Late
morning. It was cool and very cloudy this morning so you decided it would be a
good day for a movie, one of both of your favorites, Bond. Lunch will be at
Panera next to the Regency Theatre off Rt. 19 and Gandy. Here you are on the
balcony and most of the clouds have dispersed. The half moon is higher in the
west by northwest, closer to forty degrees off the horizon. The placid Gulf is
giant blotches of greens and blues. Few birds and people, no dolphins. A quite
striking orange and black laced monarch butterfly popped into the scene and
out, a few gulls showing up in the lull, here are two pelicans, and wouldn't
you know, a few more people.- Amorella
1105
hours. Nothing is on my mind, Amorella, but receiving a short, kind and
thoughtful note from Kay who read a reference to herself in a recent blog. Such
are friends-in-the-heart. Childhood fantasies can remain true in later real
life and I feel blessed to be a part of such relationships.
You write this so casually when it means so
much. Why is that? - Amorella
I
do not know that it is casual, the thought runs much deeper.
Meanings are not so easily translated boy,
and that will be the subject for The Brothers - 7. You can thank Kay for it.
Later, dude. Enjoy lunch and the film. Post.- Amorella
Almost
dusk. Carol and Linda drove to Sam's to shop for Sunday dinner. Carol is going
to make her mother's version spaghetti pie. You both enjoyed the Bond film,
"Skyfall" and you just read a note from Craig and Alta saying they
were seeing the film today also, sheorhe said, 'Great minds think alike.' There
is a truth to this old adage though the 'great' doesn't have to be there. You
want to call it 'parallel thinking' but I have a more descriptive word for it,
'induced thought'. - Amorella
I
looked up 'induce' in case I was missing something. I was thinking the first
definition on the Oxford-American "1. succeed in persuading or influencing
(someone) to do something;" yet I can see that is not correct because my
writing an email to Craig and Alta mentioning the upcoming day does not count
as they were going to the film today no matter whether they knew we were going or
not. And, it works the other way too. We went not knowing they were going to go
to the Bond film today. No connection other than coincidence. This leave the
fourth definition of 'induce', "4. Logic derived by inductive
reasoning."
Inductive
reasoning is reasoning from detailed facts to general principles. Taking this
further a jump to Wikipedia better completes 'my' background on inductive
reason. It does not however concur with your 'induced thought' Amorella.
Carry through orndorff then I will explain
myself. - Amorella
**
**
Induction
Main article: Problem
of induction
Inductive reasoning has been criticized
by thinkers as diverse as Sextus Empiricus and Karl Popper.
The classic philosophical treatment of
the problem of induction was given by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume
highlighted the fact that our everyday habits of mind depend on drawing
uncertain conclusions from our relatively limited experiences rather than on
deductively valid arguments. For example, we believe that bread will nourish us
because it has done so in the past, despite no guarantee that it will do so.
Hume argued that it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning: specifically,
that it cannot be justified deductively, so our only option is to justify it
inductively. Since this is circular he concluded that it is impossible to
justify induction.
However, Hume then stated that even if
induction were proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So instead
of a position of severe skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based
on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted.
Bias
Inductive reasoning is also known as
hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on current
knowledge and predictions. As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the
proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from
forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these
biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world
bias.
The availability heuristic causes the
reasoner to depend primarily upon information that is readily available to
him/her. People have a tendency to rely on information that is easily
accessible in the world around them. For example, in surveys, when people are
asked to estimate the percentage of people who died from various causes, most
respondents would choose the causes that have been most prevalent in the media
such as terrorism, and murders, and airplane accidents rather than causes such
as disease and traffic accidents, which have been technically "less
accessible" to the individual since they are not emphasized as heavily in
the world around him/her.
The confirmation bias is based on the
natural tendency to confirm rather than to deny a current hypothesis. Research
has demonstrated that people are inclined to seek solutions to problems that
are more consistent with known hypotheses rather than attempt to refute those
hypotheses. Often, in experiments, subjects will ask questions that seek answers
that fit established hypotheses, thus confirming these hypotheses. For example,
if it is hypothesized that Sally is a sociable individual; subjects will
naturally seek to confirm the premise by asking questions that would produce
answers confirming that Sally is in fact a sociable individual.
The predictable-world bias revolves
around the inclination to perceive order where it has not been proved to exist.
A major aspect of this bias is superstition, which is derived from the
inability to acknowledge that coincidences are merely coincidences.
Gambling, for example, is one of the most obvious forms of predictable-world
bias. Gamblers often begin to think that they see patterns in the outcomes and,
therefore, believe that they are able to predict outcomes based upon what they
have witnessed. In reality, however, the outcomes of these games are difficult,
if not impossible to predict. The perception of order arises from wishful
thinking. Since people constantly seek some type of order to explain or justify
their beliefs and experiences, it is difficult for them to acknowledge that the
perceived or assumed order may be entirely different from that they believe
they are experiencing.
Edited from Wikipedia
- 'Inductive reasoning'
** **
1739
hours. Everything agreeable with
me I underlined above.
You are at the condo after having supper
with Linda, Bill and Jen at the "old 1950's Florida" Crab Shack just
west of the Gandy Bridge. You gassed up at Hess for $3.18 a gallon so you are
set for meeting Kim, Paul, Owen and Brennan at Tampa International on the early
Saturday afternoon to drop off the base of Brennan's car seat. An hour from now
the first of your two programs begins, "Person of Interest" and then
"Elementary" on CBS.
Carol
is washing clothes and watching the Ed Show on MSNBC. You are not oriented to
write at this time. However, back to 'induced thought' for a moment -- this is
what I am, boy. And, you, following David Hume's thinking are the practical
skeptic. For instance you see Craig and Alta deciding to see
"Skyfall" today, just as you and Carol decided to do so is
coincidence nothing more. However, you see me as an assumed
'order-of-heartansoulanmind' because that is what I am. You accept me, the
Amorella, as a personification of 'wishful thinking' to justify your subjective
and objective experiences not your beliefs. At one time you believed-it-was-possible
that you were 'connecting' with angelic forces, but not today. Today you are
connecting with your 'inner self' not angelic forces. You are leaning Buddhist
as a natural course of personal thought and action. - Amorella
We
will see this being batted around in the dialogue between Robert and Richard.
Think of these paragraphs as clouds in the sky, boy. Is there going to be rain,
lightning and thunder? You'll have to wait until tomorrow to see which way the
wind blows. Relax for tonight. - Post. - Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment