Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Both evolution and development (of neurological understanding, in this case) do not go fully automatically - they depend on information provided. RAW was right about the III circuit types that existed 10 years ago - and his statement is still correct for most of III circuit persons today. But even RAW's way of presenting is rational enough to change minds of many III circuit types, on purely logical grounds even. That happened to me, you may say. I think that even Dawkins can be made less skeptical on this issue, if he cares. Scientists do have inertia as well, as RAW observed - but the inertia is smaller than the other inertias, and getting smaller with time (or richness of science history).

Now, referring to your post below, regarding the Birthday paradox and the quote:

But the main purpose of school education (and I would be wholly happy just with that) is to help students to realize that scientific logic is something different than everyday practical-empirical logic.

I've seen how pupils think, and I have helped some with wcience or mathematics. I do mean that the III circuit is best suitable for science, while many people probably try to comprehend science using only the first two circuits. For me, that is the source of the common "ununderstanding of science". The thing is, the "knowledge" of the first 2 circuits is imprinted (in structure) plus empirical (in content). The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The third circuit is "designed" for symbolic manipulations. You learn a language (especially the mother tongue) just by learning how things have to be said, and detecting formal generalizations, without worrying much why the words or grammar have to be like that. The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", een contrarily to intuition. Say, physisists use quantum mechanics without understanding it - philosophically they are still baffled with well-known paradoxes; but they can use the quantum machinery to design 90% of modern technology, still without objective contradictions. Similarly, pure mathematians don't spend much time "fully comprehending" every birthday paradox, since they won't get much further otherwise. It is nothing wrong with spending time digging into such a paradox - that does not mean that you don't use the 3rd circuit, it merely means that you let other circuits to play with that paradox. As far as the 3rd circuit is concerned, there is only so much to the birthday paradox... That is why I am optimistic about the 3rd circuit types: they can accept an assumption without fully "aggreeing" with it.

(If you want a bit of extra intuition for the birthday paradox, consider this: when you have 23 people, you have 23*22/2=253 pairs of people. You have 253 pairs, compared to 365 possible pairs of your birthday and any other birthday... 253/365 is already much bigger than 1/2, right? But the probability goes to 1/2 because the 253 are apparently not independent.)

by das monde on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 10:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", even contrarily to intuition.

I'd like to ponder this more, but for now how about: If reality and your intuitions are in disagreement, you need to change your intuitions.  But you still need intuitions.

For a circuit III type accepting an assumption without necessarily agreeing with it because the method produces solid results....I'm not sure about this.  It maybe (probably is) a prejudice of mine that you risk having people who will "act on orders" without pondering first--which is maybe a good thing sometimes, or certainly if you want quick forward movement, but I'm not sure that's the best way for students.  I know you sometimes have to take things "on faith", but that usually means "without understanding them".  I like the idea of students coming across information that doesn't agree with their intuitions, and then the students stopping and examining their intuitions to see why and how they aren't in agreement with this apparently non-intuitive information about/from reality.

I'm nae sure.  The kids might get bored.  You only have so much time and so many kids with different skill levels etc.

Are there any particular scenarios you're thinking of where someone going against their intuition on the basis of science they don't understand (but which "works") is helped in some way that "by using their intuition" they aren't?

If we're to relate this to politics, a circuit II attack might be: "Your enemies are different to you.  The more different, the worse they might be.  Strangers are different."  And then we can point out some enemies.

But a typical (Cheney?) circuit III attack might be: "Your intuition tells you that starting a war is wrong, but here are some facts that run counter to your intuition--I know you don't understand them completely, but don't worry about that for now."  

Ach...those are my first thoughts.  Mainly, I'd say that re-adjusting one's intuitions so that they are again in tune with information from reality is an important part of the process of adjusting to new information.  I'm thinking that rather than ameliorating to move a bit faster (in more or less the same direction), it would be more efficient to slow down and ponder more at key stages in order to then change paradigms...no...I mean in order to grow "out" of a small(er) way of thinking.

I cannae explain it, I know, but I see what you mean: circuit III is where people can start working with systems that seem "strange" and therefore unnatural.  Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the negative is that's being made positive, as it seems everyone is happy using a mobile phone without really understanding much at all about the tech. behind it...heh...boy can I waffle.  More later, maybe.  Plenty to think about.


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", even contrarily to intuition.

I'd like to ponder this more, but for now how about: If reality and your intuitions are in disagreement, you need to change your intuitions.  But you still need intuitions.

