For
most of the morning you were in an arthritic funk caused by cool temperatures,
humidity and rain. You took a pain pill, slept, had a hot bath and are feeling
better.
Mid-afternoon. You and Carol had usual late
lunches at Smashburgers and are now over at the far north end of Pine Hill
Lakes Park facing the sixty-foot tall fully treed hill to your west. - Amorella
(1454)
We walked down (about fifty feet) to the park branch of Muddy Creek and the
water is up three feet and roaring though. In our younger days we would have
taken a canoe out on such rapid water. We did once after spring rains on the
Little Miami at the Morgan Canoe launch; and one other time, again in the
spring, with David and Marsha up in the Mount Vernon area of Ohio. I'll bet the
Little Miami is up too.
1526
hours. I was reading through Pouch 18 and I found a few lines that would fit
right in with the topic suggested. (This is so amazing to me [still] that there
are connections from one selection to the next. There is no way I would even
attempt to remember all these sections together or separate. Once each section
is completed and let it go until the next time it comes up.) Here are the
lines:
** **
In the course of the
conversation something stuck out to Blake that would change his life, Yermey
had said, "the machinery allows us to see who we really are," to
which Friendly countered, "it helps us to analysis are private agendas in
advance of action."
From: Pouch
18 draft, GMG.1
** **
How
can the machinery allow people to 'see' who they really are, their
heartsansoulsanminds? It appears an impossibility.
How do you see yours? - Amorella
1536 hours. I do not know other than
you show me through induction. Inductive reasoning via Wikipedia Offline:
** **
Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a
kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are
abstractions of observations of individual instances of members of the same
class. Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning in that a general
conclusion is arrived at by specific examples.
Definition of inductive reasoning
However, philosophically the
definition is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular /
individual instances to wider generalizations. Rather, the premises of an
inductive logical argument
indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but
do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this
manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual
instances.
Though many dictionaries define
inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific
observations, this usage is outdated.
Examples of inductive reasoning
This is an example of inductive
reasoning:
90% of humans
are right-handed
Joe is a human
Therefore, the probability that
Joe is right-handed is 90%.
Probability is employed, for
example, in the following argument:
Every life
form we know of depends on liquid water to exist.
All life
depends on liquid water to exist.
However, induction is employed in
the following argument:
Every life
form that everyone knows of depends on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, all
known life depends on liquid water to exist.
Inductive vs. deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning allows for
the possibility that the conclusion be false, even where all of the premises
are true. The previous deduction was a false assertion of inductive reasoning
based on the weak inductive conjecture of John Vickers.
His example is as follows:
All of the
swans we have seen are white.
All swans are
white.
The previous statement is an
example of probabilistic reasoning, which is a weak type of induction. It is
not an example of Strong Inductive Reasoning.
A proper example of inductive
reasoning is as follows:
All of the
swans that all living beings have ever seen are white
Therefore, all
swans are white.
Note that this definition of inductive
reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is considered to be a form of deductive reasoning.
Strong and weak induction
The words 'strong' and 'weak' are
sometimes used to praise or demean the quality of an inductive argument. The
idea is that you say, "This is an example of strong induction," when
you would decide to believe the conclusion if presented with the premises.
Alternatively, you say "that is weak induction" when your particular
worldview does not allow you to see that the conclusions are likely given the
premises.
Strong induction
The equation
"the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational
constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them
squared," has allowed us to describe the rate of fall of all objects we
have observed.
Therefore:
The
gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times
the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
The conclusion of this argument
is not absolutely certain, even given the premise. At speeds we normally
experience, Newtonian mechanics holds quite well. But at speeds approaching
that of light, the Newtonian system is not accurate and the conclusion in that
case would be false. However, since, in most cases that we experience, the
premise as stated would usually lead to the conclusion given, we are logical in
calling this argument an instance of strong induction.
Even very strong inductions are
potentially flawed interpretations of the truth, however reasonable and logical
they might appear.
Weak induction
Consider this example:
I always hang
pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures
hang from nails.
Here, the link between the
premise and the conclusion is very weak. Not only is it possible for the conclusion
to be false given the premise, it is even fairly likely that the conclusion is
false. Not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are
hung. Thus we say that this argument is an instance of weak induction.
The previous is an example of
probabilistic reasoning, which employs weak induction. Therefore the previous
example is closer to an example of probabilistic reasoning rather than
Induction. Weak Induction is merely a type of conjecture, not a proof.
Does induction really exist?
Inductive reasoning has been
attacked for millennia 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 every day 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.
Inductive reasoning certainly cannot be justified deductively, and so our only
option is to justify it inductively. However, to justify induction inductively is
circular. Therefore, it is impossible to justify induction.
However, Hume immediately argued
that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would have to rely on it. So
he took a middle road. Rather than approach everything with 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 educated
predictions. There are three biases that could distort the proper application
of induction, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the best, most
logical conclusion based on the clues. These biases include the availability
bias, the confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.
