PWIP 43

How to discover truth

One has to train one’s intuition to have a good taste for truth. One can’t trust one’s self. I may forget relevant information. I may not understand the information presented. I could have a structural limitation hindering my search. One has to prove one’s self to the truth. Truth is attached to existence. Math and logic can show which actions have the highest probability of achieving a particular state of affairs. Science possesses a structured view of the world. These concepts are the beginnings of a good intuition of the natural world. Yet, truth and existence are perhaps biconditional. In a sense, the work of discovering truth is completed once one exists. There seems to be a search for something more than bare truth.

People, in general, can’t be assumed to know (or sometimes tell) the truth. Certain people can be trusted, though they must prove themselves to the truth as well. Experts can be trusted, but one almost needs to be an expert oneself to know if the other is an expert or not. Most people stick to their own specialty because of the lack of resources, such as time, money, sufficient amount of foundational knowledge. It would seem every generation of civilization has individuals with varying degrees of knowledge of particular subjects. The civilization doesn’t optimize for learning and knowledge exchange. Some knowledge seems inevitable because of the nature of the world, while other less biting knowledge are acquired by coincidence.

Mathematics becomes more and more important the higher up in the scope of understanding one goes. One also needs logic, which are innate to any system that seems to work. Math is easier to comprehend, it’s the application of numbers. This perhaps allows for numerical truths to be grounded on firmer grounds than other types of truths. Practically everything in our civilization has intentional numerical properties. Every object has dimensions, an amount produced, a value, etc. Maths allows us to perceive a uniformity in nature.

Logic is compact representatives of truths. Truth is always whole and parts, so logic is both deconstructable and constructable. Logic doesn’t create the truths of the world, the truths are generated results of terms mixing. If "A and B become C" is a fact of the world, then that fact becomes a logical truth in the world that can be broken down or used to build other truths. Formal logic also has a history of humans discovering many logical systems. So logic finds itself a part of many systems while itself also being a system.

Technology helps with discovering truth. It has better sensing, analysis, and calculation abilities than the typical animal. It also shows the variety of configurations matter can take. Computer programs allow for the externalization of sights and sounds that can be generated in the animal mind and external world. Programming languages are formalizations of mechanical logic. Mechanical logic, like those found in computers and other electric devices, require proofs to be conceived as languages, which are the devices themselves or an expressed system. The loose logic found in a natural language requires adherence to the syntactical rules, but any claim can be presented without proof (it’s just many people interrogate whatever they perceive as false).

Creativity is a part of the discovery of truth. Though it appears as a choosing between the many configurations the world can take. When others aren’t able to predict the configuration another chooses, they may consider the act as creative. Creativity can be denying the obvious for surprise effects. In a sense, creativity goes against logic, since the individual doesn't pick criteria based on functionality but rather based on aesthetics. Yet, it may be an unformalized logic of design based on individual ability and preferences. Natural language is useful in places like these where there is no set logical representation or mathematical formula, none beyond perhaps the reasoning from creativity.

PWIP 42

Thoughts on Logic

Every proposition contains terms. The terms are defined using propositions. Perhaps one could consider the collection of all the terms with definitions the epistemic dictionary. There are actual dictionaries for languages and other subjects. Individuals contain in themselves certain symbols that they can give a kind of definition for. The terms are organized according to their epistemic closeness. This generates a knowledge network or web. Chains of propositions appear to form superstructures, like narratives and sciences.

Negation causes many problems in the search for truth through logic. All linguistic propositions can be negated through some kind of rejection response (though meaningful rejections come from informed justifications). Dissent can occur when terms conflict with each other. An object’s opposite may mix with it to produce a new object, or its negation leads them both to the null set or falsehood.

Epistemology is a subset of ontology. Everything that is discovered or is discoverable is innate to ontology. Ontology seems to be in control of all things since it is existence and existing is being what one is. Epistemology contains some parts of ontology. What does it mean for there to be ontological objects outside of epistemology? Some objects are perhaps unknowable. The dictionary could be the subset of epistemology that deals with knowable objects.

On the difference between “and” and “or” in logic and natural language

Can I clarify these concepts in my own mind? The term “and” means a term A is generated while a term B is generated. The term “or” means a term A can be generated, a term B can be generated. In logic (informal logic--since I’m no logician) “and” and “or” are binary functions that can span multiple terms. The term “and” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when all terms under its purview are true. The term “or” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when at least a few, but not all, of the terms under the function’s purview are true. In logic, changing the interpretation of the truth functions concerning the term “or” can result in the inclusive “or” or the exclusive “or”. The inclusive "or" appears to include the "and" function, whereas the exclusive "or" does not.

“And” seems to imply a time period. If the case is one can choose A and B, does the “and” change when one somehow takes A and B at different times; maybe A and B are taken at the same time, or A is taken then B is taken? The natural language (English language at least) doesn’t distinguish between the time beyond some condition on the “and,” such as simultaneity or ordering. A kind of “and” seems to exist between all terms. Relationships seem to be cases of “and.” It could be the logical “and” is implicit whenever multiplicity is involved.

On News

There’s certain qualities news has that could be considered. News can be true or false and good or bad. News, for the most part, is a message about events. The message is delivered through a medium. Messages can be delivered through notes, gossip, television, loudspeakers, telephones, online media. News appears to have a significance to the present. Past events with no current significance would be deemed moments in history rather than news. Though one can’t know the future in the same way one knows the past, there can be news concerning the future in the form of plans. The most trustworthy information is perhaps one’s own experience. Albeit without a well-informed worldview one may not have a sufficient understanding of events. It seems difficult for one to construct a message that can adequately express events without the necessary understanding. Once constructed the message doesn’t appear difficult to replicate, a repetition of the message would suffice. When trying to parse true news from false, one must consider the fact that homo sapiens can error intentionally or unintentionally. There are various levels of news based on understanding, and various domains that use news.

Communities appear to spread news based on some importance threshold. There’s perhaps more ability to confirm the truthfulness of community news due to the locality, though perhaps one may not have the authority to request answers for certain questions. Religion is another institution that uses news. Those whom some god/s has deemed worthy deliver the messages of said god/s. This news can be difficult to confirm because of the weak connection between the source, content, and receiver. The state uses news to deliver commands and the current state of affairs. Identifying the lies of the state may be dependent on one’s intelligence. Major events are harder to cover up than minor events, but one may be too remote from either to obtain the appropriate facts. Science uses the news. Events are expressed in very specific ways to make understanding uniform (or more uniform than merely speaking the same language). Receivers are asked to repeat events to confirm the truth of the conclusion of the messages. Other domains that use the news don’t typically have this ask, in many cases such an ask is impossible.

PWIP 41

Ethics Economics

Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.

Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.

The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.

The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.

Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.

The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.

The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.

The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.

The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.

Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.

Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.

PWIP 40

The relationship between the object, other, and self changes when moving through philosophical domains. For ontology, all that exist is one object, there are no distinctions between the three. Some event brings us to the realization that we have been made other to the totality of existence. It is a calculation made by the brain. We discover the notion of otherness that was somewhere possible. One finds one’s self in the totality as a part. Epistemology perceives distinctions and one can only hope one’s brain is sufficient to understand epistemology.

One can perhaps conceive a self as an other to ontology when pondering on the parts of the ontology that one controls and the parts one does not control, this typically coming in the form of oppositions, e.g. pleasure/pain, gain/loss, positive/negative. Would the self perceive itself as an object apart from the world if it had no conflicts with it? The nihilism of ontology presents a major problem for an object that cares for itself. Ethics places a high value on the self and other selves. Though the hard problem of consciousness presents feelings as something redundant to machines, it appears to be a useful tool in distinguishing the difference between a self and an object. Words and intelligent acts could have the same effect, but considering the history of the collectives of decision-makers, they are likely to consider intelligent nonsentient beings to be of equal value to sophisticated rocks.

The relationship between self, other, and object generates a problem of economics. Individuals own and produce objects. These objects can be exchanged for other objects from others. Individuals desire to avoid losses, thus they will attempt to trade less for more or equal for equal. Any item with the exact same dimensions as another is considered a duplicate of it and can be considered equal. There is no reason in trading an equal with another because it doesn’t change one’s state. The option is to trade lesser for more, which can only be done through deceit from the lesser owner, or sacrifice from the greater owner. One can also trade an object of different dimensionality but equal value. One can give more of a lesser item to compensate for the lower value. If one item is a fraction off from another, pieces of the lesser item can be given if that doesn’t destroy the item's integrity.

Objects have different values depending on time, place, individual, and domain of value. These domains have a specific order of priority in ethics, so objects have a value based on a domain and the domains have particular weights depending on their place in the priority. Ethics appears to weigh the weights as ordered: Objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, subjective.

Kantian politics and virtue psychology don’t appear to have a self as separate from the collective. In relativistic aesthetics and utilitarian mathematics, we see the self manifest itself as a shaper of the world, and a unit, scale, measure, and calculator. There is an objectively optimal state which we call Utopia. Such can only be achieved by intelligent means through physical and psychological force. The ideal or perfection isn’t always obtainable, thus one may settle with what is good enough or functional. Of course, since ethics is only generated between more than one agent, objects/products with universal use are most prized. A cohesive group of individuals, i.e. the collective, have more value than a single individual (assuming all are virtuous). This gives objects that can serve the whole more import than objects that can only serve a part. Obviously, every individual can’t use everything everywhere all the time, nor is any product always appropriate for every task. Physical products take precedent to psychological ones as unembodied objects, i.e. objects with no interaction with reality, have no use. Personal objects pertain to one’s identity and appear to be valued more than merely pleasant or beautiful items. Vice agents have their own weight, which is the subjective, as some objects have a function that lends itself more towards harm.

PWIP 39

Epistemology

The problem the epistemology has with ontology is skepticism. If something is real and exist it can be considered true. The skeptic calls into question the nature of reality. Let us see what something like an exhaustive denial of the devices used to perceive reality looks like. First, it would appear that there must be something real for the skeptic not to fall into absolute ignorance or nihilism. The goal of the skeptic ought to be the truth, not doubt for the end of deception. The awareness of one’s own limitations helps in producing a more accurate orientation in ontology.

The brain in a vat problem is an observation from the skeptic concerning our relationship to the world. The skeptic comes in degrees, being completely against the world’s existence; to partially against the world; to assuming only the world exists. If the world completely doesn’t exist and only the self exists, then we fall into solipsism. If the world is one mind that appears to be many, then idealism appears to be the case. Since the brain in a vat thought experiment uses technology, it makes assumptions about an existing world. The manufactured world of the brain that is in the vat would be equivalent to art or entertainment. Even if it was being used for scientific means, a simulation is an imitation of a thing. The skeptic’s suspicion as to the nature of the world seems to be a consequence of science’s discovery of the brain organ’s limits.

Skeptics seem to think the mind and body hide the truth from the consciousness. It is comparable to those who believe the true essence of the homo sapien is an immaterial soul. Some portion of these individuals see the body as an obstacle to reality. However, the body doesn’t will itself into existence. It is manifested in the world as parts of the world combine to result in what we call ourselves. What about the body fills the skeptic with caution? Though there may be more, we can look at the limits of the senses, the emotion’s effects on rationality, and mental illness. Hearing and seeing have limits on their extent and resolution. Science tells us the eyes are deceiving because they can’t see all the spectrums of light. There’s much weight placed on the visual sense as the main arbiter of truth. This appears contrary to science which confirms its theories by being correct on a prediction. There’s nothing in science that necessitates vision. Geometric ideas can be understood as abstractions or symbols. Our sense of smell and taste can be affected by our moods, the physical relationship between our structure and objects in the world, and the context the self and object are placed in. Our sense of touch appears to tie every other sense together, in that signals need to touch our sense organs to be observed, or the brain needs to generate motions that are equivalent to sense organs being acted upon or touched.

