If I were given the choice of starting another human race on a separate planet, but also knew that the next 500 years would play out similar to the last 500 on Earth, I would pass. — Marchesk

I think I would too.

At any rate, we're here now so we try to make the best of it. — Marchesk

Yep. That's the point I've been making whenever these AN threads crop up.

The proposition "life is good" needs an argument, not a vote. — TheMadFool

But apparently the proposition "The proposition "life is good" needs an argument" doesn't and can simply be asserted without one.

This is your misunderstanding that you attribute to me. — Fooloso4

You said...

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

How can we interpret that in a way that means the FDA are doing something that is of consequence to the safety of the public? You've directly said that the work does not relate to safety and efficacy.

The only way it would reduce the risk is if something previously unknown or undisclosed were to come to light in the next few weeks. It is unreasonable to assume that the FDA is hiding things from us, allowing vaccination to continue for the next few weeks only to deny approval. — Fooloso4

Why would they be 'hiding' something? The work is not yet finished. What's at issue is facts they've yet to discover. They're not sitting on all the data they need twiddling their thumbs for a few weeks.

And yet you took exception to the use of the term bureaucratic — Fooloso4

I took exception to the context in which bureaucratic work was treated as being of little consequence. Again...

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

Again, your accusation. — Fooloso4

Again...

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

With the pharmaceuticals, government departments, universities and doctors clamouring for full approval you're accusing the FDA of delaying such important approval so they can do work which has no bearing on either safety nor efficacy. On what do you think the work they're doing does bear?

most of the work has already been done, but they must be thorough and complete the job. — Fooloso4

As above. What is it you think this remaining work consists of, and on what grounds?

It was the relegation of important investigations by dedicated scientists to 'bureaucracy'. — Isaac


I think the problem may be your lack of understanding of what a bureaucracy is. The FDA's function is bureaucratic. — Fooloso4

You missed the use of the word 'relegation'. It's the evident lack of utility you ascribe to it, quibbling over semantics is irrelevant when we have your assertion that there is no difference in risk between taking the vaccine now and taking it after approval. That relegates the work the FDA are doing to work that is of no consequence to the safety of the public. What we choose to call it is immaterial.

At this point it is no longer just trial results. Millions of doses of the vaccine have been administered. The protocol for a trial is very different from actual use. The main difference is that no one is receiving a placebo. The FDA is no longer looking at just trial results. — Fooloso4

You keep adding these additional details about how the FDA carry out their checks as if a) I didn't know, and b) it impacts the discussion in some way. The matter at hand is whether the remaining work the FDA has to do prior to approval has any impact on reducing the risks faced by the public with regards to the vaccine. I don't see how the fact that the work consists of more than just trial data has anything to do with that.

It is a bureaucratic process. It takes time. I don't know what you think "paperwork" means as part of this process. — Fooloso4

Again, the terms we use are irrelevant. It's the 'wasting time' that matters. You have just avoided the main question with all this fluff.

Do you think the FDA are carrying out any work at all which reduces the risk to the public from the vaccines? It would help move us on if you could just answer that question, in preference to acting as if you were playing the FDA round in a general knowledge quiz or arguing over the definition of 'paperwork'.

The happy worker is still exploited. Yet this is worse because, the happy worker can quit if he sees his exploitation, a human must embrace the forced situation, lest suicide. — schopenhauer1

But the happy worker is happy...by definition. If your moral was 'do not exploit anyone', then you'd be concerned about their exploitation, but you were talking about whether it's OK to do something to someone on the grounds that most people like it.

See, you claim to be examining different angles, but you don't stick to that angle, very quickly, each of your numerous threads just descends into "I don't think people ought to have kids" which is just evangelism if you don't have an honest intention to explore the detail of the topic.

This one is about...

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

So exploitation isn't a part of it because 'most people' don't like to be exploited. The question is only whether using that which 'most people' like is a sufficient justification for taking action on someone else's behalf.

You're asking the subsequent question "can we trust each person's judgement about whether they're happy?" So the question for your exploited worker, is whether they're truly happy. The morality of the employer in exploiting them has nothing whatsoever to do with that question. That you think an exploitative employer is a good metaphor for parenting is utterly immaterial to the matter at hand.



What could 'life is Good' possibly mean without people to think it? How could anything just have the property of being 'good' absent of the minds in which that judgement resides?

The FDA's main job is not to conduct clinical trials but to review and either approves or rejects the products based on their evaluation of the trial results. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure what it is about my responses that's given you the impression I'm unaware of what the FDA's role is since I cited their own lawyer explaining it, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless.

So, the undelined is the issue at stake. Only two possible states;

1. The FDA have yet to perform some of these checks which may lead to them rejecting the product on the basis of their evaluation of the trial results.

Or

2. The FDA have no more checks to do that could lead to them them rejecting the product on the basis of their evaluation of the trial results. They're just wasting time doing paperwork which cannot possibly make any difference to the decision.

Which do you think is happening and what evidence are you using to support your conclusion?

This study had 3000 alone. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vaccines.html

Show me why even in the studies you cited why the sample size was statistically invalid. — Hanover

I'm not talking about sample size. Your claim was that it would invoice a 'vast' conspiracy if claims about the vaccine's safety and efficacy were compromised. I asked you how many people you thought would be involved in such a conspiracy. The participants in a trial are not responsible for interpreting the results of it. You know what a peer review team is, yes?

Show me your study disproving the effectiveness of the vaccine. — Hanover

1. You've still not confirmed - effectiveness at doing what?

2. Medicines are required to prove their own effectiveness. It's not for others to prove ineffectiveness. The problems that have been highlighted are oversights, omissions and flaws with the studies proving efficacy, they're not studies proving ineffectiveness.

That you've arrived at a motive for why people might fabricate results does not prove they fabricated results. — Hanover

I never once mentioned fabricating results.

Proof would be showing the results invalid or in having a witness come forward, which apparently everyone from the lab to the boardroom has taken a vow of silence on. — Hanover

Really. So you'd stand by the claim that no qualified academic has come forward to raise concerns about the covid vaccine's trial methodology, safety and efficacy?

Instead of doubling down and fighting the obvious, how about just admit the best evidence is that the vaccines reduce your chance of getting the original strain of covid (>95%) and virtually eliminate your chance of getting seriously sick from the Delta strain. — Hanover

I haven't disputed that claim, so I haven't a clue why you would think I'm 'fighting the obvious'.

You are part of the problem. — Hanover

Explain how. You're here making a accusation that I'm actually part of the devastating crisis that is the covid pandemic, I think I at least deserve an explanation. How is what I do exacerbating that problem?

And if they are not? Is this averaging then correct? The implication isn't just one thing (like a surprise party).. You are playing averages with a whole life. Commit suicide and go away or some other callous BS is the only ameliorating response to the minority. — schopenhauer1

It depends on the gain, generally. If there's little to gain, then it seems like the threshold of 'they'll probably be OK with this' should be quite high. One shouldn't risk causing upset for nothing even if the risk is small.

But for major gains, the threshold is generally higher (defensive war, for example). Here one might only need a reasonable assumption that people will be OK with what you're about to do to them.

Other factors that might come into play are things like - how easy it is to ask first, how hard it is to find out for sure, how reparable the harm is...etc.

what if what the majority is "ok" with is still not good? This covers what we discussed already. A majority of people can be wrong (country full of Nazis example). — schopenhauer1

No, this misses the point entirely. There's no moral element to the question "are they likely to be OK with this?". The same would apply to you painting my house green. Whether I'm likely to be OK with that depends largely on whether I like green. I'm neither right nor wrong about liking green, but the fact of the matter is crucial to whether you're morally OK to paint my house green without asking first.

The point still stands that "Most people" can say whatever they want and that doesn't change the nature of the exploitation or injustice taking place (or other X negative descriptor). — schopenhauer1

You've shifted the argument again. Two distinct questions;

One is whether the majority view dictates what is right.

Two is whether what is right can be determined by a majority view.

Two very different questions which you are still confusing, despite me laying out for you right at the beginning of the thread.

Let's say a society has a simple rule. "Do not paint your house a colour that the others in your street generally don't like". That rule could be an absolute one, not subject to democratic usurpation, but immutable for all time. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact that, in order to carry it out, one must discover which colours 'others in your street generally don't like'. Not only can this stage be carried out by majority averaging, but arguably it must be, else it would be prone to bias. One must check, by majority average, what colours are acceptable in order to carry out the timeless and absolute rule to only use such colours on one's house. — Isaac

The pro-natalist argument being used is not that it's OK to impose as long as the majority agree it is (ie morality by vote). The argument is that it is OK to impose on someone something they'll probably like (absolute moral, no voting involved). To enact this absolute moral one needs to know whether your target is likely to like what you intend to do to them. This is where majorities and averages come in, it's about having done one's due diligence in checking before taking an action (are they likely to be OK with this?).

Unless we buy into a vast conspiracy, involving every medical journal, every major research university, every nation on the planet, and various independent research organizations, we have to conclude the vaccine works. — Hanover

Since you're not keen of the line of questioning regarding what 'works' means, perhaps this might be more interesting - how many people, in actual numbers, do you think this group consists of?

The peer review team of every medical journal (which would publish on vaccine safety) - maybe ten key journals, lots of overlap in peer reviewers used, maybe 10-15 people, 30 at most.

Research institutions working directly on vaccine safety - the WHO lists 42, each with maybe 2-5 qualified lead staff (not including lab technicians and support staff), 120 or so.

Every nation on the planet - would get their data from the previous two.

Various independent research institutions - not sure what this is supposed to refer to.

I can't bring the list to much above about 200 people the majority of whom are working directly (or directly funded by) the pharmaceutical industry. Is that 'vast' to you? The June 2021 petition to the FDA to request that they not prematurely grant full approval is signed by 24 doctors and research scientists, including the Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal, so if we expand the network to include people peripherally involved you lose the apparent consensus you're claiming.

I struggle to see how it is so hard to understand people who think that a couple of hundred individuals (most of whom work for the pharmaceutical companies) have been unduly influenced by those companies - the single largest industry in the world, the single largest lobbying budget of any industry in the world and one which spends more than four times the budget on lobbying than even it's next biggest in rank.

Are you suggesting that it's completely beyond understanding that people might think the largest lobbying group in the world might have unduly influenced a few hundred people?

That is your assertion not mine. — Fooloso4

You said...

what the find will confirm that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

I asked if the exercise was then a waste of time, your conclusion was...

There is a process in place that must be followed. It still needs to be rigorously documented. — Fooloso4

But if I've misunderstood, then we can easily clear the matter up. What, if not just documentation, do you think the FDA are doing in their full approval process?

The investigation has been ongoing from the start. It include both positive and negative reports. — Fooloso4

Fine. A mixture of both positive and negative reports is still not a clinical trial.

I did not say that. I said it has been shown to be safe and effective, not that the FDA has shown it to be safe and effective. — Fooloso4

I see. Then again, I'd ask what you think the FDA are doing. If third party research concluding it is safe and effective is sufficient for the FDA to find it so also, then they don't seem to have a role to play. Other, of course, than the 'documentation' you wish to distance yourself from.

What problems can you cite that will lead them to deny approval? — Fooloso4

I wrote the answer directly below the sentence you cited.

And where do you see evidence of such problems? — Fooloso4

Why would I see evidence of such problems? I'm neither privy to the research methodology, nor the manufacturing process.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that materialism is false — Eugen

Does materialism have a particular handicap compared to other types of metaphysics — Eugen

Yes. It's false.

It still needs to be rigorously documented. — Fooloso4

What source are you using for your assertion that the full approval process consists of only 'documenting' that which is already known. You've yet to provide a single citation to back up anything you're saying. I don't see why you'd expect anyone to just take your word for it. Unless you're perhaps an expert in this and I'm just unaware of that.

Phase IV trials are for products that have been approved and are already on the market. Phase IV trails are not the only way that problems are reported. Do you have a point here? — Fooloso4

The point is simply that the absence of any negative reports is not the same thing as an investigation to determine safety.

We are talking about approval. EUA was issued months ago. The question is whether the vaccine will be approved based on the evidence to date. — Fooloso4

You said it had already been shown to be 'safe and effective' by the FDA. The FDA have currently given it EUA status, which does not even mention 'safe' and measures 'effectiveness' relative to the emergency, not in general.

What problems can you cite that will lead them to deny approval? — Fooloso4

It's not that complicated, full approval checks...

efficacy and manufacturing data. Companies also submit at least six months of follow-up safety data from clinical trials

So the problems would be some limit to efficacy, a risk in the manufacturing process, or some methodological error in the follow up trials.

Say, if 90 studies show the veracity of a vaccine, and 10 show downsides, then weighing all available evidence is equally warranted. That's not always what happens, though, since skeptics/deniers/clowns might just see risks, where subject matter experts acquire a better, more relevant overview. — jorndoe

Indeed.

Sure, "doing your own research" is fine, as long as you know what that means. No tunnel vision, context, bigger picture, overview, histories of similar events, don't just dismiss subject matter experts and turn to deniers. Especially in quarrels/preaching. — jorndoe

I'm not sure if this is directed at anything I've said here, but the journals I've cited are mainly the JME, which is one of the world's most respected journals of medical ethics. I don't think any of the authors there are 'doing their own research' in the manner you suggest.

The point is that what the find will confirm that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

So they are wasting their time then? If what they'll find is already known.

It is sometimes the case that a product is approved and then pulled from the market based on problems that are found only when they are used widely and they are called. — Fooloso4

It is, but that's not what a phase IV trial is, nor is it the type of data the FDA are looking at.

Yes, they are relative terms, but they are the terms used by the FDA. — Fooloso4

I've provided a direct quote from the FDA's lawyer on the other thread. A EUA's terms are that...

It’s reasonable to believe that the product may be effective and that the known and potential benefit outweigh the known and potential risks.

Doesn't evenue mention 'safe', no binomial interpretation at all. If you've got some information to the contrary then it's customary to cite it, rather than just make the unsupported claim.

most of that work is done by the pharmaceutical industry and academic institutions. The FDA's role is primarily to compile and evaluate data provided to it. — Fooloso4

And you think that role a trivial foregone conclusion? The fact that 'most of that work is done by the pharmaceutical industry and academic institutions' is the very reason why the FDA are checking it.

It's all the available evidence that has been published by any source, with no source suggesting otherwise. https://time.com/5942076/proof-covid-19-vaccines-work/ Unless we buy into a vast conspiracy, involving every medical journal, every major research university, every nation on the planet, and various independent research organizations, we have to conclude the vaccine works. — Hanover

Again, you've not answered the question of what you mean by 'works'. What does a vaccine need to do to 'work'? Answer that question, and then see if every institution in the world agrees. Then take that answer and see if it applies equally to every person in the world.

It was reported in the NY Times approval is expected by September. — Hanover

It's not the optimism I was questioning. It was the relegation of important investigations by dedicated scientists to 'bureaucracy'.

There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

Then what are the FDA looking for when they...

do a thorough review of the data — Fooloso4

...? Are the FDA just wasting time and money looking through data which cannot yield any useful information. Why do you think they would do that?

the millions of vaccines already given is far more than what is given in any clinical trial — Fooloso4

Clinical trials don't just hand out the product and then stand back and wait to see if anyone calls them.

Edit - also, you've not yet addressed the main point.

There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

'Safe and effective' is not a binomial status. Nothing is without risk. The vaccine is safe enough and effective enough for the purposes to which it is put. That threshold, for emergencies, is lower than for general use.

Are you seriously claiming you don't know what it's like to be you? — RogueAI

I just explained that. It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing. The question either doesn't make sense or else I've given you my answer "quite nice generally".

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective. — Fooloso4

That doesn't make sense. It's not a binomial. There's a threshold of proof that a EUA requires and a higher threshold that full approval requires. If the work done to meet the lower threshold wasn't just bureaucracy, then I don't see the justification for saying that the additional work of exactly the same form to meet the higher threshold is 'just bureaucracy'.

You don't know what it's like to be you? — RogueAI

It's not that I know or don't know. The question doesn't make sense. "What it's like..." is a grammatical device used to either compare or to describe affect responses to something, it just doesn't apply to 'being me'. The answer (though not the one you're looking for) would be "quite nice, thank you".

You're highly fixated on research. Did you know the vast majority of medical decisions are not based on research? — frank

Yes. I'm not sure what difference that makes to an evaluation of whether incentives are a good thing or not.

There is something that it is like to be you (you), and there is something that it is like to be me (me). You would agree? — RogueAI

No. The question doesn't even make sense.

Not everything is "cut the other guys throat".. not all the time for me at least. — schopenhauer1

I don't think there's been anything like that going on. You're presenting weak arguments, it gets frustrating when you just dodge the counter-arguments by fudging and redirection, that's going to come out in the tome of the responses sometimes, but there's nothing that brutal going on.

An immediate example...

You claimed that there could be some moral wrong which most people think at the time is right, you cited slavery and suppression of women as examples. Khaled pointed out that vast swaths of people did not think these were right at the time so it isn't an example of the 'most people' argument you're making. Instead of saying "Yes, you're right, that line of argument doesn't work does it", you just ignored his point entirely and replied with

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. — schopenhauer1

An unsupported re-assertion of the point you made. That's not a discussion. Just saying the same thing over and again without taking any notice of the arguments the other side are making.

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy...
— Fooloso4

Why would you think that?

You've chosen masks over the vaccine, which probably wasn't the best choice. — Hanover

We have two ways of stopping this virus: One is hygienic measures — face masks, social distancing, handwashing — and the other is the vaccine... if you had to pick which is the stronger of the two, I would go with hygienic measures. — Dr Paul Offit CDC Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices

So do you have a source for your assertion with more authority that the CDC's own advisor on immunization?

I think it's good to be skeptical of government sometimes, just not this time. — Hanover

Why not? What is it about this time that gives the government a free pass?

We're clearly playing the Soctratic rules, wherin "Mornington Crescent cannot be reached prior to passing through ten stations... or their essential forms..."

Oh... and Aldgate East.

Meh.

Communicating the individual and prosocial benefits of high vaccination rates, payments and a combination of both strategies did not increase vaccination intentions. — experimental evidence that payments do not increase willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 - JME

using coercion or incentivisation to promote COVID-19 vaccination risks a public backlash and may well be unsuccessful in promoting COVID-19 vaccination. It is already apparent that scepticism about the virulence of COVID-19 and strong suspicion of pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and policy-makers has become part of some people’s social and political identities. An attempt to coerce rather than persuade may be seen as a threat from distant and patronising elites and feed into existing social and political divisions without resulting in higher rates of vaccination. — Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination - JME

the people and institutions attempting to remedy the supposed problem are the very people and institutions that are not trusted and where there is no trust, attempts to nudge or coerce are likely to be strenuously resisted — Ana Wheelock in Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus? - JME

A fairly comprehensive review by Nancy Jecker at the Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine concluded against payment incentives, saying that "people who, for a variety of reasons, are reluctant to vaccinate should be treated like adults, not children."

The overwhelming majority of people opposed to vaccination are opposed to it because of a lack of trust in the authorities responsible for creating, administering, and promoting it. Payments are just going to waste precious resources on people who were probably going to take the vaccine anyway, and further erode the trust which is vital in recruiting the people who are currently opposed to it.

Why people have to reply within five minutes I never understand. The result is rarely worth it. — bongo fury

What an odd criticism. How do you suppose my seminars would have proceeded if every question was only answered following a five hour pause? Discussions with colleagues likewise. I was in a meeting only last week where I was being quizzed on a matter significantly more important and complex than our current discussion topic, yet I was expected to answer each question after only a few moments pause to gather my thoughts.

If seminars, research discussions and consultancy meetings can all proceed at pace, it seems odd to think that the little parlour game we play here requires five hours of deliberation before making the next move.

can we not protect our scientists from being silenced and do what is necessary to shut down the persuasiveness of the nutjobs so that we don't get political pushback for rational societal decisions? — Hanover

Well, I hope so, but that's not what the authors I've cited see happening (nor my own personal experience - but that counts for little in public debate).

The problem is that the nutjobs are being 'silenced' by checking to see who's following 'The Science'™. The trouble is there's no such thing as 'The Science' yet if by the term we simply mean prevailing scientific opinion, then it is not only allowable, but in fields such as medicine, absolutely essential that actual scientists do question 'The Science' it's their job to do so.

As Dr Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky wrote in the JME recently

Quantifiable empirical data and scientific evidence, though essential, are almost never sufficient, as an impoverished interpretation of the ‘follow the science’ imperative may suggest. — Dr Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky - Journal of Medical Ethics

What's happening in academic establishments and publication media is that researchers questioning the prevailing scientific view, as is their job, are being targeted by the same Twitter and Facebook vigilantes who think they're helping by ostracising the nutjobs. The trouble is the most are not scientifically literate enough to tell the difference.

It's a perfect storm, unfortunately, as the prevailing scientific opinion just happens, right now, to coincide with the vested interests of the world's largest and most powerful corporate bodies. It's hard, but not impossible, to research and publish areas which clash with these interests in normal times. When they have a small home guard of laymen patrolling the borders it's basically impossible.

The Covid vaccine works. There is no evidence to the contrary. I mean truth does matter here, right? — Hanover

And this is an example...

It's not the truth that the Covid vaccine works. The Covid vaccination programme is unquestionably an excellent public health initiative, as most vaccination programmes are, there's barely a scientist in the world who would disagree with that. But that's not the same as it being true that it works (where by 'works' I assume you're referring to some amalgam of efficacy, safety, and prospect of reducing the viral population).

Does it reduce symptoms in the full range of vulnerability? Will it reduce transmission below that of a healthy immune response? Will it reduce the wild viral population as a genotype? Is it suitable for children? Is it more or less effective than other available strategies? What are the long term effects beyond the five year mark?

You'll find 'the science' is not anywhere near sure about any of those things, and of course it's not, it's not even meant to be. The drug's not even past it's final testing stage yet, the FDA have yet to even approve it. Their emergency approval is

It’s reasonable to believe that the product may be effective and that the known and potential benefit outweigh the known and potential risks.

...i.e. as I said - an excellent public health strategy, not a validation of any and all scientific claims about the vaccine itself. But even after full approval, the science continues. Only last year scientists discovered that Roaccutane worsens depression and has been linked to increased suicide rates, it's been prescribed to teenagers for years, passed all of it's safety and efficacy trials at the time, a fully approved drug, but the depression link was something which took longer to develop than the trial period tested for. Fortunately, scientists continue to question, test, and refine treatments, as they should. Another example is the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in preventing cervical cancer, promoted heavily at the time (again, an excellent public health initiative), but later reviews only last July have shown substantial flaws in the trial methodologies leading the reviewers to conclude that "It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination actually prevents cervical cancer".

It is unnecessary and unhelpful to create (worsen really) an environment which is so hostile to any questioning of the prevailing scientific opinion that actual scientists doing their job in questioning it feel they will be demonised for doing so.

Attached directly? Sure. So,

The mid-stage is there — Isaac


Apparently not. — bongo fury

I only meant that it cannot be eliminated materialistically. It may be of no consequence in terms of systems analysis (though I'd argue it is, but later perhaps). For now, all I'm saying is that in certain contexts it can't be removed. For example, someone with damage to Broca's region will show a noticeably different relation between sign and referent than they would prior to that damage. To take account of that, we have to have a mid-stage to our model.

I think the impact of the BIV depends on how you think about this distinction. — Manuel

No doubt. It seems there's two levels on which one could interpret it.

One is saying that the form of the hidden state we currently share a model of might be something radically other than we think (electrodes, Cartesian demons, etc)... For me, this misunderstands what it is for an object to 'exist'.

The other, which I prefer, is to say that there is no 'something' at all that is not a model of the hidden states outside our Markov blanket. So it makes no sense to say that our world might be something other than it seems, some way it seems is the sum total of all things, there is nothing 'other'. To be a 'thing' is to be some way it seems.

Yes. I get what you're saying, I think.

What I take issue with is the (what I see as) false distinction between the data coming from 'the moon' and the data coming from an electronic signalling device. Neither has any better claim the be the 'actual' moon. We would not have been deceived if we found out that, rather than a lump of rock, our model of the moon modelled electrode signals. More it would be the case that electrode signals are what lumps of rock are.

There is no moon, there are only hidden states which we model as being the moon, the model just is a connection between signal and response (a dynamic and interactive model, mind, not a passive, fixed one).

This is why I don't get what the BIV gives us of interest. It says that the hidden states we model as 'the moon' might be electrodes. Well, they might, but 'electrodes' are themselves just a model of some hidden states. No deception has taken place, we always assume that our models might be slightly (or even massively) off sometimes, to not assume so is to believe one is always right.

Loosely speaking, in a model in which all sensations (stimulus, sense data, etc.) of the type X are interpreted as the moon, things that resemble X close enough, would lead the moth to act as if the X is the moon.

Of course, the moon could not be out that night due to cloudy weather or it could cease to exist. The moth would still interpret anything that causes X as the moon. Something like that. — Manuel

All of that seems to require an external world. The stimulus or sense data of type X must come from outside of the model.

the OP quotes discussion of a "social version" in which

what this individual means by a sign on any given occasion depends, at least in part, on this external practice. — SEP


I.e., cutting out, at least in part, the middle man in this too-universally-accepted picture: — bongo fury

I see, thanks. That makes sense. It seems little more than a context dependant frame. In linguistics it's not useful to consider the thought node at all (since a single individual can't have a meaningful symbol/referent link PLA etc). But in a different context - say psychology or neuroscience, it's simply a cold hard fact that the sign is modelled by the brain so as to be attached to a referent. The mid-stage is there whether we like it or not.

I don't mean it in the "meta" way of "don't EVEN have to choose", rather simply option 4. "Don't have to choose".. That option is on the table in the flavors example, not in the being born example. All you have is, "You don't like the flavor? Option 4. Kill yourself or find solace somehow brother! — schopenhauer1

So there's nothing new here other than the same old line that you think it's unjust to bring about a life which then cannot decide to not have been (the only choice you're concerned is not on the list)? It's not the choice not to choose (since that makes no sense), it just that you want an option which isn't on the list. What you mean to say is "Is never having the option I want just?" - Yes, it's fine, people are not morally obliged to provide you with the option you want at all times.

So no I am not doing that. — schopenhauer1

Following through the arguments is a subset of writing a response. Its something that you at least respond, but that's not sufficient tot count as responding to arguments.

What I am trying to do is make a space for disagreement to not be as hostile as it becomes. — schopenhauer1

Despite my lamentable lack of patience, I don't think hostility is the problem here; consider...

"All cows are brown"
"It's very interesting that you think so, but here's a photo of a black and white one"
"That's a lovely photo, you have a very good sense of composition, but still all cows are brown"
"Here's a livestock book which lists black and white as being one of the colours of cows"
"What admirable dedication to research you have, but all cows are brown"
...

You get the picture. The problem persists even through the most pleasant rhetoric. You listing what you think and others listing what they think is an opinion poll, not a discussion. It's not that there's no space for polite disagreement, it's that polite disagreement is uninteresting - why would anyone care what you think? An argument we can dissect, it's an entertaining parlour game, but an opinion...? What use is that?

The most flagrant sign of stupidity is people silencing all those who disagree leading to echo chambers. Both can be found in COVID conspiracy theory communities. — Hello Human

This expression is too often misused. 'Silencing' would mean the we don't get to hear from them. Many groups have had the dissemination of their views restricted during this pandemic, but few have been successfully 'silenced'.

What worries me considerably more than the issue of whether nutjobs are allowed to post on corporate hosted vanity projects, is the restrictions on scientific research. Here we'll run into actual silence, as in we'll never hear, by any source, that which might otherwise have been known.

Things like

Covid-19: Sweden vows greater protection for academics as researcher quits after aggressive social media attack

and...

a group of academics described the “hazards” experienced by vaccine researchers, including being ostracised by peers for challenging the status quo... — in Bragazzi NL, Watad A, Amital H, et al.Debate on vaccines and autoimmunity: do not attack the author, yet discuss it methodologically. Vaccine2017

there is considerable evidence that many editors and referees are hostile to papers that challenge prevailing beliefs (Armstrong, 1996, 1997; Campanario, 1995; Epstein, 1990; Horrobin, 1990; Lang, 1998; Mahoney, 1976, 1979; Thompson, 1999). The result in some cases can be that publication of innovative ideas, and data that backs them, is delayed or blocked. — Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses, Accountability in Research, Vol. 6, 1999, pp. 333-372

Back in 1995, Susan Wilson did a survey of Australian environmental scientists asking if they believed that they could jeopardise their career prospects or research funding success by speaking out on environmental issues, 50% said 'yes'

In fact in a parallel study of information suppression from scientists, the number one cited reason for self-censorship was "concern about how I may be represented by the media".

As Charles Mills famously said "the deepest problem of freedom for teachers is not the occasional ousting of a professor, but a vague general fear - sometimes politely known as ‘discretion’, ‘good taste’, or ‘balanced judgment’. It is a fear which leads to self-intimidation and finally becomes so habitual that the scholar is unaware of it. The real restraints are not so much external prohibitions as control of the insurgent by the agreements of academic gentlemen."

Honestly, I couldn't care less if the clearly insane conspiracy theorists are given a slot on Farcebook or not. Any restriction on actual scientific research is a hundred times more worrying than the media circus platforms of a few tinfoil hats.

