A short way of putting this is from the realist POV is that factor analysis should not work for actual data, unless there are real unobservables explaining that data. It can't simply be a useful statistical model, although the theory of what factors are doing the work is a human model. The anti-realist would need to explain why the factor analysis appears to work with real world data without resorting to unobservables as the explanation (they're useful fictions in the model for anti-realists, not the reason factor analysis works).

The point is that, at any time, it is possible, that the world may be radically different. But that doesn't mean that it it is. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But we have never observed this to be the case, so it could be just our imagination at work. Hume did point out a real problem with induction, but that doesn't mean nature has that problem. It could just be our epistemic limitations, and not something ontologically fundamental about the world. It's easy to imagine the sun ceasing to shine tomorrow, but what would that actually mean for nature?

My opinion is that when and if we fully understand the laws, we will see that it could not have been otherwise. I think entropy is that way, although it's statistical and not absolute (no idea why nature has an apparent statistical quality to it, but apparently has something to do with the wave-like nature of things in QM).

Have you not seen the science fiction movie out in the theaters right now called Arrival, or read the novella it's based on?

Anyway, the future having not occurred is just an epistemic situation for us. It's not because the future is radically different. It's because we haven't perceived it yet. Today isn't radically different than yesterday or five years ago. Those were all future days at one point.

If the frozen block interpretation of relativity is correct, then the future, past and present all exist the same, ontologically speaking. We just experience the illusion of time flowing.

If I believe nature is governed by laws then I believe that the existence of anything at all, otters, thimbles or whatever you like, and the possible relations between, would cease the moment the laws that enable their existence ceased to govern. — John

What if it's the relationship between things, events, patterns which are the laws, and not something making anything behave or exist? If things are related in a certain way, then things can't help but be that way. The sun will shine tomorrow because of the relationship between matter, gravity and energy in the nucleus of hydrogen and helium atoms. It can't cease to shine until that relationship changes (conversion to heavier elements).

But I cannot logically ground that belief in anything, and I accept that everything may change tomorrow - the sun not rise, people start floating in the air, pencils spontaneously combusting, enormous otters dancing the can-can inside a thimble, etc. — andrewk

Seems like a really large bullet to bite just to avoid supposing there is some sort of unobservable causality we infer from the patterns we do perceive. Also, I kind of wonder what's special about the future such that we could suppose it to be radically different than the past. Is it just because we haven't experienced it yet?

Brain" is a term we use to describe a very broad class of information-processing structures build up with a network of neurons, sometimes we also speak of "electronic brains" and we also have artificial "neural networks" (which are non-biological) but we don't have a precise definition of what should be considered brain and what should not. — Babbeus

If you wish to apply computer science terms to a biological organ that shares some similarities with computing devices, then okay, I guess. Lots of people seem to want to do that. I don't think the brain is a computer, network or information processor, those are just the best technological metaphors we can come up with.

It from bit?

nce you claim that some thing can exist without it's dependent, it is no longer the same thing. — Harry Hindu

Which is the dependent, mind or matter? Which can be reduced or explained in terms of the other?

The problems arise, I think, when either that ordinary distinction is disputed (e.g., radical skepticism, subjectivism), or when it is applied to something other than judgements (e.g., dualistic phenomena, worlds, viewpoints). — Andrew M

Even under the ordinary distinction, we note the difference between dream experience and waking, but you do point out an interesting problem, which is that people can vary a great deal in their interpretation of things. I recall a thread (on the former site) where everyone agreed on the material being debated, but disagreed on what the philosopher had been arguing. It was to the point that one poster mentioned it as a vindication of idealism. And the material wasn't some dense postmodern text, it was Dennett, who is pretty clear on what he means.

Of course, I have pretty much a logical positivist bent on such things. — Terrapin Station

There needs to be empirical evidence backing it up at some point, or else it will always remain an interpretation. If no empirical evidence can ever be given, then it's not scientific, but it's rather metaphysics, akin to saying we're living inside a simulation.

Of all the gin joints in all the worlds, every equation and constant necessary for life is present in this one gin joint world we're in, while there are zillions in which the math doesn't add up. I'm thinking about it — mcdoodle

So this isn't a violation of Occam's razor?

Well, the idea that the universe is spatially infinite was commonplace throughout the history of thought, and among today's cosmologists this is probably much closer to a consensus. — SophistiCat

So they believe in a real, physical infinity, as opposed to a mathematical infinity? I thought infinities in physics meant there was a problem with the theory requiring revision. Maybe it's just a personal preference, but infinity seems like zero or imaginary numbers to me. A useful concept that has no real embodiment. For example, there is such a thing as one rock (as in a single, countable, physical object), but there isn't actually zero rocks, anymore than there are physically zero unicorns, that's just a useful conceptual tool.

don't think idealism does say that. What I think a Kantian idealism says, — Wayfarer

You mean a particular form of Idealism. If you had gone with subjective idealism instead, then there is no world independent of mind.