For a circuit III type accepting an assumption without necessarily agreeing with it because the method produces solid results....I'm not sure about this.

Your post makes me think about what physicists call "physical intuition" - maybe I need to write a diary about it but I feel disinclined to do it. Das monde said before that physicists don't understand quantum mechanics but they can still make it work. I don't think that's true any more, we've had too many generations of physicists educated in a quantum mechanics that was known to work, and who have developed an intuition. Same thing for Einstein's relativity.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, regarding physicists, I might be simplifying their non-intuition towards quantum mechanics greatly - I am not in that soup really. But I think that the non-local phenomena (entaglement, EPR experiments, Bell's theorem) are still baffling to their intuitions. The best course is to go forward constructing new gadgets and consequences, it appears.

My understanding is that empirical intuition is based on "deja vu" (including genetic deja vu). If you have a phenomenon which is unlike anything you ever experienced before, there comes a problem of satisfactory understanding. Quantum mechanics is difficult because it is hard to model it by anything else. (As regarding cellphones - a trivial remark is that most people are just happy to understand how to use them.)

But intuition may come not only from the empirical lower circuits, but from higher circuits as well. Say, in "Quantum Psychology" RAW claims complete equivalence of quantum mechanics and psychology (starting from subjectivity or experiences or measurements, the "maybe" logic, and going up to Big-bang non-locality against highest perceptions). He appears to be teasingly exhaggerating here: by his own philosophy, "complete equivalence" is an Aristotelian notion, not to be measured. Any model map is not the whole territory, whether we model quantum mechanics by deep psychology or vice versa. My rational supposition at the moment is that the higher circuits perceive some general but deep patterns beyond usual empirical experience, and quantum mechanics fits in those patterns (and deep cognitive psychology fits those pattenrs as well). It would follow then that higher circuits may help a lot to understand quantum mechanics "fully".

The 3rd circuit (if well programmed) is able to make assumptions even without practical results, just for a matter of thought experiments. I find myself in no difficulty to keep a few sets of assumptions about ongoing events (if I am really interested in those events), and adjust plausibility of various assumptions with new facts. But my habit to "keep options open" appears to be a drawback for corporate purposes, I was told.

Regardin Cheney's manipulation of the 3rd circuit, yeah, it works. It is admirable to teach people to detect bullshit, but then the problem appears to be that bullshit detection is applied inconsistently. For example, in 2000 Gore's positions were regurlarly perceived (}or presented) as bullshit, while Bush was treated admirably, exactly because bullshit detection was directed straight against Gore and away from Bush - by big efforts of the conservative-libertarian talnking heads in the media.

For the beginning, someone has to call Cheney's bullshit. It is amazing how conservatives were successful in ridiculing liberals' concerns while getting away with their own "fearsome" issues, while liberals were unable to do anything opposite.

by das monde on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 11:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I think that the non-local phenomena (entaglement, EPR experiments, Bell's theorem) are still baffling to their intuitions.

There are no non-local phenomena. Unless, of course, you insist on naive realism (defined as counterfactual definiteness and non-contextuality).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 11:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm... ok, non-locality is just another Aristotelian excuse. But those counter-intuitive experiments and facts are still counter-intuitive, or what?

To extend quantization intuition on mathematical level, some try to generalize localization functors to non-commutative algebras...

by das monde on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations basically tell you physical observables form a noncommutative algebra.

When you look beyond your past experience you're likely to encounter things that are counter-intuitive. "Counter-intuitive" is a statement about your intuition, not about the phenomena.

The real problem is not quantum behaviour, but the "classical limit". I think decoherence and consistent histories go a long way towards solving that.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 02:56:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is the "classical limit" the same problem as the measurmement problem, where the disctinction between determenistic wave evolution and a "mesurement" is not clear? Bell says that that Bohm's model (a particle riding a wave) solves this issue, but then "non-local" interpretations are weird.

Above that, is objectivity of the "real world" is now clear?

by das monde on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 10:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IMHO the measurement problem stems from von Neumann's introduction of a "collapse of the wavefunction" axiom in his (1931?) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Personally, I go for Everett's "relative state" formulation. But that has ontological problems.

Bohm's model works for spinless, newtonian particles. I am not aware of a workable generalisation of Bohm's "pilot wave" formulation to quantum fields, variable unmbers of particles, or particles with spin or internal degrees of freedom.

