worms can only come out of the can one by one and we get a chance to look at them, and then you come along and just smash the thing open on the counter. — Srap Tasmaner
First, even if our reasons are rationalizations, they can be "good" or "bad": not all stories make sense. — Srap Tasmaner
Next, given Quine-Duhem, maybe the reasons you give are not your actual reasons in any meaningful sense, but they could have been, and what difference does it make? — Srap Tasmaner
when it comes to other people's ideas, I tend to think the intuitive, even "emotional" response is valuable, even when it precedes whatever rational support we can find for it. (My posting history is littered with proof.) Something in me has run some models and said "no", I just don't know why. And I happen to *really* enjoy trying to figure out what my intuition might have spotted on my behalf. It could turn out my intuition has been jumping to conclusions again and I can overrule it. Bad intuition! Bad! But it gets a lot right too. — Srap Tasmaner
Your burden would be to show how the roles we play and the stories we tell can evolve, without a two-tiered model that explicitly accommodates review and revision. I think. — Srap Tasmaner
I raised the psychologist's fallacy — Hanover
which is that you can't allege someone else's failure to be objective is due to inherent psychological limitations and not apply the same to yourself. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.