The skeptic may say, at some point, that pleasure and pain are wholly products of the mind. Emotions can have such a large impact on one’s mind that one may be led away from actions one knows are more rational than the ones being taken. This again brings up the hard problem of consciousness, as a robot need not have feelings of this kind of conflict. One may ask if a robot without the feeling would still act as one with the feeling? It does appear that one with the feeling of being alive is of more value than a philosophical zombie, i.e. one who merely acts like they have feelings but don’t actually possess any. However, a philosophical zombie may still prove themself to possess ethical value, e.g. showing their desire to exist, their susceptibility to damage, their gains and losses, etc. The skeptic seems to show feelings both should not exist and are deceptive.

The skeptic may appeal to something like profound schizophrenia and claim no way to know if perceived events are true events. Not only are the senses limited but the biological material may also produce maladaptive brain structures. In this, the hard problem would need to go further than just asking why qualia exist and ask why is it deceptive? Either the maladaptations are accidental and randomly placed, or the biological material generates beings with an intention on the outcomes, or the brain is intentionally deceiving the consciousness, or there is a brain in a vat like situation with greater authority in control of one’s experiences. Beyond this disrupting our ability to perceive true reality, it may also cause one to act in a way that influences the acts of others.

To deny the other the skeptic must also deny history. Like our eyesight, our reasoning has a limit on its extent. Physics can only take us so far back in the past or forward in the future. If we are brains in vats, then the study of nature is the study of a piece of art or entertainment. This would make others unreal objects, but then the truth of one’s world would be solipsism with the World being beyond all of one’s devices, unless an individual in the World cares to communicate truth to the one in the artificial world. The next problem is local evolution. Homo sapiens are multicellular organisms that multiplied from a single cell made from the combination of two cells. These cells themselves are made from chemicals combined in a particular way. This fact is gotten from others, being that it can’t be observed by the self as the self goes through the process of birth. Assuming the other is real and we are in the World, we may all be suffering from the same hallucinations. Others may have different experiences from what was thought to be the same content. Combining the deception of the senses, the unreliability of rationality, and the perplexity of mental illness the skeptic claims the world hasn’t been parsed. If the skeptic falls into idealism, they may say that freeing one’s self from the body will return one to the greater mind that may know the Truth.

There is a limit on knowledge that results from our physical limitations. Complex ideas don’t appear innate to the mind but must be learned. Language appears to go beyond physical limits. Though concepts like a square circle or the wave/particle duality are difficult to recreate as a visual imitation, they can still be instantiated as linguistic objects which correlate with real or impossible existence. Falsehood much like nonexistence has a paradoxical relationship with existence. Again, the skeptic ought to assume some truth is possible, or they would fall into total ignorance. This truth ought to be communicable, since symbols appear to be able to hold abstractions, and the world (assuming it is real) should be less abstract than the totality of what abstraction can contain. Scientists rely on technical tools and language made specifically for understanding particular parts of reality. Thus senses are replaced with technology and intuition replaced with formulas. From these, we attempt to see the world in a form untainted by the mind. Technology with its ability to process and analyze data with more precision than a brain makes it a good candidate for understanding the World. An automaton could make an actual representation of the World, rather than a deceptive semblance of it. Of course, how could one build a robot that can perceive the World if one can’t perceive the World oneself? Beyond this problem, science must still admit limitations because there are predictions that are difficult to make. One may not know what truth the skeptic will allow, but they must allow something given the data.

PWIP 38

Ethics Dynamics

Utopia is a state by which all individuals are happiest and living the easiest. Such a social state appears to have some issues. First, Utopia appears mundane. Entertainment and the arts can’t maintain an audience’s focus on utopia, save perhaps in pictures. People are turned off by the unreality of the state and may become resentful of the lives of the utopians. Secondly, Utopia takes a great deal of effort because of its numerous requirements. The happiness of the populous would have to be the main priority of society. Those who reach the peak of social life would need to come back down for others. A threshold for knowledge concerning the self, other, and world must be passed before such a process could even begin. Lastly, though utopia would appear to be mundane, the difficulty of generating the state requires work, which is not mundane. The state implies a transcendent peace, but happiness for all is a mess of parts. Is the thing an exciting mess of motion or a mundane stable state?