The "classical limit" is related, but not the same, as the measurement problem. It is related because we describe "measurement" in terms of macroscopic objects. Imagining that von Neumann's "collapse" applies to any interaction that one might call a "measurement" leads to the quantum zeno paradox. But the quantum zeno paradox assumes that interactions are instantaneous, which is unphysical.

The fact is, every single counterintuitive or paradoxical prediction of quantum mechanics that has been tested experimentally has been confirmed, so when I say above that a particular interpretation on quantum mechanics has "ontological problems" I have to wonder whether it's not Ontology that has experimental problems.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What issue is Bohm's model "solving", by the way? It gives exactly the same experimental predictions as "ordinary" quantum mechanics. So the issue is not actually empirically motivated.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, the issue must be to feed ontology, or intuition. Thank for discussion!
by das monde on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 05:37:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The best course is to go forward constructing new gadgets and consequences, it appears.

This is where I'm not so sure.  I'd rather humanity--and in particular the scientific part of it--pondered a while the implications of what we're discovering rather than just using the "magic" to create ever-more-powerful devices for the status quo.  I think the new intuitions call into question most strongly the assumptions/intuitions of the status quo.  Heh heh...that's sorta where I'm coming from.  Think of DeAnander's regular dismantling of status quo assumptions.  I'd like every last scientist to be dismantling like crazy, building a new zeitgeist (?) for scientists that ties to the new intuitions, coz out of that I--well, I'm very optimistic about what rapid benefits....spreading rapidly in waves, complex shapes, using chaos knowledge...that kinda thing...distributed renewable energy systems, transportation, housing.  Yet I think (I could be wrong, this is not my field) the majority of people involved in science get their money from the circuit III "onwards as before" logic.

And, das monde!  You understand RAW much better than me; and yeah, I think he knows there are contradictions in what he proposes, but that's, I think, because there's something inherently contradictory about using writing as a primary communication tool at certain levels or in certain areas...the paradox of teaching what can't be taught...buddhist koans, that kinda thing...but I'm very glad he worked at it.

It is admirable to teach people to detect bullshit

I didn't pick up that you saw science that way.  I don't think it is how most people experience their science education.  I'm wondering what the circuit III is expected to use to balance their various models against.  If Cheney says, "It's too complicated to understand, but believe me," how do we call "Bullshit"?  On what grounds?  If there were some clear way of calling it, a way that couldn't be disputed by other "rationales"...but them's be politics.

I think the best (the only?) way of creating an unbreakable bullshit detector is for the grounding to be in intuition based on constant lived reality.  I mean, someone who knows plenty of people from Iran will hear bullshit much earlier than someone who has never met anyone from the middle east.  Only higher, wider, deeper, there's something about how society is constructed that is circuit III/IV, and we've reached the end of that, I think.  7 billion people is enough growth.  Now we need different intuitions...hey!

My rational supposition at the moment is that the higher circuits perceive some general but deep patterns beyond usual empirical experience

I don't think they are beyond empirical experience; I think the higher circuit model is to show that empirical experience is in evolution or development...that we are capable of empirically experiences much wider, higher, etc.  This reminds me of what TBG wrote, something along the lines that drugs are a day trip, but if you want to go live in the new country--that's harder.  But there is, indeed a new country, and the people who live there are, I think, quicker, more efficient, less "weighty" (the car=old tech., so weighty, that kinda thing), more connected (there's that quantum idea--everything is connected; everything influences everything else; everything is local--heh, I'm a circuit III reading runes and maybe trying to make a few day trips, and liking the country I visit, hoping my kids will learn from these circuit V people, that kinda thing.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
beyond usual empirical experience

Yeah...  Heh, I got carried away there.  Reading comprehension: the art of.  Must re-read.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I talked about bullshit because you mentioned Cheney, not because I extend the discussion on science. But if we go into there, we have to discuss Feyerabend's bullshit about science's bullshit.

Bullshit detection is an art. Even if you teach students to detect bullshit, they may apply it inconsistently against you. Liberals can appeal to detect bullshit better, but conservatives can manipulate bullshit "detection" very well. Say, they call bullshit on climate change very easily(whether directly or by implication) and successfully. Also, they manipulate people's intuition (and searching for charisma) very well - manipulation is always a problem of any perception power.

To hide limits of my understanding, so much remarks this time :-)

by das monde on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To hide limits of my understanding, so much remarks this time :-)

heh...I think mine have been on full view.  

Enjoy your holidays!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series