Rationalism, Empiricism, etc.

[ygolo]

Billions of years of evolution and the genetics that have been passed down as a result have eventually lead to the creation of the complex biological processor that is our brains. In short, it's written our DNA. The blue print has been perfected via trial and error and the coherence of our neurology is proof of it.

We also take our higher cognitive capabilities for granted. If feral children have taught us anything, it's the importance of nurture in developing our potential.

You took a different direction with that than I expected.

Why was there even an evolutionary need for coherence? What about incoherence that would make it less fit than coherence?

I am simply trying to gain my bearings in your reality, so please be patient with the questions.

 

[Kiddo]

You took a different direction with that than I expected.

Why was there even an evolutionary need for coherence? What about incoherence that would make it less fit than coherence?

I am simply trying to gain my bearings in your reality, so please be patient with the questions.

Evolution isn't about "need", it is about what works. Coherence worked with the first microbes that could sense light, it worked with the first worms, it worked with the first fishies, and on and on up until it got to us.

 

[ygolo]

Evolution isn't about "need", it is about what works. Coherence worked with the first microbes that could sense light, it worked with the first worms, it worked with the first fishies, and on and on up until it got to us.

(A) Evolution is about fitness, however. There are more incoherent states than coherent states. Based simply on the law of thermodynamics, something pressured organisms towards coherence.

Do you disagree with any of statement (A)?

What made incoherence not work? Probablistically, incoherence is more likely than coherence, but something caused incoherence to be "unfit." What was it?

 

[Kiddo]

(A) Evolution is about fitness, however. There are more incoherent states than coherent states. Based simply on the law of thermodynamics, something pressured organisms towards coherence.

Do you disagree with any of statement (A)?

Evolution is formed from fitness. Fitness is how many offspring an organism can leave behind, however, if some mechanism in an organism is not effective, then it will leave behind less offspring if any. Hence why I said that evolution is about "what works". Also, humans don't exist in a closed system so I don't understand how thermodynamics is applicable.

What made incoherence not work? Probablistically, incoherence is more likely than coherence, but something caused incoherence to be "unfit." What was it?

Experience. The animals that faired well with their traits survived and had more offspring. The animals that did not fair well with their traits left behind fewer offspring or none at all. Coherence was naturally selected.

 

[ygolo]

Evolution is formed from fitness. Fitness is how many offspring an organism can leave behind, however, if some mechanism in an organism is not effective, then it will leave behind less offspring if any. Hence why I said that evolution is about "what works". Also, humans don't exist in a closed system so I don't understand how thermodynamics is applicable.



Experience. The animals that faired well with their traits survived and had more offspring. The animals that did not fair well with their traits left behind fewer offspring or none at all. Coherence was naturally selected.

I'll try again: Why was coherence naturally selected over incoherence?

Was it simply coincedence?

Could natural history have continued in such a way that incoherence was naturally selected?

BTW:Thermodynamics apply in open systems too. It is actually, a type of system with considerable study.

 

[Kiddo]

I'll try again: Why was coherence naturally selected over incoherence?

Was it simply coincedence?

Could natural history have continued in such a way that incoherence was naturally selected?.

The environment provided the pressures for which the traits were selected. As the environment has changed, so have the traits.

Is that the answer you are looking for?

 

[ygolo]

The environment provided the pressures for which the traits were selected. As the environment has changed, so have the traits.

Is that the answer you are looking for?

IDK. Maybe. I don't think so. I was looking for common ground between our respective veiws...you know, as a common reference.

But I seem to be walking around the question I really want to ask. I can only rephrase it, and try agian. This time I'll provide some of my views as well, and perhaps you can spot the common references.

What in the environment forced coherence to be naturally selected over incoherence?

My belief. There are more potential micro-states where organisms would have incoherent sensory integrations that coherent ones. If surviving organisms favor coherent sensory integration, then something must have selected for it. (Perhaps elfinchilde can correct/clarify for me).

What in the environment selected for coherence?

Again, my belief. Incoherent sensory integrations would lead to incoherent behavior w/ respect to gathering food, responding to threats, etc. However, reality is coherent. So incoherent behaviour is not fit.

In short, a coherent environment/reality selected for coherent integration of sensory inputs.

