I was thinking about this when I was writing the comment. It's not about the system interpreting information, but it's about the people who design the system. What is life but a low whisper of limited relevance.

Maybe not, but my guess is that you agree with my take on emotion. We want to direct our lives by relying on reliable knowledge, clear perception, logical thinking, and settled emotions. In order to achieve this happy result, we have to take the volatile aspects of our brains into account. — Bitter Crank

I'm a big fan of emotion, but I guess you know that. We can't think or make decisions without emotions. It is an inextricable part of how we think. As I've said quite a few times, this thread is not about behavior, it's about knowledge. How we know things.

I agree....

Ok...... :smile:

What is life but not a low whisper of limiter relevance. — pfirefry

Ha ha......aint it the truth! But nah, life is wonderful!......mostly

this thread is not about behavior, it's about knowledge. How we know things. — T Clark

As if we could know anything at all without information-acquiring behavior first. I don't want to suggest that "emotion" is either a way of knowing, or knowledge in itself. The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. But that is not 100% true: the pleasure we experience in figuring out how the gadget works, or how the squirrel builds its nest, or how a chemical reaction takes place, is colored by pleasure--positive experience is attached to the fact.

This fall I observed two squirrel nests that had fallen out of trees. I always assumed that a squirrel nest was just a flimsy cluster of leaves intended to hide the squirrel. Not so. It is a tightly packed roll of leaves, at least 12" in diameter, with a small hole in the middle. It would hide a squirrel, but more, it would also keep it dry and warmish (if it's -25ºF as it will be tonight, the squirrel will not freeze -- but it won't be "warm". It is clear that IF a squirrel loses its nest in the winter, it might not survive because it would be hard pressed to rebuild the nest without an abundance of green leaves.

Learning this was a pleasure. After noticing distant squirrel nests in trees all my life, I finally know new information about local squirrels.

Maybe not, but my guess is that you agree with my take on emotion. We want to direct our lives by relying on reliable knowledge, clear perception, logical thinking, and settled emotions — Bitter Crank

I've always thought that for the most part we are drawn to philosophy and ideas through emotional needs. We don't select using reason, for instance, unless our emotions have made us privilege a rational approach, perhaps because we are afraid of chaos and crave order. But in general, because our culture privileges reasoning, most of us indulge in post hoc rationalisations for the choices we make. It's expected that we justify our theories and views with evidence and from a calm base even if those views are selected to support how we feel emotionally about being in the world.

We don't select using reason, for instance, unless our emotions have made us privilege a rational approach — Tom Storm

As Schopenhauer said, "'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants'? I take to mean "we can not choose to desire something". We desire it, or not, but not by choice.

Is that what you mean?

A lot of amateur philosophers, at least, seem to avoid the emotions in their thinking. They have as many emotions as everybody else, maybe more, but they don't want to include them in their system of thinking.

:up: Indeed and there is a ripper on this by Nietzsche which I can't find at the moment.

Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful? — Harry Hindu

I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read? — T Clark

The whole thread up to the point where I made my first post and all you've done is repeat yourself saying:

Conceptual models are not true or false, they are accurate or inaccurate. — T Clark

How does that answer my question? Seems to me that your level of conviction woukd indicate that you'd be able to easily come up with an example instead of becoming defensive.

To be fair, the original comment was even more more arrogant than T Clark's response

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact?
— Cornwell1 — pfirefry

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. — T Clark

So that's literally what is done. SCM is a fairy tale. It's nor true nor false. Just a tale. It contains six chapters:

First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.

Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.

Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.

Fourth - collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.

Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.

Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.

Let's examine the chapters and offer some rational critique.

chapter 1
Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.

Okay, let's do that. On a golf terrain, a brown circular stain surfaced on the grass. Probably broken barrels, illegally dumped, as we have cleaned a similar site not far away from here too. Measurements and observations of the case at hand show similarities and differences. There are barrels buried. Contents are different and partially known.

Chapter 2
Set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.

We have cleaned up hundreds of polluted terrains where barrels were illegally dumped. We know what poisons we encountered, how to take out the barrels safely, how to transport the barrels safely, remove the poison from the barrels later on (though this is done by other agencies), we have a list of toxins we are likely to encounter, we know their consequences when we are exposed to them, we know their properties, etcetera, etcetera. We also know the uncertainties, approximations made, limits of applicability, etc. We have a full inventory of the equipment used in the battle. We know the universe of illegally dumping barrels with poison and it's shortcomings. It's just a universe, not true or not true, but it just exists. A The sum total of the knowledge about the poison barrel universe and the knowledge of what is unknown. Kind of like the universe the EOD assesses, but more complicated (more or less dangerous). This is a long chapter. The title of this fairy: SCM.

Chapter 3
Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.

In chapter 3 the characters described in chapter 1 and 2 meet, and in an intense romantic affair they exchange juices. We can see this happening in many fairy tales. Universal knowledge, found in the poison barrel universe of the SCM, is positively adjusted by the case at hand and the SCM offers a great a priori guide for the investigation at hand, after establishing poisoned barrels are involved.

Chapter 4
Collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.

The characters continue to make love and the come to know each other better the more they engage, the more they know each other, if necessary. They fill each other in and even give each other meaning. How romantic!

Chapter 5
[/b]Use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.[/b]

We can start solving our local problem. We start digging on the firm base of the adjusted SCM.

Chapter 6
Based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.

During digging, no doubt we meet new challenges and new difficulties. To find a solution we can invoke the SCM, but it's unlikely we will find solutions as the arisen challenges, unknowns and difficulties were not part yet of the known part of the universe the SCM addresses. Again, a romantic encounter follows, untill enough juices have been exchanged. Then the digging continues, untill one fine day a perfect digging will be possible. No more love making will be involved except to exchange tiny bits of fluids, so only a small kiss will suffice. Happily ever after...?

This philosophy is a realism about a metaphysical universe guiding and pulling through our observations and actions. We get to know this reality bit by bit, and it gets modified every time we investigate. We converge on reality by recursive relation (last chapters of your fairy tale, as you, unwillingly, admitted it to be). It's naive realism. An exciting fairy tale!

"the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." — T Clark

But that is likely to be accepted as true by many non-pragmatists.

Am I right in suspecting that what you are actually protesting about is the artificial distinction between theory and practice that classical philosophy has been prone to insinuating?

Of course, not only philosophers but mathematicians, scientists and engineers are prone to thinking dogmatically in holding certain propositions, models or techniques to be infallible, lending to occasional calamities such as financial crises. One of the modern culprits of dogmatism is statistical and probabilistic modelling and deep learning for making implicit the assumptions of their respective models. The joke called Bayesian epistemology, which can encourage the delusional practice of smuggling assumptions into a model in the name of not making any assumptions, further adds fuel to the fire.

Here is a description of William James' definition of truth from an article I found on his book "Pragmatism.

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.” — T Clark

Note that James appealed to such arguments when justifying the beliefs and practice of religion, and Richard Rorty has given pragmatic arguments for increasing the cultural prioritisation of the humanities (including Continental philosophy), relative to the natural sciences, by arguing that different communities in different subjects get to decide their own criteria of truth.

Pragmatism can encourage the identification of truth with what is expedient to believe, in line with post-modern cultural relativism, which I'm pretty sure you don't agree with. Something far from being an ally of the enlightenment values embodied by modern engineering.

As if we could know anything at all without information-acquiring behavior first. — Bitter Crank

I can use valid data to generate knowledge even if the data was not collected in a pragmatic way.

The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. — Bitter Crank

People who have had the portions of their brain strongly involved in emotion damaged sometimes have trouble making decisions, even very simple ones. My point is, emotion is not an adjunct to thinking, it is a fundamental part of it.

the pleasure we experience in figuring out how the gadget works, or how the squirrel builds its nest, or how a chemical reaction takes place, is colored by pleasure--positive experience is attached to the fact. — Bitter Crank

As I sometimes say, I am a recreational thinker. Just the act of using my mind is a pleasure.

How does that answer my question? Seems to me that your level of conviction woukd indicate that you'd be able to easily come up with an example instead of becoming defensive. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't being defensive, I was being dismissive.

SCM is a fairy tale. — Cornwell1

No. The SCM is a procedure. A method.

This philosophy is a realism about a metaphysical universe guiding and pulling through our observations and actions. We get to know this reality bit by bit, and it gets modified every time we investigate. We converge on reality by recursive relation (last chapters of your fairy tale, as you, unwillingly, admitted it to be). It's naive realism. An exciting fairy tale! — Cornwell1

You've clearly put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate it. All in all, it's not a bad summary of the process, with forgiveness granted for the erotic imagery. Most sites I've worked on are much more complex than this. This would probably be handled as an emergency response rather than a remediation.

In this case, the first step would probably be to just go out and dig the stuff up, put it in a drum or dumpster, and then collect samples of the excavated material and the soil remaining in the hole for lab analysis. The contaminant is unlikely to have migrated far in the short time since the stain was found. Then we would decide if we needed more information to close things out. In a larger site there would be another step between SCM development and cleanup - design.

As for realism vs. pragmatism - I think I could argue about the differences between the two approaches, but I don't think it would get us anywhere. You can be both a pragmatist and a realist. All at once or sequentially. They are not mutually exclusive. They are both tools to solve problems. Which is a very pragmatic approach to philosophical differences.

the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action."

But that is likely to be accepted as true by many non-pragmatists. — T Clark

I don't think that's true. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what you call yourself. People who call themselves realists who subscribe to my statement have got some pragmatism in them.

Am I right in suspecting that what you are actually protesting about is the artificial distinction between theory and practice that classical philosophy has been prone to insinuating?

Of course, not only philosophers but mathematicians, scientists and engineers are prone to thinking dogmatically in holding certain propositions, models or techniques to be infallible, lending to occasional calamities such as financial crises. — sime

I'm not protesting at all. I'm presenting a philosophical position that I endorse. It's not about dogmatism, it's about how you approach questions about the nature of truth and knowledge.

different communities in different subjects get to decide their own criteria of truth. — sime

That's a very pragmatic approach, which I endorse. I never said that pragmatism is the only valid way of knowing the world.

Pragmatism can encourage the identification of truth with what is expedient to believe, in line with post-modern cultural relativism, which I'm pretty sure you don't agree with. Something far from being an ally of the enlightenment values embodied by modern engineering. — sime

I'm not sure what to say about this... Well, I will say this - I don't see engineers as allies of enlightenment at all.

No. The SCM is a procedure. A method. — T Clark

That's what I meant. A fairy tale. There is no scientist in the world who behaves and thinks obediently to a method. In fact, progress in science can only be achieved by breaking with the method and thus method is a hindrance to progress. It can serve as a guide in scientific practice but only for an imaginary scientist in an imaginary surrounding. In other words, for a fairy tale scientist in a fairy tale world.

It's not about dogmatism, it's about how you approach questions about the nature of truth and knowledge — T Clark

Which proceeds according the SCM. An approach following a method seems pretty dogmatic to me.

The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. — Bitter Crank

Just a follow-up question. Do you think the intensity/extremity of the emotional state experienced affects your above description? Psychedelic drugs for example? can they alter knowledge 'flow' and aid creativity? In autism, some individuals can express insight or 'unusual knowledge,' considering the difficulties they have. Do you think that in these more extreme emotional states, including horror, terror, ecstasy? That you're statement above still holds?

Which proceeds according the SCM. An approach following a method seems pretty dogmatic to me. — Cornwell1

We see things differently.

The dogma of the scientific method

The dogma of the scientific method — Cornwell1

And so?

A method is a dogma. You have introduced a method, a dogma. You might not be dogmatic about it, but it's still a dogma. The dogma of scientific method. It's no promoter of knowledge but an inhibitor.

intensity/extremity of the emotional state — universeness

It seems reasonable to suppose that the intensity of emotion would play a role.

Psychedelic drugs for example? can they alter knowledge 'flow' and aid creativity — universeness

I don't know--no personal experience with psychedelics. I'm not a neurologist or psychologist. It is possible, I suppose. There is some current interest in using psilocybin in treating people with PTSD. Harvey Cox, a theologian, tried psilocybin; as I recollect, he thought the experience was interesting, but not an epiphany. The standard treatment for depression is an Rx for mood altering drugs that boost neurotransmitters. I've taken them for many years. They have helped. What helped even more, along with the anti-depressant, was a major change in circumstances.

