scientificflair | 007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]

Entry tags:

007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]

[AUDIO]

[More violin music over Descole's feed today; it's an incredibly simplified version of Song of the Stars - although really, someone ought to teach him the Jeopardy theme, considering how much that instrument gets whipped out when he's feeling like bombarding the network with both the fact that he can't hold all his feels, and he has something best described as "pseudo-philosophical what" to say.

As before, he plays for a while before the melody fades and shifts into something long and drawn-out, idling while he speaks; the sound is quieter, as though the violin has been directed away from the 'Gear a bit.]

There's a famous thought experiment that poses the following:

Imagine yourself standing outside a large field; you see, in the distance, what looks to you to be a specific animal - for simplicity's sake, let's say a bull. You then form the belief that there is a bull in the field. And you are correct - there is, indeed, a bull in the field. However, the bull is lying down behind a hill, just outside your line of vision; you can't see it from your current position. Moreover, what you actually saw was a tarp that had gotten tangled over a bush; from outside the field, it looked like a bull, but actually wasn't anything of the sort.

Again, you were factually correct, and you had a well-justified true belief that there was a bull in the field. However, can you really say you knew?

[He pauses for a moment, continuing to play quietly while he thinks.]

And if you were to find yourself in such a situation - where a belief is true and well-justified, and yet the proof of it being true isn't where you believe it is - would you say that your belief was any less valid?

[And with that, the feed cuts off.]

[PRIVATE TEXT TO FLUTTERSHY]

Miss Fluttershy,

I have something to ask you, should it not be an inconvenience.

[PRIVATE TEXT TO COLONEL ARCHER]

There's something that we need to discuss.

Now.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Given that it's based solely on what I've observed, it's hardly a cheap insult.

And it's hardly a conspiracy theory, either - I'm going to prove this.

Then this gift should be proof that you two don't need to be negative anymore.

Maybe with your music!!! You can give her a special performance, a solo concert, only for her!!!

[...flutters bb how do you always come up with these things well before he does

i mean he approves but dear lord]

...that's actually a rather good idea, now that you mention it. She's said something about wanting something like that before, I believe.

[she's been hanging out with the smartest pony for years it kinda rubs off]

That's wonderful!!! I'm sure she will like it a lot!!! You are very good with music!!!

Ah, one of those perspective reality questions. I remember those from intro to philosophy.

[Well, the violin is still going, though he doesn't sound quite as agitated when he replies.]

You would be surprised at how many are unfamiliar here; it's honestly refreshing to find someone who's heard of it.

Most people here are kids, after all. Junior high and elementary students don't get introduced to that. Though my age group can be just as bad.

[The shrug in his tone is evident enough.]

I think what the question really comes down to is how much it matters whether or not that's a bull. It would matter to a farmer or a hungry predator, but to a passerby, that bull's existence doesn't hold any impact. You only need to know if it matters.

[It is so strange to see all this exuberance coming from the Possessor Of The Quietest "Yay" In The World, but he has to admit it's nice, all right.]

I appreciate it. It's one of the things I've studied for quite some time now.

I'm glad I could help.

But that does remind me.

Do you want a gift for this Christmas holiday? We don't have it back home, but from what I understand, I think I'm allowed to give you something.

Most of those I've associated with haven't been in that particular age bracket; however, I think that's more a matter of circumstance than anything.

[You don't see too many children in this organization.]

However, in terms of that answer...it's fair enough, though you could say the same for just about every philosophical question that can be posed - unless your stance itself is that literally everything in life is relative, of course.

[Nisei has been getting himself set up nicely before kissing up to the more experienced Rockets, as-is.]

The only philosophy I can ascribe to with confidence is that everything is subjective. Everyone's living in their own worlds, based on how they perceive things.

So for that bull question, in that person's reality, it's a bull. Unless it matters enough for them to look and make sure, it's a bull, and it'll always be one. Only when it holds any relevance would you make sure that what you saw was really what you thought you saw.

[...o-oh. Well.

...oh.]

...you don't have to do that, but you're certainly allowed.

I would like to. We're friends now, and I like you. I hope you'll like it.

[you will be getting one Soothe Bell, to help strengthen friendships with Pokemon! since you had trouble in that department and all.]

[...oh boy, there goes the craydar. Nothing against you at this point, Nisei, but in Descole's experience, the last several people who have mentioned views like that here have turned out to be raging sociopaths.]

And yet not everything can be dismissed as being subjective - there comes a point where perceptions among individuals overlap, leading to things like a generally accepted concept of ethics or morality.

