Micah71381: You really like your MS Paint don't you? ;) I have to admit, the pictures are a nice change to the usual walls of text that describe the same topic as a picture could.
You really like your MS Paint don't you? ;) I have to admit, the pictures are a nice change to the usual walls of text that describe the same topic as a picture could.
Actually, my goal is to make it ALL pictures, a fully visual language. So I feel like I have to at least do this sometimes for now. Glad it helps!
Why anarchy fails
>>Actually, my goal is to make it ALL pictures, a fully visual language.
Egyptian stylee?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
"So you would not be happy to get more money in your account even if you couldn't tell how anyone decided to give it to you?"
I would be happy, but if getting the money in my account was indeed dependent on another person's purposive action, then the contemplation of topographical and spectographical data alone would not allow me to predict what would get the money in my account.
I believe StrangeLoop is saying there may be other ways to predict what someone will do. That doesn't mean a specific movement or a specific visual necessarily. It could be something like, "They will do something that gets money put in my account."
So the idea is that a completely non-teleological analysis of non-teleological processes can by itself predict something that happens to be completely teleological in nature (the purposive transference [and it is purposive, regardless of how little you care about it being purposive] of, not something distinctive according to its material properties alone, but media of exchange, the value of which depends on the complex preferences of billions of acting individuals)? The completely teleological event to be predicted can come in any one of trillions of different "causality colors". The completely causality-based inquiries upon which StrangeLoop would try to base his predictions would have to predict which "causality data" would be associated with the teleological thing to be predicted. But it can't because there isn't anything intrinsically related to the teleological thing to be predicted in the "causality data" themselves.
The practical applications of this are myriad and daily: I can predict that a female will come home with me with high accuracy if I hear certain noises from her. I need not - and don't - predict specific concrete visuals of her walking with me to a certain station and doing a certain thing, nor specific movements, other than the general change in location to my room. Yet I can predict this entirely through statistics: it has worked every time so far, so I am pretty confident it will work again. I don't need to know or ever consider the process teleologically. I can entirely comprehend the means without any teleological consideration at all. All I need is, "It worked before many times, so it will probably work this time."
How do you get those noises from her?
Actually, rather than focus on an entirely non-teleological explanation, why couldn't a fuller economic methodology allow for both (e.g., neuroeconomics)?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Daniel James Sanchez: "So you would not be happy to get more money in your account even if you couldn't tell how anyone decided to give it to you?" I would be happy, but if getting the money in my account was indeed dependent on another person's purposive action, then the contemplation of topographical and spectographical data alone would not allow me to predict what would get the money in my account.
How about statistical data? If you knew that making certain noises had worked to get money into your account many times before, that would allow you to predict with reasonable accuracy that it would work again.
Daniel James Sanchez:So the idea is that a completely non-teleological analysis of non-teleological processes can by itself predict something that happens to be completely teleological in nature...?
As I understand it, teleology is an approach, a mode of analysis as trulib put it. Epistemologically we cannot know that a process is "actually" teleological (more precisely, it wouldn't even make sense to say so), but rather the choice of whether to analyze something teleologically can prove more useful or less useful. I of course find a teleological analysis extremely useful, but there are other types of analysis that are useful as well, the simplest one being statistical analysis, of which there are two examples in this post.
Daniel James Sanchez:...the teleological thing to be predicted.
Daniel James Sanchez:The practical applications of this are myriad and daily: I can predict that a female will come home with me with high accuracy if I hear certain noises from her. I need not - and don't - predict specific concrete visuals of her walking with me to a certain station and doing a certain thing, nor specific movements, other than the general change in location to my room. Yet I can predict this entirely through statistics: it has worked every time so far, so I am pretty confident it will work again. I don't need to know or ever consider the process teleologically. I can entirely comprehend the means without any teleological consideration at all. All I need is, "It worked before many times, so it will probably work this time." How do you get those noises from her?
Sometimes that's the first contact I have of her. Almost always I do something that has worked before, usually just because it worked before. Sometimes I try to understand what she's thinking. Only the last one involves teleology.
Let me try to flesh out the point I feel like you're making:
No matter what neurobiology may tell us, it will never tell us about actual subjective experience of an actor. But that is just what we want to know about: their subjective experiences of preference, profit, etc.
Indeed, it is not possible even in principle for neuroscience tell us what someone is subjectively experiencing.
But I don't think that is just what we want to know about, necessarily. At least, there are other things we might want to know, that might in principle be able to help us make predictions. As an investor, I may want to know if I can get someone to sell me his company. It would be useful to know things about his subjective experience, like what his preferences are. But that is a means to an end; I only want to know about his preferences so I can better predict what he will do. If I had any other way to gain even a little bit more confidence about what he will do, I would like to know it also.
Of course, there are myriad pieces of information that fit the bill. Maybe the fact that he's wearing a tie tells me, on the example of my own consciousness, that if I wear a tie to the negotiations instead of a hoopskirt, he will be more likely to give me the deal I want. That would be a teleological analysis. But I may not even know why it works but simply have a rule of thumb from past experience that wearing the same attire gives me a higher chance of closing the deal. That would be a non-teleological analysis.
But I think the deeper point is that there is no such thing as a teleological phenomenon*, except if that means a phenomenon the speaker or the given actor in question are considering as teleological.
*Besides of course one's own actions.
nirgrahamUK: >>Actually, my goal is to make it ALL pictures, a fully visual language. Egyptian stylee?
Instead of pictures arranged in a linear fashion like text to make a sentence, it would be more like one 2D diagram is a sentence. Venn diagrams and Euler diagrams are examples of a visual language element, saying something like (in words) "All dogs are animals, but no cats are dogs." There are also sometimes cartoons that do it to an extent, like the one below that might be something like (in words) "I am worried that there will be a thunderstorm." It is all pretty primitive, but I would just like to extend that to everything, or as far as possible.
Update on the post immediately above: This is a great example of a non-linear diagrammatic language. More on this from the same guy here.