I experience depression typically -- loss of focus, concentration, and memory. Mental function is "depressed". Reduced depression means better focus, concentration, and memory. So mood definitely affects thinking.

A method is a dogma. You have introduced a method, a dogma. You might not be dogmatic about it, but it's still a dogma. The dogma of scientific method. It's no promoter of knowledge but an inhibitor. — Cornwell1

You and I see things differently.

You and I see things differently. — T Clark

I couldn't agree more.

Just the act of using my mind is a pleasure — T Clark

And, judging from your posts, not a novel experience.

People who have had the portions of their brain strongly involved emotion damaged sometimes have trouble making decisions, even very simple ones. My point is, emotion is not an adjunct to thinking, it is a fundamental part of it. — T Clark

The brain has lots of different parts but thinking and emoting both seem unitary. The physical basis of thinking and emotion is one of the critical things that computers can't have, without also having a wet body.

2+2=4 regardless of how one feels about it. Whether one cares that 2+2=4 is a function of emotion. I have been aware of eugenics for many years. I just finished Richard Overy's book on Britain during the inter-war period. The chapter on the eugenics and birth control movement in Britain was very exciting because the names of eugenics promoters and supporters were given, and the details of what they were proposing were shocking. Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, lamented that Britain was not emulating Nazi Germany in its approach to eliminating "defective" people. Some Anglican bishops were on board. Numerous Tory politicians were too. "Death chambers" were one of the methods proposed for disposing of the defectives (which wasn't, by the way, a very precise term).

All this was exciting because something very appalling was revealed. I finished the eugenics chapter with much more disgust than when I started it. I have the same experience in reading about Nazi Germany: fascination and intense interest because the working out of Nazi policy was so granular and awful.

By contrast, contemporary economic leaves me cold. It is not emotionally stimulating (well, a lot o it is vaguely repellant). A lot of political news is the same--more stultifying that stimulating.

If I don't reject the idea that emotion is an integral part of thinking, I can't parse out how they are integrated.

Very interesting stuff, and I respect your candor. I have never tried any non-prescription drugs either, so I also can't talk from personal experience of psychedelics. It's just the claims you hear about from artists/writers etc about their drug-induced state of mind, when they produced their 'best work.' or at least 'experienced elative clarity of thought' etc. I do find the area of 'State of mind,' interesting from philosophical and scientific respect.

2+2=4 regardless of how one feels about it. — Bitter Crank

This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper called "The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage." I haven't read the article, but the abstract summarizes my understanding of emotion's role in cognitive processes.

Most theories of choice assume that decisions derive from an assessment of the future outcomes of various options and alternatives through some type of cost-benefit analyses. The influence of emotions on decision-making is largely ignored. The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. Lesions of the ventromedial (which includes the orbitofrontal) sector of the prefrontal cortex interfere with the normal processing of "somatic" or emotional signals, while sparing most basic cognitive functions. Such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life.

People work in different disciplines with different problems and different language, but we all need to use and manage knowledge — T Clark

Why do I need to use and manage my knowledge? I have no intention using it let alone managing it.

I will yield some territory here. It is clear that we make decisions (think) using emotions. Consumer behavior has been studied in this context, and billions and billions of dollars are staked on people buying on the basis of cognition + emotion. I see it in my own consumer decisions: Why buy a shoe at an upscale shoe store (Allen Edmunds) instead of Target or god forbid Payless (no longer in business). I like (emotional content) the looks and build of Allen Edmunds much better than the look and build of a shoe or boot costing 1/3 of what the upscale store is charging. Also, I didn't like the feeling I experience in the lowest price outlet. Payless was a just plain shabby experience.

The quality of the build and materials mattered once upon a time when I was doing a lot of walking. I don't walk much anymore. A Target shoe would do, as far as adequately covering the foot.

But emotions are, I maintain, also a catalyst for thinking as well. The desire (emotion) to understand is the motivation to stick with the problem (of adding 2 and 2 together) until it is solved. Thinking is a pleasure. "Pleasure" per se does figure into the task of cooking (which must involve thought if disaster is to be avoided) because pleasure is one of the goals, aside from surviving for one more day of posting on TPF.

Pleasure in thinking about emotions and thinking is evaporating, fast.