The availability bias 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 always
entirely random. There is no order. Since people constantly seek some type of
order to explain human experiences, it is difficult for people to acknowledge
that order may be nonexistent.
Types of inductive reasoning
Generalization
A generalization (more
accurately, an inductive generalization) proceeds from a premise about a
sample to a conclusion about the population.
The proportion
Q of the sample has attribute A.
Therefore:
The proportion
Q of the population has attribute A.
Example
There are 20 balls--either black
or white--in an urn. To estimate their respective numbers, you draw a sample of
four balls and find that three are black and one is white. A good inductive
generalization would be that there are 15 black, and five white, balls in the
urn.
How much the premises support the
conclusion depends upon (a) the number in the sample group compared to the
number in the population and (b) the degree to which the sample represents the
population (which may be achieved by taking a random sample). The hasty
generalization and the biased sample are generalization fallacies.
Simple
induction
Simple induction proceeds from a
premise about a sample group to a conclusion about another individual.
Proportion Q
of the known instances of population P has attribute A.
Individual I
is another member of P.
Therefore:
There is a
probability corresponding to Q that I has A.
This is a combination of a
generalization and a statistical syllogism, where the conclusion of the
generalization is also the first premise of the statistical syllogism.
Argument from analogy
The process of analogical
inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from
this basis inferring that they also share some further property:
P and Q are
similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
Object P has
been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q
probably has property x also.
Analogical reasoning is very
frequent in common sense, science, philosophy and the humanities, but sometimes
it is accepted only as an auxiliary method. A refined approach is case-based
reasoning.
Causal inference
A causal inference draws a
conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence
of an effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can indicate a
causal relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to
establish the exact form of the causal relationship.
Prediction
A prediction draws a conclusion
about a future individual from a past sample.
Proportion Q
of observed members of group G have had attribute A.
Therefore:
There is a
probability corresponding to Q that other members of group G will have
attribute A when next observed.
Bayesian inference
As a logic of induction rather
than a theory of belief, Bayesian inference does not determine which beliefs
are a priori rational, but rather determines how we should rationally
change the beliefs we have when presented with evidence. We begin by committing
to a (really any) hypothesis, and when faced with evidence, we adjust the
strength of our belief in that hypothesis in a precise manner using Bayesian
logic.
Inductive inference
Around 1960, Ray Solomonoff founded
the theory of universal inductive inference, the theory of prediction based on
observations; for example, predicting the next symbol based upon a given series
of symbols. This is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor.
Explanation Below:
[Occam's razor (also
written as Ockham's razor) is the English equivalent of the Latin lex
parsimoniae --- the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a
principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the
fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
Overview
The principle is often summarized
as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more
complex one." In practice, the application of the principle often shifts
the burden of proof in a discussion: the razor asserts that suggests one should
proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater
explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.
Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be
nuanced.] --
Fundamental ingredients of the
theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity.
Selected and edited from
Wikipedia Offline
** **
1815 hours I have edited from the
material you selected. We spent time driving around (about thirty miles)
looking at the high water at various locations in Warren County. We also
stopped at the Black Barn in Lebanon for our first ears of fresh corn on the
cob, which I shucked for a part of supper tonight.
2120 hours.
We watched both ABC and NBC News tonight with a focus on the plane crash
landing at SF and the train accident in Canada. Then we watched a DVRed
"Zero Hour" to help us catch up with the series. So far it reminds me
of a loose "cross" between Raiders of the Lost Ark and The
Boys from Brazil. Just a couple of minutes ago Carol called me out to see a
quite pretty sunset. Glad she did.
Earlier today Doug sent you a note and we
both responded, drop in here: - Amorella
** **
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2013
9:26 am
Subject: Self awareness of an alien mind
Dick, I was watching
"Thru the worm hole again". In this episode one scientist suggested
that his study of an octopus may give us a peek into an alien mind. It turns
out that each leg/arm of an octopus has its own neurons and thus brain. Each
brain communicates independently with the brain in the head. If you cut off an
arm it will try to escape from you while the rest of the animal is fine. The
researcher concluded that the octopus has consciousness, is intelligent and
maybe even self aware! So do aliens have a soul?
Doug
**
Doug, believe it or
not, I caught some of the same show but did not finish it. I can pick it up
through Time Warner but only on my iPad. I will have to watch the rest of it.
You bring up really good questions. Is consciousness a preclude [meant progression] for the soul? I
keep wanted to think of "how much consciousness" but perhaps it is
not in a 'cup' (half full, half empty). It is not a volume, cubic inches, etc.
Actually, in Pouch 19, which I am just beginning some of this is coming up. Is
it self-awareness that precludes the soul? Or, even the heart? One problem is
that I think of the heart and soul and mind as real entities in the story, so
much so that at times I think of them as 'real' in life, so much so as I would like
to catalogue them in some way as if they were not metaphysics.
