Can past experiences dictate future results? No, they can't. The implications of this are truly terrifying. How so you ask? Before we get to that, let's examine how our past can not dictate the future. To make a really crude example, just because every time I've pressed the power button on my television and it has turned on, does not mean when I press the power button tomorrow it will turn on. To get back to why the implications of this can be terrifying, apply this to science (or as many consider it, the pseudo-science of Psychology as this will hopefully be my specialty) First let us examine the process of Psychological Experimentation. To begin with you need a hypothesis to test. Let's say that drug 'a' lowers depression scores. Next we need to set up a null hypothesis. In this case, drug 'a' has no affect on depression scores. Now why would we do something so silly as to set up a hypothesis that says the exact opposite of what we want to prove?! The reason given to me in my Psychological statistics course was this... There is no way to conclusively prove something is true (short of testing *every* applicable subject which is impossible) For example, if you met five men with two arms, or ten, or ten thousand, does this prove that all men have two arms? No, it doesn't. On the other hand, you only need one man with less (or I suppose more) than two arms to disprove your hypothesis. So the theory is, you set up a null hypothesis because if you disprove it (especially over repeated tests) there is enough confidence in the research hypothesis to implement whatever treatment your hypothesis indicates. To use our example, you decide to test the effect of drug 'a' on depression. After setting up your hypotheses, you choose a sample of depressed people. You then separate your sample into a control group and a treatment group. After administering drug 'a' to your treatment group, you retest your sample and decide there was enough statistical significance in the change to warrant releasing this drug to the public. Now how could this be terrifying? Because you haven't proved that this drug is helpful!! All you have proved is that drug 'a' made a "statistically" significant improvement on a limited subset of people. And what after all is statistical significance? An arbitrary number decided on by a mathematician. Enter Hume's problem. How do we know it was the drug that made the improvement? We don't. They could have been having a good day, or maybe the room was painted a cheery color and it brightened them up. We just don't know what the actual cause of the improvement is, yet because of math we will assume it's the drug. Does this frighten anyone else? For that matter because we only tested a limited subset of the population how do we know once this drug is introduced it won't cause suicidal impulses in anyone? Again we don't. The implications of Hume's problem on modern science are terrifying because for all of our experimentation, for all our rules and technology, we can never conclusively say whether or not our experiments have proved a thing. Hmmm....who would have thought an 18th century philosopher would have found such a large flaw in modern science? For that matter who would have thought an 18th century philosopher could help a 21st century college student understand a statistics course.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Comments on Comments (Philosophy)
If the world was an illusion would there be any applicable laws? I know that in my dreams what appears to be the immutable laws of nature have no hold. For example, it's possible to fly, live in space, jump through time or any number of things all while dreaming. So if the world were illusion (ie like a dream) would it bed possible to have rules that (apparently) can not be changed? In my waking state I can't time travel, or fly. Gravity can't be changed, two plus two never equals anything but four. To take an opposite stance, if I am not the one controlling the illusion would I be able to change the rules within said illusion? To use a crude example of this, when I lived with my mom I was in her "world." I did not make, nor could I change the rules of said world. While I could make suggestions, or try to assert how I thought things should be, the ultimate decision lay with my mother, the "ruler" of the world. The same goes with my children. They have input, but the ultimate decision is mine. Therefore, if life is an illusion, there could be a subset of laws controlling said illusion that we are either unaware of or simply unable to change because we do not control the illusion. Now if life were an illusion I think I can honestly say I prefer to remain within it. I know this illusion, while an additional reality is a complete unknown. Which leads us to....
The Matrix
If Cypher could have made his way back into the matrix, that did NOT involve betraying his friends, would there have been a problem with it? To answer a question with a question, can illusion ever really be an illusion once it has been exposed? Imagine a magician. Their very trade relies on illusions. If you recall, there was a series a couple of years ago (I think) where a masked magician revealed the secrets behind many of magic's classic acts. The community of magicians in general became outraged. Why? Because if you take away the mystery, the magic, the illusion, than it no longer holds the same fascination as before. To use another example, Santa Claus. Once the illusion of Santa has been dispelled, is it ever truly possible to fully immerse oneself back into the illusion? Not really. We can relive the illusion of Santa in some small way through our children, but can never completely recover the sense of wonder we had before the illusion was crumbled. No matter how Cypher made it back into the Matrix, it would be impossible for him to find what he sought. The world wouldn't hold the "reality", the food wouldn't taste as real. He could return, yet he would never be able to truly recapture the sense of illusion he craved.
Ruminations on the concept of the primitive...
Are some things primitive? This seems akin to the age old argument of nature vs. Nurture. Are some things known innately, or is all or knowledge learned (and thus explainable?) Before we can explore nature vs. Nurture we must first look at knowledge. Is it always possible to explain something learned, or is it possible to know something without being able to explain it? To this question my gut reaction is to say yes, it's possible to know something without being able to explain it. For example, there are several words that I can't define, yet I can use them in context. On deeper examination this very example disproves my assumption. By being able to give an example of something, or use it in context is a way of explaining something. While this might not be satisfactory evidence to Socrates, it is a way of demonstrating knowledge. So back to the larger question, now with the assumption that it is possible to explain all knowledge to an extent. it would be natural to then assume that nurture would be the ruling force of the universe. If all knowledge can be explained then it is natural to assume that everything we learn comes from explanation. There's a problem with this though.... If everything we learn is from explanation, how do we explain instinct? For instance, as human beings we are born with the instinctual knowledge of how to nurse. Interesting factoid...if you place a newborn baby on his mother's stomach directly after birth, he will 'scootch' up to her breast an latch on. Granted I have only given birth once (and was actually unconscious at the time) but in all of my research I have never seen or heard anyone giving the newborn instructions on how to accomplish this. So by this example, some knowledge is in fact primitive, and not explainable. This leads me to believe that there are other examples of primitive knowledge out there. As for nature vs. Nurture, I believe that like most things in life, it is a mixture of both. So yeas, there are primitive ideas, concepts and instincts. The question that then occurs to me is if there is a primitive idea of something, is it possible that such ideas are subjective? Let's take justice. Assume justice is primitive. Everyone knows what justice is, yet they are unable to explain it. Is my knowledge of justice different than yours? In a more general sense, is knowledge colored by perception? In mathematics (or my limited grasp thereof) no. Two plus two will always equal four no matter how I view life. Then again if you survey people from several countries asking them if the American society is just, my bet is you would get several different answers. Now if knowledge is primitive, yet isn't subjective, then presumably one would be able to look at something and tell you conclusively whether or not it fits the description of "just." From this you can conclude there are multiple types of knowledge (which as we just found out, Hume agrees with). My conclusion from this? Yes there are primitive concepts which can be colored by subjective viewpoints because there are multiple types of knowledge.
The Matrix
If Cypher could have made his way back into the matrix, that did NOT involve betraying his friends, would there have been a problem with it? To answer a question with a question, can illusion ever really be an illusion once it has been exposed? Imagine a magician. Their very trade relies on illusions. If you recall, there was a series a couple of years ago (I think) where a masked magician revealed the secrets behind many of magic's classic acts. The community of magicians in general became outraged. Why? Because if you take away the mystery, the magic, the illusion, than it no longer holds the same fascination as before. To use another example, Santa Claus. Once the illusion of Santa has been dispelled, is it ever truly possible to fully immerse oneself back into the illusion? Not really. We can relive the illusion of Santa in some small way through our children, but can never completely recover the sense of wonder we had before the illusion was crumbled. No matter how Cypher made it back into the Matrix, it would be impossible for him to find what he sought. The world wouldn't hold the "reality", the food wouldn't taste as real. He could return, yet he would never be able to truly recapture the sense of illusion he craved.
Ruminations on the concept of the primitive...
Are some things primitive? This seems akin to the age old argument of nature vs. Nurture. Are some things known innately, or is all or knowledge learned (and thus explainable?) Before we can explore nature vs. Nurture we must first look at knowledge. Is it always possible to explain something learned, or is it possible to know something without being able to explain it? To this question my gut reaction is to say yes, it's possible to know something without being able to explain it. For example, there are several words that I can't define, yet I can use them in context. On deeper examination this very example disproves my assumption. By being able to give an example of something, or use it in context is a way of explaining something. While this might not be satisfactory evidence to Socrates, it is a way of demonstrating knowledge. So back to the larger question, now with the assumption that it is possible to explain all knowledge to an extent. it would be natural to then assume that nurture would be the ruling force of the universe. If all knowledge can be explained then it is natural to assume that everything we learn comes from explanation. There's a problem with this though.... If everything we learn is from explanation, how do we explain instinct? For instance, as human beings we are born with the instinctual knowledge of how to nurse. Interesting factoid...if you place a newborn baby on his mother's stomach directly after birth, he will 'scootch' up to her breast an latch on. Granted I have only given birth once (and was actually unconscious at the time) but in all of my research I have never seen or heard anyone giving the newborn instructions on how to accomplish this. So by this example, some knowledge is in fact primitive, and not explainable. This leads me to believe that there are other examples of primitive knowledge out there. As for nature vs. Nurture, I believe that like most things in life, it is a mixture of both. So yeas, there are primitive ideas, concepts and instincts. The question that then occurs to me is if there is a primitive idea of something, is it possible that such ideas are subjective? Let's take justice. Assume justice is primitive. Everyone knows what justice is, yet they are unable to explain it. Is my knowledge of justice different than yours? In a more general sense, is knowledge colored by perception? In mathematics (or my limited grasp thereof) no. Two plus two will always equal four no matter how I view life. Then again if you survey people from several countries asking them if the American society is just, my bet is you would get several different answers. Now if knowledge is primitive, yet isn't subjective, then presumably one would be able to look at something and tell you conclusively whether or not it fits the description of "just." From this you can conclude there are multiple types of knowledge (which as we just found out, Hume agrees with). My conclusion from this? Yes there are primitive concepts which can be colored by subjective viewpoints because there are multiple types of knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