Food For Thought: The Evolution of Consciousness

 

[Kiddo]

IDK. Maybe. I don't think so. I was looking for common ground between our respective veiws...you know, as a common reference.

But I seem to be walking around the question I really want to ask. I can only rephrase it, and try agian. This time I'll provide some of my views as well, and perhaps you can spot the common references.

What in the environment forced coherence to be naturally selected over incoherence?

My belief. There are more potential micro-states where organisms would have incoherent sensory integrations that coherent ones. If surviving organisms favor coherent sensory integration, then something must have selected for it. (Perhaps elfinchilde can correct/clarify for me).

What in the environment selected for coherence?

Again, my belief. Incoherent sensory integrations would lead to incoherent behavior w/ respect to gathering food, responding to threats, etc. However, reality is coherent. So incoherent behaviour is no fit.

In short, a coherent environment/reality selected for coherent integration od sensory inputs.

Food For Thought: The Evolution of Consciousness

Um...I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You are arguing that the environment is coherent? The environment is anything but coherent. It is dynamic and chaotic.

Think about it this way. Many billions of years ago there was no life on this planet. Then, within clouds of gases, a bunch of amino acids formed proteins. The proteins came together into countless combinations and then broke apart, over and over for millions of years. Within all these combinations, one worked. It was the double helix and it is the basis for all life on this planet. Why did this combination work? It worked, because on this planet, with this atmosphere which filters UV light so organic structures don't break down, it was the most stable structure for which proteins could encode information and replicate. On any other planet, in any other atmosphere, a different structure could have formed.

Now it wasn't coincidence, and it wasn't because the environment was orderly, it was because of time and trial and error that the necessary order for which all life originated, was created. Trillions of combinations were probably tried before the double helix came into being, just as billions of species inhabited this earth before us and died out, and just as how hundreds of millions of humans preceded us.

Life formed to fit the environment, and with us, it has formed to change the environment.

 

[ygolo]

Um...I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You are arguing that the environment is coherent? The environment is anything but coherent. It is dynamic and chaotic.

Dynamic and chaotic does not preclude coherence. By coherence, I mean "not inconsistent with itself." That definition is used for theories and formalisms, I was using it for reality as well. I suppose we may go down a string of definitions here too (as is natural when two differing points of view meet). But I hope you see my meaning.

Think about it this way. Many billions of years ago there was no life on this planet. Then, within clouds of gases, a bunch of amino acids formed proteins. The proteins came together into countless combinations and then broke apart, over and over for millions of years. Within all these combinations, one worked. It was the double helix and it is the basis for all life on this planet. Why did this combination work? It worked, because on this planet, with this atmosphere which filters UV light so organic structures don't break down, it was the most stable structure for which proteins could encode information and replicate. On any other planet, in any other atmosphere, a different structure could have formed.

I think whatever structure that formed would have to be consistent with itself. It couldn't simultaneously exist and not exist, for instance. It could not be simultanously be 10-angstroms in its largest dimension, and 10-meters in its smallest... and so on.

Now it wasn't coincidence, and it wasn't because the environment was orderly, it was because of time and trial and error that the necessary order for which all life originated, was created. Trillions of combinations were probably tried before the double helix came into being, just as billions of species inhabited this earth before us and died out, and just as how hundreds of millions of humans preceded us.

Life formed to fit the environment, and with us, it has formed to change the environment.

Although, I am not an evolutionary biologist, and cannot comment on the appropriate use of "millions," "billions," or "trillions" in the above statement, I agree with the basic meaning.

I still don't see how an organism that simultaneously percieves objects as being near and far, big and small, hot and cold in the same spatial location, can survive in our "coherent" environemnt, which has objects that cannot be have its nearest point both near and far to the organism, cannot have its smallest dimension be big while having its largetst dimension be small, etc.

Perhaps "consistent" is a better word, but "coherence" is more holistic, and still seems more appropriate to me.

 

[elfinchilde]

Hang on. I believe you two are crossing wires.

If i'm not mistaken, Kiddo is defining coherence as an ordered state of being. Which fits in perfectly with the Darwinian principle, in that the organisms which are most ordered (ie, most have their act together: in terms of instincts and perceptions for feeding, mating, thinking etcetc) would be most 'fit' for survival.