Doug, this is
Amorella. In the Merlyn books to make a point, these aliens have
heartsansoulsanminds. In real life (outside of fiction) it stands to reason
since Earthlings are here others are here also. Soul will have to be further
defined as you bring up a good point about the octopus, perhaps one of
the characters can ask such a question and
we can see what Friendly and crew do with it.
Carol wants to
go to lunch so we are out of here in a few minutes. More later. I'll watch the
rest of the show. Interesting stuff! A playground of possibility here.
Dick
** **
2126
hours. I wrote "a preclude" but I meant "a progression" (an opposite meaning really) -- sad I
didn't note it before sending. This is an interesting turn in Pouch 19. I love
thinking about such things. Doug and I have always been able to bounce ideas
and concepts off each other. I still haven't finished the "Thru the
Wormhole" episode perhaps later tonight. I also like Amorella's tact to respond
to this in fiction. Good humor within a darkened frame.
Watch the rest of the episode. We can put parameters
around the soul just like anyone else can in storytelling. People who say,
"the soul is this, the soul is that," have no more of an idea than
you or Doug. Approximate analogies will do for the both of you for further thinking, speculation and entertainment. Post. - Amorella
2206
hours. Some kind soul in Europe was looking up an old posting so I decided to
see what I had written. It fits right in with the focus for Pouch 19. I forgot
all about this post. I just don't have the mind for remembering, but I thank
this generously curious reader for inadvertently reminding me. Here is a
selection from that post.
** **
03 AUGUST 2011
Notes - let them be / polite&honest / electric motor / sharable
thought
Mid-afternoon. You have an analogy?
I need a diagram/schematic of a simple electric motor. The
problem with heartansoulanmind is that the body is not included – with the body
you have four basic elements. As such how should I arrange them? An order, most
basic to complex?
Soul; Body; Mind; and
Heart. – Amorella.
This is not what I expected. I was
thinking: soul; heart; body and mind.
Even though the heart is
not the blood-pumper, the soul enters the body once it is dispatched separately
into the universe. That’s how it is in here. Next, consciousness/mind. Heart is
what you (as a body) do with the soulanmind. What you do depends on the
environmental circumstance in which consciousness finds self (body and
consciousness) surrounded. In here this is a developmental process, which takes
time – usually this begins in earnest when the child begins walking. . . .
How then does a person
know which is driving more energy – the Heart, Soul or Mind?
The electronic sensors on the rotor. The
unconscious sensors in the body can ‘intuitively feel’ which coil is exerting
more or less energy on the motor can (unconscious/automaticity of body). I don’t
know if this is correct for the analogy to work but this shows that the body is
more important to this operation than it appeared to me to be.
You witness this in the
body language of the shamans when they are in trance, in an altered state. –
Amorella.
This then goes back to what was
mentioned the other day:
. . . ‘as the heartansoulanmind understands
intuitively, empathically and sympathetically by way of an inter-communication’
within a shell of pre-conscious through post conscious state of a holistic
human or marsupial being’.
In the books then, consciousness is not
just in the mind or even the brain, it is distributed throughout the whole body
– top of the head, fingers and toes – as well as heartansoulanmind.
Yes. This concept will
work. – Amorella.
What about the body? It is one thing when
a person is alive, but consciousness without the body? How does that work to
keep a balance of these four ‘elements’: soul, body, mind and heart?
When physically dead,
the mindansoul create the ‘aurora’ if you will, of the body, which can then be
more intuitively sensed by close friends – sometimes even by the Living as has
been demonstrated in several of Grandma’s Stories. - Amorella.
You remember once, a
couple of years ago, you were talking to Aunt Patsy and Uncle Ernie (they were
asking you questions about the books) and you mentioned that sometimes you sat
in the bathtub and put your feet up out of the water and set them a few degrees
from each other and between your feet you saw the empty space which appeared to
you as grail-shaped. To you the Grail was/is on the ground between everyone’s
feet, at least the symbol of it is. And, another example of consciousness from
the body, when your feet were out of the water your toes appeared as flames in
your mind – it was as if they were in a painting by the mystic William Blake.
Gads, Amorella. People will think I
am a crazy man. Alas, though, it is true, at times I feel a mystic centeredness
though anyone in herorhis right mind (including myself) would attribute it to
imagination.
Yes. But how else could
you dance with me, boy? You tell me? – Amorella.
I do not know. The only witnesses I have are the words, some
fiction, some not so – and of course, the books and blog, which are real
enough, at least to share.
With that, make it [as]
sharable as the grail [outline] between your [human] feet would have it. Post.
– Amorella.
From blog posting 3 August
2011
** **
You mentioned "some kind soul" was
that figurative or with intent? - Amorella
2214 hours. I don't know Amorella. It
just rolled out of my fingertips.
This is a coincidence, no doubt. - Amorella
I don't know, Amorella. I really do
not know much of anything. I really do not. There is so much of this universe
that is beyond me. This is a very strange place. I am as the rabbit and I don't
know if I am chasing Alice or Alice is chasing me.
No comments:
Post a Comment