So it has an unavoidably subjective element; the illusion of materialism is that you can see the world, as if there were nobody in it, as if the subject has been bracketed out altogether (cf Nagel's 'view from nowhere'). But that conception is still a human conception, albeit one in which the quantifiable elements are fixed according to theory, and so which is inter-subjective, not merely or simply subjective. — Wayfarer

Which would mean that materialism is false, and there is no truly objective viewpoint human beings can access, although there may be a noumenal reality.

It's interesting how Trump's election has ended up with a discussion on being gay in a Muslim country. Kind of funny.

What's the point of your reply? Any society consisting of more than one individual is going to entail limitations on absolute freedom. If one wants to be absolutely free, they can opt to live in the deep wilderness. Of course you lose the advantages of being in society, and thus the ability to do a great many things you can't on your own.

They way you know is to define these terms (subjective and objective) clearly. What is subjective without the objective? — Harry Hindu

What are dreams without waking? What is inner dialog without dialog others can partake in? What is consciousness without lack of consciousness? What is mind without mind-independent?

You mean like that? I suppose you can turn that around. What is mind-independent without mind (something idealists love to ask realists)?

You can also be shot in your sleep, and experience nothing.

I don't feel particularly oppressed despite all the diffusions of power. I can go wherever I want (money permitting), buy whatever I want, say what I want, organize protests, start a business, associate with whom I want, report my own news, run for office, move where I want, etc.

Is there a little too much surveillance and commercialism? Yeah, but it seems mostly aimed at creating more effective ads than denying me any rights. Would I feel more free in an Amish community? I doubt it. Have there been plenty of other societies which were less free? Absolutely. Could the political situation be reformed to make our votes count more? Most likely. But is it better than most political situations in the history of the world? Most likely.

Do they die from that or the resulting physical ailment?

he conservative is wise enough to confront the problems that arise as they are and then determine what ought to be done. The leftist on the other hand demands that things be built from scratch based on ideals. — csalisbury

And which one would consider abolishing slavery? Would that occur to the conservative? Or would the conservative just argue that is the way God intended institutions to be set up? What problem would the conservative confront to convince them to abolish slavery?

I'm not sure that not believing your experiences are caused by a physical brain means that you don't 'trust' your perceptions. That seems to be saying that conscious experience = unreal or untrue. As if the physical world is more 'real' than the perceptual one. — dukkha

The physical one can kill you, I'm not sure whether the perceptual one can, even though some movies like the Matrix made it out to be so. I've yet to die from a dream or a perception.

The conservative would have a much more persuasive case to be made in ancient China, or Egypt, or the Roman Empire, during the periods of stability. But in the modern world, with the amount of ongoing change that we experience, it's harder to see how the conservative is right. Compare the Americas in the 1700s to now. It's a very different continent. Most people alive today would probably expect the world to be a very different place in a 100 years than it is today. Many of the institutions that exist now won't exist or well undergo big changes over the next century. This need have nothing to do with liberalism. Technology and the problems we will be facing almost assure that. So do the changing demographics, and the rapid spread of ideas and trade thanks to globalism, which can't be reversed short of modern civilization collapsing.

I don't talk about it, because that would be an unwise career move. It's implicitly understood in academia that you get with the program. — The Great Whatever

That's most unfortunate. Different views need to be heard, especially ones challenging the official doctrine. That's what academia should be about. Or am I preferencing representation (my ideal academia) over how humans actually behave in academia?

it will perpetually be calling for immediate radical change and the dismantling of deep institutions, in favor of new institutions with no historical roots that better match reality as it ought to be. — The Great Whatever

You said a lot of interesting things, some of which I would agree with or ring more or less true, but this part is troubling. Institutions do change over time, and the results on society can be large. If one were to take your critique of liberalism fully, then the various movements for equal rights in the US and elsewhere would be seen as a waste of time. But the result of those movements was more rights granted to those lacking and changes to various institutions, sooner or later.

A criticism of conservative views toward deep institutions is that it does not admit to progress. It doesn't allow for the possibility that old institutions can be flawed in ways that could be amended. It doesn't allow for the possibility that things may have been different prior to the setting up of such institutions, and they can be different after.

As if deep institutions reflect a kind of permanent social structure which can only be made worse by trying to change it. I don't think humans are like that. Human organizations vary a lot over time and place. Humans are adaptable, and our values vary. So things can be changed. Things have changed. Massively.

Compare the modern world in Europe today to what it was 500 years ago. It's night and day different.