So in that sense, incoherent organisms (ie, nonsense DNA, if you're reducing it to the molecular level) would not survive, because they would not have the genes/capability to survive in a chaotic, dynamic environment.

It is a complement we are talking about: The more chaotic the environment, the more streamlined, and coherent an organism has to be, in order to survive.

To put it in a human analogy:

A villager living in a rural agrarian village, solely on subsistence farming, would not need to know much of finance, or electricity, or multiple languages, or universities to survive. What he does need to know though, is farming, the weathers, the seasons. In that sense, he is coherent for the chaos of his environment.

However, in a big city, say Wall Street, New York. You'd need to know finance, politics, wheeling and dealing, in order to survive in the banking industry. A farmer would falter here, as he would be incoherent for his environment. Just as a banker would falter in the farming environment.

In that sense, that is how adaptability occurs. One is coherent for one's specific environment, because that is what best enables survival.

What do you mean by a square-circle? Is this supposed to be something we cannot comprehend literally?

In the stock markets, we call it the Theory of the Black Swan. Just because you do not see it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Puhzah! To everyone else!

Experience is based on observations, observations are based on perceptions, perceptions are based on senses, and senses are the neurological interpretation of signals from our external environment.

Can i throw you a curve, kiddo?

What determines our neurological interpretations? Isn't it our desire? Which is why humans never quite see another as they are, but who they want the other to be.

Isn't it?

What makes it so that all the sensations based on experience that come into our neurons create a coherent experience?

We know that there are pathways that are delayed (sometimes by as much as half a second). But what gives our experiences coherence? IOW, by what "mechanisms" do we avoid experiencing a jumbled mess of sensations?

Billions of years of evolution and the genetics that have been passed down as a result have eventually lead to the creation of the complex biological processor that is our brains. In short, it's written our DNA. The blue print has been perfected via trial and error and the coherence of our neurology is proof of it.

We also take our higher cognitive capabilities for granted. If feral children have taught us anything, it's the importance of nurture in developing our potential.

Perhaps a digression, but to illustrate Kiddo's point in concrete terms: A lot of us is indeed in our DNA.

the way newborn babies instinctively reach for symmetrical faces (the definition of beauty) as opposed to assymetrical ones. The distance a mother holds her child from her face: because babies see best about 20 cm from their eyes. The instinctive dislike for bitter taste: because most of what is bitter is poison in nature--which explains why children usually hate to eat vegetables. There is so much of us that is genetically predispositioned, that people do not even realise it. From their choices of their mates, to the food they prefer, the colours they prefer, etc. A lot is in the genes.

Nurture is what modifies what is in the genes.

In that sense, nature can be read as the id of Freud, while nurture is the superego.

In between that is the person himself, as he negotiates between his primal instincts, and his higher, learnt morals: that is the ego.

btw: thanks ygolo for telling me about this thread.

 

[ygolo]

OK. It appears, my use of "coherence" was what threw us into confussion.

To both elfinchilde, and Kiddo (and anyone else who wants to answer) then: Why are most of our perceptions "consistent?" That is, why don't we percieve things (usually) as simultaneously being near and far, hot and cold, big and small in the same parts/places of objects?

 

[elfinchilde]

OK. It appears, my use of "coherence" was what threw us into confussion.

To both elfinchilde, and Kiddo (and anyone else who wants to answer) then: Why are most of our perceptions "consistent?" That is, why don't we percieve things (usually) as simultaneously being near and far, hot and cold, big and small in the same parts/places of objects?

??? Because a thing can only be at one place upon the spectrum, assuming it is only one type of neuron capable of sensing it?

note that in science, there is no such thing as cold. That is merely defined as the absence of heat. So the sensor neurons in the hand (for instance) will sense that the object is hot, which leads to an instantaneous redrawal (again, a survival instinct coded from years ago, fire is dangerous, after all)--this is a reflex action. You don't have to tell a baby to move away after it has touched a hot object. Same for cold: it freezes you. Humans are homeothermic: ie, we have a constant body temperature. So temperatures to the extreme of 36.9 degrees celsius, we'd avoid instinctively.

Perceptions are all geared for survival: too near, too large implies danger. That is why the instinct for personal space exists; and the automatic redrawal from large animals.

All these are consistent, because they are all keyed into the brain even before birth. Sensory neurons --> brain --> motor neurons. ie, perception -->unconscious/conscious thought -->action.

does this help any?? are you talking in a biological sense or a philosophical one?

 

[Kiddo]

Can i throw you a curve, kiddo?

What determines our neurological interpretations? Isn't it our desire? Which is why humans never quite see another as they are, but who they want the other to be.

Isn't it?

First off, thank you for clarifying my points for ygolo. From a biological perspective, I can't understand where he is coming from. I can only answer with a link to Piaget's theory of cognitive development since he seems to be asking about how our thinking is formed.

I can't disagree with your analysis of neurological interpretations, but I still hold to my point that we need experience in order to form them. We may be born with a lot of the wiring intact, but without the actual experience, we will never develop those behaviors. In that sense, I guess I disagree with you. We need to sense pain at least once, before we try to avoid it.

 

[ygolo]

??? Because a thing can only be at one place upon the spectrum, assuming it is only one type of neuron capable of sensing it?

Yes. Kind-of.

Maybe my point was too much of a tautology?

It seems to me that something cannot be both 10 meters in it's smallest dimension, and 10-angstroms in its largest.

It also seems to me that organisms that continually percieve things like that would be in peril.

does this help any?? are you talking in a biological sense or a philosophical one?

I was talking philosophically, but certainly needs to be informed biologically.

 

[elfinchilde]

I can't disagree with your analysis of neurological interpretations, but I still hold to my point that we need experience in order to form them. We may be born with a lot of the wiring intact, but without the actual experience, we will never develop those behaviors. In that sense, I guess I disagree with you. We need to sense pain at least once, before we try to avoid it.

Oh ok. There isn't any disagreement then. Yes, at least once is necessary. What I had meant was that the pain felt upon feeling heat, for instance, is recognised as pain. Rather than a happy feeling. That recognition is instinctive. ie, it is less the heat, but the sensation of pain to which instincts are attuned to. How does a person know that it hurts, if not for biology?

never quite figured that out, really.

Maybe my point was too much of a tautology?

It seems to me that something cannot be both 10 meters in it's smallest dimension, and 10-angstroms in its largest.
It also seems to me that organisms that continually percieve things like that would be in peril.

I was talking philosophically, but certainly needs to be informed biologically.

Yeps. Topsy turvy worlds. Any organism like that would quite simply, perish. Survival of the fittest. It all goes towards one order, til that established order changes, which is when new species, new forms of thoughts, cultures, occur.

In the anthromorphological sense, it is interesting: if you look at the rise and falls of civilisations, their influences globally.

Empiricism is what is experiential, perhaps. The burden of proof lies in the experience, and the quanitification of that experience.

Kiddo: what did you major in? Sometimes, i read your posts, and i'm ...you're like DD, only less emoticon-colourful.

 

[ygolo]

Well. It seems we were in agreement all along, Kiddo. Just different words, and perspectives.

It does seem to me that empericism, needs to be constrained by consistency.

In addition, to avoid falacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc we would need to apply rationality both prior to our collection to data as well as after.

Yeps. Topsy turvy worlds. Any organism like that would quite simply, perish. Survival of the fittest. It all goes towards one order, til that established order changes, which is when new species, new forms of thoughts, cultures, occur.

I am curious, do you believe there will be time and environment that would enourage creatures that tend to percieve inconsistences, e.g. percieving objects being 10-meters in its smallest dimension, and 10-angstroms in its largest, etc.

 

[Kiddo]

Kiddo: what did you major in? Sometimes, i read your posts, and i'm ...you're like DD, only less emoticon-colourful.

I've changed my major many times over the years. It's hard to stay interested in one subject for very long, which is why I settled for social work. As far as majors, I've been in journalism, psychology, education, and biology.

 

[ygolo]

I am wondering, if the point about consistency has been dropped or ignored. I suppose the initial word that I used would have been used differently in something like the "theory of coherence" than in biology.