Dystopia is on the other end of the spectrum, but it is not a lack of civilization. Rather dystopia is a society that maintains vices. Some virtue is necessary for cooperation. For no society can exist without a kind of honesty, peace, or respect for ownership. Regardless the main characteristic of dystopias is that they are maintained by particular vices. The vices of dystopia are subjugation of groups within the society or aggression towards those outside the society. In this light we can see that no utopia has existed hitherto, every society has been a dystopia. The homo sapiens can’t claim utopia if any contemporary civilization isn’t utopian, and civilizations can’t claim utopia without virtuous societies, societies can’t be virtuous without virtuous individuals.

Each ethical concept has a particular interaction with the utopia idea. Kantian ethics would likely get the most out of a robot’s utopia. Because of the artificial nature of robots, they can be made physically equal. They can be given the same knowledge, thus holding to equality in thought. But, of course, if all agents are of the same mind and, essentially, body, then in a sense there is only one being and no need for ethics.

A utopia for relativistic aesthetics is pure freedom. One can imagine it as a paradise without consequences. Only in a state of complete anarchy can there be no restrictions on the expression of the self. Though a world without consequence can be considered a utopia, it may be perceived as less meaningful or valuable than a world with suffering and loss. What does one become in a world one can have no impact on? This utopia is closest to the paradise many claim exists for those who acquire god’s favor.

Virtuous psychologies may find utopia onto themselves, being always at ease with the self and world. Virtuous psychologies need not be perfect replicas of each other as they can work within reason by either conceding to others or working out a solution. The ultimate nature of ontology is nihilism, thus the virtuous agent doesn't find the need to cling to any thing. Without knowledge, one can achieve a passive virtue where one avoids doing harm and helps whenever necessary. A more active virtue requires knowledge of the world. So one can also choose to explore the non-nothingness within the bounds of ethics.

Because utilitarian mathematics requires a more practical approach it is the hardest to parse out. One must mix the large and small, the qualitative and the quantitative, the concrete and the abstract.

Epistemology

The hard problem of consciousness seems to be that this biological machine built with molecules has feelings when machines can operate without feelings. Evolutionary biology appears to say any function that manages to survive does so because it is well fitted to the environment. Anything without pain is likely to be careless towards its own body. Sophisticated thoughts or an understanding of the world can help in alleviating pain. However, all these tools are developed by the DNA molecule, i.e. they are given or gifted, not created or innate. The consciousness appears to be the result of background processes. The background seems prebuilt by evolution and updated by experience. The consciousness itself isn’t privy to the workings of the background beyond their effects.

How is the hard problem of consciousness, i.e. why do we have qualia, and the brain in a vat problem, i.e. the uncertainty concerning the realness of experience connected? Consciousness appears important in the former, but incompetent, if not guileful, in the later. The problem appears to be between experience and consciousness. The consciousness is uncertain whether the experience correlates with what is actually going on in the real world. This is perhaps due to a perplexity with the variation in states of consciousness or differences in reports of experiences by others. There are also observations that appear to us from science which are judged to be our structural limitations. Regardless is the attempt to deceive the consciousness through experience an explanation for qualia (though the obvious next question is why deceive at all)?

If qualia is meant to deceive the consciousness via the brain in a vat then we may ask if qualia is innate or additional? Consciousness could be a calculating machine not requiring qualia. Experience would then be a means of control by a higher authority. If one perceives experience as something disconnected from consciousness, what keeps consciousness itself from becoming untrustworthy? Being a brain in a vat would allow one to have all the tools necessary to make a calculation, but no problem or content to work on if no communication is coming from the world. Both problems seem to assume the essential nature of consciousness is the ability to calculate, and not the content being manipulated. In the brain in a vat problem there is no possibility for exploration of the world. The brain can calculate but the signal is feigned. The hard problem allows for calculation and signals from the world. Yet it claims the resolution of the world’s signals ought to be purely mechanical.