Post Reply
Page 28 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28
Switch to Forum Live View Is information causal?
2 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2013 - 12:45PM #271
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

sdp


Feb 3, 2013 -- 8:17AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

He is much better than he was years ago (when almost everything he said was "Greek").


Thank you for your comment. It wasn't just my impression, then ...


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2013 - 12:28PM #272
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Feb 3, 2013 -- 4:13AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:57AM, newchurchguy wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:32AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

You were given the opportunity to explain, clearly and simply, what would be, according to you, the connection between "Affordances and Probablistic Propensities" ...


I hope you have put to bed the idea that randomness, is any kind of problem in defining Propensity as a descriptor in the generation of caus[a]tive models.  Randomness can be seen as a lack of measured propensity in the data or a lack of selection of a specified casual flow.


As it ever occured to you that some (many ...) sentences of yours are pure gibberish, and that you make them up (and even like them) because you confuse obscurity with depth?


Take care.


MdS





Feb 3, 2013 -- 8:17AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


Feb 3, 2013 -- 4:13AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:57AM, newchurchguy wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:32AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

You were given the opportunity to explain, clearly and simply, what would be, according to you, the connection between "Affordances and Probablistic Propensities" ...


I hope you have put to bed the idea that randomness, is any kind of problem in defining Propensity as a descriptor in the generation of caus[a]tive models.  Randomness can be seen as a lack of measured propensity in the data or a lack of selection of a specified casual flow.


As it ever occured to you that some (many ...) sentences of yours are pure gibberish, and that you make them up (and even like them) because you confuse obscurity with depth?


Take care.


MdS




I don't think it's deliberate Mario. I think it makes sense to ncg, the rest of us sometimes just don't speak his language. He is much better than he was years ago (when almost everything he said was "Greek".


sdp 




There really is no "gibberish" or "Greek" here.  ncg is coming from (or at least speaking from) a realist framework.  Affordance and/or propensity is not (not necessarily, anyway) an (epistemological) ignorance--it's a quality in or of the object itself.  Like glass is fragile.  No mystery here.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2013 - 12:44PM #273
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Jan 21, 2013 -- 3:37PM, newchurchguy wrote:


Jan 18, 2013 -- 10:45AM, Adelphe wrote:


TOTALLY on board with propensity--along with science... 





OK   thanks.


The idea is - one can have very similar versions of propensity - whether it is deterministic physical laws, where the cause is generated by the propensity of the science laws....................


And when it is used at the different level of social causation - where people or groups have a propensity for like responses to situations.


In the second instance - I would hold it like the first - where pragmatic and objective facts rule.


There isn't Truth (a concept) to be expounded; but there are empirical measuements, with units of measure, where truth tables can tell us about propensity and causal transformative sequences.


The 'vitual machine" of poverty put forth by A. Sloman, is an example of of social casuation and an effort to identify poverty as having structure. 




Do you have a link to Sloman's treatment of the latter I can review?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2013 - 4:41PM #274
Blü
Posts: 24,922

scg


truth tables can tell us about propensity


Truth tables are no better than their premises.  The only way a premise can be true is by according accurately with reality.  The only way to tell whether it accords with reality is by looking at reality, not at the truth table.


I'm therefore curious to know what you might be talking about.  Please set out an example of a truth table demonstrating the existence or non-existence of a propensity in physics.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2013 - 2:17PM #275
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,626

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:44PM, Adelphe wrote:


Do you have a link to Sloman's treatment of the latter I can review?



Adelphe,


141.14.165.6/CogSci09/papers/277/paper27...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2013 - 3:24PM #276
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,626

Feb 4, 2013 -- 4:41PM, Blü wrote:


scg


truth tables can tell us about propensity


Truth tables are no better than their premises.  The only way a premise can be true is by according accurately with reality.  The only way to tell whether it accords with reality is by looking at reality, not at the truth table.


I'm therefore curious to know what you might be talking about.  Please set out an example of a truth table demonstrating the existence or non-existence of a propensity in physics.




Truth tables don't express premises, they are a spelled out process for computation with Boolean analysis.  I understand what you are saying and actually agree.  The propensities in physics are empirical from data and the Boolean nature of the computation is implict in physics.  Statistics (and statistical mechanics) are readily cast in binary format.


However, data about social circumstances is not so ready for binary formating, but can still be, likewise, analyzed.  Here are two examples: one for the propensity of social cooperation and another for propensity for nuclear proliferation.