How do your academic colleagues respond to your conservative deconstruction of liberalism?

So I'm wondering... What are the chances of the "protesting" that is going on right now challenging the faith of enough electors? Wouldn't that beat all? — VagabondSpectre

It would have to be a hell of a lot more protest for this to have any chance. But let's say the electors could be motivated to vote Hillary in instead. How do you suppose the Trump supports would respond to that? What would the Republican Party do? What of all the red states? How would their governments respond?

Their would no longer be any smooth transition of power, of that I can guarantee you. There's a reason why the losing party is gracious in defeat and talks of working together, even if that doesn't actually happen. There's a reason why none of the Democratic leaders are joining in the protests, or encouraging them, or asking the electors to vote other than who their state chose.

So let's say the electoral college does this, and the country doesn't go down in flames. What happens the next presidential election? Now a precedent has been set. The electors can defy the states and vote in someone else. How will people feel about voting then?

nteresting question! I suppose in computer science the rules are clear enough, computer language>assembly langage>machine code (something like that, I haven't studied programming formally.) The structure covered by the general description of syntax, isn't it? Syntax governs the rules, semantics is concerned with the meaning. So they're separable also. — Wayfarer

Sure, but let me ask the question a different way. From the POV of physics, does any of that exist? Or, to describe the physics of a computer, is there any need to invoke software at all?

So this suggests that the information or meaning or propositional content is independent of the physical media type or type of symbol. — Wayfarer

Is it also independent of the rules needed to translate it between physical media or types of symbols?

And to be clear, thinking of oneself as white in that you have light skin, and your ancestors are European, and you may even celebrate eating French cuisine - that's all perfectly normal and good. It's all the other stuff that got attached to being white or black or whatever to justify slavery or white man's burden or what have you.

Now if people want to make the case that all those negative connotations around race disappeared in the recent past, so that being white or black or red is no longer an issue, then go for it. And here I mean on a societal level, not whether a given individual is racist, or delusional about race.

So in that context, it is the idea of being white, black, etc. at a societal level, stemming from several centuries ago, that is being challenged as a negative social construct.

t's not a causal relationship. It's a relationship of identity — Terrapin Station

So you agree with Searle that it's a biological property, and not something that can be functionally recreated in a computer.

the idea is supposed to be that DNA/DNA informational content, computer hardware/the program that won at Go, notes on pqper/a symphony all have the same code/meaning relation, as does brain/mind? — Terrapin Station

To the extent that brains/minds give them the same meaning, which some are happy to do, like Dennett and Kurzweil, and others, less so, like Lanier.

Or let's say, aliens show up, and they've taken human form to make colonization easier on us, but they don't have any pigment in their skin, because maybe they prefer really cold climates, or they don't like going outdoors.

Will we still consider Europeans to be white? What if the aliens want to call themselves white, and insist that Europeans are really pinkish? Furthermore, since the true white aliens are technologically superior, and get to lord it over us, all sorts of notions are attached to being truly white, as opposed to less nice notions of being pinkish.

Is that not a social construction by the aliens, forced on us?

Again, this doesn't strike me as interesting. The confusion of what words are used for what words are used for what things, and what those things are, is a pedestrian one. — The Great Whatever

Sure if it's just a word game and has no social implications, like who gets favored treatment in a society, and who gets looked down on, based on skin color.

Since I apparently love equivocating so, let's say this white racial category had played out between the Northern and Southern Europeans. Would we still say that it's objectively true that Northern Europeans are white, and Southern Europeans are black? Or would we understand that "white" and "black" are just social constructs?

What is the cause? Convert me back to proper belief in the reality of whiteness?

It depends on what we are talking about. The idea of being white is a fuzzy notion that can be extended or retracted to included various groups and even individuals. Notice how people can be accused of acting white or black, or being uncle toms or whiggers. That's not about European or African descent. The Irish and Italians weren't originally considered white. Neither were Eastern Europeans. Jews have often been left off. I wouldn't be surprised if the English or Northern Europeans didn't start out thinking only they were truly white.

Good. I have no further issue with you on this point. — Thorongil

It's not about being of European descent or a light skin pigment. It's about the concepts of whiteness, blackness, yellowness, etc that we inherited from a very discriminatory period of time.

hich chunk of land you consider a continent is arbitrary. But the continents themselves are obviously not. You could have considered Europe three continents, or half of one, if you wanted – but Europe would have been there all the same. — The Great Whatever

So would have Eurasia, which relates to the point of arbitrary categorizations, although I think land masses are a bit less arbitrary than super ethnic groups.

Now I'm curious if all ethnic groups of European descent are actually more closely related than obviously different ones in Asia (to one another).

Enjoy your pyrrhic victory.