Funny you should say that because I deliberately refrained form using the terms merely believing or merely faith. Faith and belief are incredibly important in human life (as there is really so little of what is most important to humans that we can be certain of). — Janus

I'm not generally given to simply posting agreement, but I really wanted to highlight this to avoid it being lost in the weeds. It's crucial, I think, to the whole slew of discussions where physicalism is pitted against anything from idealism to religion. Beliefs are absolutely fundamental to who we are, the importance of the narratives we use to navigate the world and give purpose to our actions cannot be overstated. there's nothing 'mere' about belief, no-one is relegating propositions by labelling them as stories rather than facts. In many ways, they're being elevated in importance over something as mundane as a 'fact'.

In a similar vein, to demote them to 'facts' about reality is to remove their beauty, make them dull and lifeless, as if following some dry algorithm of rational thought will yield the answer to 'life the universe and everything' like a maths sum.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not. — schopenhauer1

This is not your blog. You do owe @khaled something, and others who've contributed to your thread. You owe them at least an honest attempt at following through the arguments they make, otherwise we're just the 'comments section' below your Wordpress. Those aren't the terms under which people make the effort to respond.

My aim was to inquire rather than advocate — Isaac


That's kind of rare on this forum. — frank

All I ever do. Admittedly sometimes I inquire quite obdurately...

I don't believe I said it was an error of interpretation. We would say that the moth made a mistake, on the assumption that living creatures generally speaking, don't commit suicide. — Manuel

A mistake in behaviour though, no? It ought not have flown into the lamp (to its death), the result of any modal of lamp/world should have had it remain alive at the very least. Soft behaviourism?

How could we understand such an error, in a functionalist sense, without an external world being one way such that some model of it can be another?

Yes, "the model generates an appropriate response...". I agree here. — Manuel

So stimuli-response then...?

Isn't the model internal? — Manuel

Yes, I believe it has to be by definition. In my early days I wrote from a behaviourist perspective, it was the advances in computational cognitive science that changed my mind. The degree to which we can accurately assume a model-dependant cognition. To declare anything to be a model it has to represent something else (otherwise it's the thing itself, not a model), so we already have this division simply by the definition of 'model'. When talking about minds and worlds, 'internal' is just a marker for 'mind' - one half of the division we set up definitionally.

So, relating back to the thread... externalism would be simply mistaken from a grammatical point of view. That which the model is 'internal' to it is internal to by definition - the model, not the modelled. We might say that models span more than one mind, but we'd be mistaken to say that makes them external in the same way that the world they're modelling is, otherwise they are 'that which is modelled', and they're not just by definition.

In a sense, @frank's right. This kind of externalism does lead to the sort of extreme behaviourism that you theoretically posit (though no-one actually believes it). It removes models entirely and says that all there is is that which is modelled. If that were the case, there'd be no errors, the moth would have meant to fly into the lamp. Since talk of 'errors' and 'intentions' seems so useful, I can't see the utility of a system which would exclude them.

But to be fair, I've never fully understood externalism, and hard behaviourism doesn't exist outside of one's imagination, so it's possible that I've missed the point entirely...

I think the view you're advocating is internalism: that the world stimulates the brain to form representations. — frank

My aim was to inquire rather than advocate. I don't mean to disrupt your thread if it's off topic...

The stimulation could come from the world or it could come from a brain in a vat. — Manuel

You mean the brain stimulates itself? It certainly happens. Real experiments show that. You were talking about external stimulation earlier, that's all.

What I think happens in these cases is that the stimulus gets interpreted as belonging to something in the world (another dog, the moon, etc.). — Manuel

But it does belong to something in the world, a mirror and a lamp respectively. Mirrors can cause dogs to bark, lamps can cause moths to fly to them. What does it matter that they're not other dogs or moons? Maybe the dog 'thinks' it's another dog, but the moth doesn't 'think' it's the moon, it doesn't 'think' anything, it hasn't got the substrate in which 'thinking' takes place. Yet, if its behaviour, including errors can be modelled in the same way as the dog's, then on what grounds do we say the dog 'thinks' there's another dog? These errors of modelling (the dog's, the moth's) don't make the sources of the data internal, they're about generating appropriate responses. If the model generates an appropriate response, then in what way is it an error of interpretation?

The thought experiment suggests that we don't need the world to have representations that we have — Manuel

Well that's why I asked where the stimulation comes from. Because if it comes from 'the world', then the thought experiment doesn't suggest we don't need the world, does it?

As you said, this topic is now removed from the OP. — Manuel

Maybe. It seems related to me - externalism, stimuli (as in stimuli-response)...