But I think the point still stands. The reason, we perceive consistently(I would say, even if raised by wolves, or having to fend for oneself for most development phases) is that reality itself is consistent. Again, in the sense that an object does not simultaneously be 10-meters in its smallest dimension, and 10-angstroms in it largest dimension(tell me what word you'd prefer me to use here). It would be unfit for organism to perceive inconsistently, there is no socialization required here (experience yes, but no socialization).

Is there disagreement in that still?

Even here, our consistent perceptions, as pointed out, are only based on what we experience. When we start probing beyond what normal human evolution has conditioned us for, a lot more is needed. We need to learn how to use our equipment properly, we need to learn how to set-up proper conditions to gain proper experiences, etc.

This requires reasoning. This "reasoning" is something we learn through experience (lots of it), but the reasoning that is learned is forced to be a certain way because of the nature of the reality of those experiences (namely consistent). But that I can give a rant on my laboratory experiences (which I have almost a decade of) after my morning meeting.

I am just wondering how far the gap in agreement is.

 

[TheLastMohican]

This thread seems to have really taken off after my initial debate died down. Huh.

I think the digressions into evolutionary theory and such don't apply well to the subject of Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Our brains are developed to a point that some of us can separate ourselves from "genetic biases" and use reason that transcends much of conditioning.

I thought that Sensors would be more likely to be pure Empiricists (due to their preference for hard facts and experience), and Intuitors pure Rationalists (due to their preference for theories and speculation).
But it appears that is wrong.

 

[Kiddo]

I am wondering, if the point about consistency has been dropped or ignored. I suppose the initial word that I used would have been used differently in something like the "theory of coherence" than in biology.

But I think the point still stands. The reason, we perceive consistently(I would say, even if raised by wolves, or having to fend for oneself for most development phases) is that reality itself is consistent. Again, in the sense that an object does not simultaneously be 10-meters in its smallest dimension, and 10-angstroms in it largest dimension(tell me what word you'd prefer me to use here). It would be unfit for organism to perceive inconsistently, there is no socialization required here (experience yes, but no socialization).

Is there disagreement in that still?

The problem with your theory is it doesn't make sense from a biological perspective.

Even here, our consistent perceptions, as pointed out, are only based on what we experience. When we start probing beyond what normal human evolution has conditioned us for, a lot more is needed. We need to learn how to use our equipment properly, we need to learn how to set-up proper conditions to gain proper experiences, etc.

This requires reasoning. This "reasoning" is something we learn through experience (lots of it), but the reasoning that is learned is forced to be a certain way because of the nature of the reality of those experiences (namely consistent). But that I can give a rant on my laboratory experiences (which I have almost a decade of) after my morning meeting.

I am just wondering how far the gap in agreement is.

I can see the argument you are trying to make. You believe reason is shaped by the "consistent" physical universe and is therefore "consistent". To a degree, that makes sense. We as a species percieve "consistently" because we evolved that way with our environment. We as individuals percieve "consistently" because we developed through experience and learning with our environment.

However, there is an obvious flaw in your argument. We as human beings don't always reason consistently. Based on our different experiences, we come to different conclusions based on our reasoning all the time. The only way we can obtain "consistent" results among all our different experiences is through methodology and experimentation, namely science. Hence, the original argument of this thread "rationalism" is flawed because it ignored the necessity of experience and science in obtaining an understanding of the "consistent" physical universe, by putting all its faith in reason.

Now I can understand you wanting to think of terms of tautologies but as I said before, "A=A" only if you know what "A" means and "=" means. Hence, reason is completely dependent on experience. Does the concept of equality exist in the physical universe outside of human perceptions? There we head back to our original discussion of objectivism vs. relativism. But the simple fact of the matter is even if those things exist objectively in the universe, and even if they have shaped human reasoning, we had to discover every single one of those things through experience and learning for them to have any meaning to humans. To go back to the example of a feral child, what does the concept of equality mean to them? They will never be capable of understanding that idea or utilizing it because they have missed that chance in their development.

So I don't really see the sense in trying to percieve reason as being shaped by a "consistent" universe. I think it makes much more sense to percieve reason as having been shaped by consistent experiences in the universe. For example, we have all experienced equality, and we have shared that experience, and therefore it has meaning for us.