To say nothing of the part where the view "everything is subjective" is self-contradictory and generally seen as the easy way out by those who are too busy being edgy to understand the fallacy.

I suppose I might find myself asking why it matters if I "knew", really. If my belief caused me to reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was ultimately factually true, isn't that somewhat analogous to "the ends justify the means"? Perhaps the factually true result justifies the belief, regardless of its mistaken premise.

[Well, he's associated with a raging sociopath, does that count?]

There's a difference between the consensus and subjective reality. Perceptions might seem to overlap, but everyone experiences something differently. Different emotions, different interpretations, so on and so forth. And no matter what language, there are usually no words to describe your personal experience as you feel it. Since everyone perceives everything differently, you'd think we'd all be excluded from one another. But culture works a consensus, which a lot of people ascribe to. Still, though, people interpret even the consensus reality in different ways. The fact that there's varying different scales of morality is proof of that.

Those are two really different ideas, though. Overlapping them is messy.

Edited (pulling the argument together just a little more...) 2012-12-08 22:24 (UTC)

[...oh good lord he will not know what to do with that asjkhfsgfdjsgh what does he do with you

admittedly he was going to get you something anyway

but still oh my god]

Well. Consider it appreciated, then.

[................he sucks at this sort of thing, hang on]

I'm rather fond of you as well, you know. You've been very kind.

Thank you very much. I am glad I got to know you. You can be very kind too.

[...you. He likes you. That violin is still going to be playing a bit, but he's considering what's being said, at least.]

I'm rather inclined to agree with you, actually; at the same time, while I do admit that not all thought experiments have a practical application and to attempt to ascribe them one can defeat the purpose, in several cases the way a conclusion came about can be more than a bit vital to people considering the validity of the conclusion itself.

[This is a guy who legitimately believed winning a junior varsity regional tennis championship would mean his captain's lifesaving surgery would be successful. MISTAKEN PREMISES EVERYWHERE, BATMAN.]

That's true. I might answer differently if the circumstances of the hypothetical were something a bit more consequential than the presence of a bull in a field. But that still comes back to the same question — is it ultimately the fact that matters, or is it how I came to reach it?

For centuries men believed the sun revolved around the earth. They formed conclusions based on this premise. Eventually, they came to accept that in fact the earth revolved around the sun, because it explained those same conclusions, plus others that the previous model couldn't. But are the conclusions explained by a flawed model any less true than the ones ultimately explained by an accurate one? That depends on if your concern is really with the conclusion, or if it's actually with the model.

[...honey you have no idea

no idea

and the impending canon update is just going to make it worse]

Most wouldn't agree with you on that front, though there are a few who are worth the effort, I suppose.

[...it might. Depends on how closely associated we're talking.]

Messy, yes, but not irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Let me phrase it this way for you, then - is it possible, in your opinion, that this "everything is subjective, everyone perceives everything differently" mindset is something that's exclusive to a few? I'm not asking whether you believe it to be necessarily true, simply whether you can acknowledge it as a possibility.

Worth the effort?

[...that is the sort of special that demands headpats and a brownie, holy shit.]

Again, that's all true in theory. At the same time, would you use the flawed model to explain your conclusion in any sort of formal setting? It doesn't render the conclusion any less true, no, but context is unarguably vital, particularly in a matter like what you've described regarding scientific fact.

[Thank you but he would really prefer the gold medal and avoidance of TEN THOUSAND YEARS OF SHAME, all things considered.]

So, to use the bull example again — in a formal setting, I say, "there is a bull in that field." When asked to explain how I arrived at that conclusion, I would answer, "because I saw a bull in it." If we later investigated, we'd discover that there was indeed a bull there, rendering my conclusion true, but that what I had seen was a tarp, rendering my explanation false.

Diagrammed out that way, I can't see how I could use anything other than the flawed model, really — since I don't know it's flawed until we investigate, and I have no reason to believe that what I saw wasn't a bull. And while the outcome of it might be that I would have reason to question my bull-spotting skills in the future, that's a different consideration than whether or not there really was a bull there in the first place.

I hope you'll pardon my attempt at laying things out in this way; it's undeniably a complicated problem, and I admit I'm attempting to work through my own conclusions even as we discuss them.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 5

007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]

[TEXT - PRIVATE]

Private Text

Private Text

Private Text

[Audio]

[Audio] WOW REAVER GET OUT

[Audio]

Private Text

Private Text

[Audio]

[Audio]

Private Text

Private Text

[Audio]

audio;

[Audio]

Private Text

Private Text

audio;

audio;

Private Text

[Audio]

Private Text

audio;

audio;