They is no Truth in physics - only patterns that can be logically applied in computation.  There is no Truth in how social varibles cause events -- only propensity for certain senarios to yield measurable tendencies for behavioral reposnses.


www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_d...


 http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20492.pdf




but you never check the real world apps -- do you?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2013 - 4:36PM #277
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,626

Feb 3, 2013 -- 4:13AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:57AM, newchurchguy wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:32AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

You were given the opportunity to explain, clearly and simply, what would be, according to you, the connection between "Affordances and Probablistic Propensities" ...


I hope you have put to bed the idea that randomness, is any kind of problem in defining Propensity as a descriptor in the generation of caus[a]tive models.  Randomness can be seen as a lack of measured propensity in the data or a lack of selection of a specified casual flow.


As it ever occured to you that some (many ...) sentences of yours are pure gibberish, and that you make them up (and even like them) because you confuse obscurity with depth?


Take care.


MdS




MdS,


I just think you have not been exposed to the term affordance as used in computer programming.  Let alone its use in visual processing by Gibson.  I have taken some time to explain and link usage examples.


You questioned me about randomness.  I think you did not listen a wit.


So let me slow down.  When I say measured propensity (in terms of a probability for occurance) - do you know what I mean.  I just linked a paper entilted: 


Utility of Social Modeling in
Assessment of a State’s Propensity
for Nuclear Proliferation


the authors worked very hard to quantify tendancies in the data models, to answer the question, which (I hope you understand) is an important one.  Randomness in the data can be minimized by having significant and clear data trends and limiting causation assumptions to those factors.  Randomness in sampling can limit selection bias.


 propensity score is the probability of a unit (e.g., person, classroom, school) being assigned to a particular treatment given a set of observed covariates. Propensity scores are used to reduceselection bias by equating groups based on these covariates.



Wiki on PSM


You just have an old-fashion way of talking and thinking - and any of these gosh, dang new-fangled methods are confusing you.


Kant was simply wrong in his thinking about fundamentals of physical relations.  He is just not relevant in modern science.  Kant did not have Boltzmann, Gibbs, Boole, Peirce and Von Neumann to reveal the working procedures of information science to guide his suppositions.


Why not recast our mental outlook based on the science of the last years; instead of the limited and restricted view of 200 years ago.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2013 - 6:51PM #278
Blü
Posts: 24,922

ncg


They is no Truth in physics - only patterns that can be logically applied in computation.


'Truth' in physics refers to our best understanding for the time being as found in the consensus of relevant physicists. Thus eg our theory of gravity is in general true.




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2013 - 8:04PM #279
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,626

Feb 4, 2013 -- 12:28PM, Adelphe wrote:


There really is no "gibberish" or "Greek" here.  ncg is coming from (or at least speaking from) a realist framework.  Affordance and/or propensity is not (not necessarily, anyway) an (epistemological) ignorance--it's a quality in or of the object itself.  Like glass is fragile.  No mystery here.




That is expressed, far better than I have.  I may be gibbering from time-to-time and surely I admit to speaking Geek (more than Greek).


However, that doesn't stop me when I think I have my teeth in a difficult problem.


There is a draft of a brand new paper by another expert on the subject --  David Miller


At the start of his first published exposition of the propensity
interpretation, Popper announced that it was ‘a revised or reformed
statistical interpretation’ (1957a, proem); a few pages later he wrote that it
‘differs from the purely statistical or frequency interpretation only in this —
that it considers the probability as a characteristic property of the
experimental arrangement rather than a property of a sequence’ (ibidem,


In a late lecture Popper
wrote of the throws of a die that ‘a tendency or propensity to realize an
event is, in general, inherent in every possibility and in every single throw’
(1990, p. 11). It is misleading to think of ‘the propensity, or tendency, of a
possibility’ as a propensity of the possibility ‘to realize itself upon repetition’
(1967, thesis 8), as he sometimes put it, since the propensity in question is
the propensity of the possibility to realize itself here and now.




 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/cupcomp.pdf



Compare with

 


Together, these mechanisms would enable human observers to derive knowledge about the possible uses and functions of a tool from observing goal-directed, intentional movements performed by an agent[14][16]. In this article we posit that these sophisticated learning skills could also benefit from simpler heuristics allocated to the detection of low-level, local sources of information, such as the manipulative properties of objects [17].



These properties, called ‘affordances’, are not intrinsic to objects but depend on their possible interactions with agents [18]. In its extended form [19] an affordance defines a relational property that emerges from matching the perceived physical features of an object (e.g. size, shape, texture, density) and the agent's biomechanical architecture, her goals, plans, values, beliefs, and past experiences. They are also described as dispositional states of the agent's nervous system [20]. Critically, affordances ‘suggest’ how one may interact with an object [21],  


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 28 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook