Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[Cypress]

Ask them how much they utilize the descriptions (ie the non-mathematical materials) in correlation.

How do you know stratigraphers? Are you in the oil patch?

(Also it's a common joke within the geological community that we went into geology because we weren't great with the math needed for chemistry or physics! LOL. )

You are going to be a shitty stratigrapher if you are not looking at borehole, well, and log data numerically.

How are you going to recognize subsurface faults without quantifying vertical shortening and repeat sections?

Unless you are just drawing cartoons, how are you going to quantify net sand, net pay, isopachs from the stratigraphy?

How are you going to ensure the log data is acceptable, without quality control on the well deviation, datum, borehole depth, annular conditions?

How are you going to use resistivity, electrical, and nuclear logs by ignoring numerical values?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You are going to be a shitty stratigrapher if you are not looking at borehole, well, and log data numerically.

Having actually DONE stratigraphy I can say that is not necessarily true. But I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of stratigraphy is done qualitatively not quantitatively. It's what you learn when you take your sed-strat classes.

Unless you are just drawing cartoons, how are you going to quantify net sand, net pay, isopachs from the stratigraphy?

It is not uncommon in geology to call them "cartoons". No joke.

How are you going to use resistivity, electrical, and nuclear logs by ignoring numerical values?

Again, this isn't geophysics well logging. This is the guy sitting the well (a geologist, as my wife was for example) recording the details of the DESCRIPTION of the core.

 

[Cypress]

Having actually DONE stratigraphy I can say that is not necessarily true. But I see your point. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of stratigraphy is done qualitatively not quantitatively. It's what you learn when you take your sed-strat classes.



It is not uncommon in geology to call them "cartoons". No joke.



Again, this isn't geophysics well logging. This is the guy sitting the well (a geologist, as my wife was for example) recording the details of the DESCRIPTION of the core.

Okay, so the take away message is that you were just doodling cartoons.

A trained highschool student can do that, and it's not science strictly speaking.

A proper representation of the subsurface requires a range of numerical data: datum, depth, strike, dip, scale, vertical exaggeration if present, fault offset, and the cross section has to be analyzed geometrically to ensure it is balanced and geologically reasonable.

I'm sure you drew some nice cartoons though.

Carry on.

 

[Cypress]

Please provide the mathmatical equations, laboratory experiments, numerical models that explain and define justice, equality, freedom, fairness, beauty, love, charity, mercy, courage, friendship.

And explain how people would use them in real life.


If it can't be quantified, it's not science.

A general rule of thumb is that science can provide formal knowledge (momentum equals mass times velocity), but it can't provide normative knowledge (what is freedom, what is justice?).

That's why people read Einstein and Bohr for formal knowledge, and they read Kant, Lao Tzu, and Nietzsche for projects on normative knowledge.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Okay, so the take away message is that you were just doodling cartoons.

A trained highschool student can do that, and it's not science strictly speaking.

A proper representation of the subsurface requires a range of numerical data: datum, depth, strike, dip, scale, vertical exaggeration if present, fault offset, and the cross section has to be analyzed geometrically to ensure it is balanced and geologically reasonable.

I'm sure you drew some nice cartoons though.

Carry on.

I am still quite serious about my apology. I am hopeful you will be able to stop simply insulting me and carry on a conversation.

Thanks.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

A proper representation of the subsurface requires a range of numerical data: datum, depth, strike, dip,

For a fence diagram you wouldn't have to explicitly calculate the strike or dip of a given formation. You'd definitely put that on a map. Just sayin'. ....

scale, vertical exaggeration if present, fault offset, and the cross section has to be analyzed geometrically to ensure it is balanced and geologically reasonable.

I am impressed at how familiar you are with a lot of geologic terminology. Did you take geology classes or have you worked in the field?

 

[Cypress]

A general rule of thumb is that science can provide formal knowledge (momentum equals mass times velocity), but it can't provide normative knowledge (what is freedom, what is justice?).

That's why people read Einstein and Bohr for formal knowledge, and they read Kant, Lao Tzu, and Nietzsche for projects on normative knowledge.

I look to Euclid for axioms on the nature of space, at least in Euclidean space.

I look to Cantor for knowledge of why infinity comes in different sizes.


I look to Confucious for knowledge of the nature and ethics of remonstrance.

I look to Martin Luther King Jr for knowledge of equality and the ethics of civil disobedience.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'll let that insult slide. I would like to take this time to sincerely apologize for all the shit I've said to you on here. I'm actually really interested in discussing the topic and I've grown quite bored with this back-and-forth bullshit.....Thanks. Again, my sincerest apologies. I put the ball in your court.

"The proof is in the pudding."

On the subject of Free Will; those who have it do not rely upon others for their behavior. They simply behave as they wish.

 

[ZenMode]

A general rule of thumb is that science can provide formal knowledge (momentum equals mass times velocity), but it can't provide normative knowledge (what is freedom, what is justice?).

That's why people read Einstein and Bohr for formal knowledge, and they read Kant, Lao Tzu, and Nietzsche for projects on normative knowledge.

Would you include morality as part of normative knowledge?

 

[Cypress]

For a fence diagram you wouldn't have to explicitly calculate the strike or dip of a given formation. You'd definitely put that on a map. Just sayin'. ....



I am impressed at how familiar you are with a lot of geologic terminology. Did you take geology classes or have you worked in the field?

Anyone who is making cross sections, fence diagrams, or any representation of subsurface geologic conditions without the slightest regard to numerical data and geometric principles isn't doing geology

They are doing a fanciful kind of doodling, which you can train a high school student to do.

 

[Cypress]

Would you include morality as part of normative knowledge?

It impinges on morality (e.g., child abuse is always wrong), but it extends to human behavior more broadly --> all other things being, equal small classes are better for learning than big ones, or courage is defined as a golden mean between recklessness and timidity (per Aristotle).

Those aren't the kinds of things you can quantify, make mathmatical equations for, or develop formal knowledge of.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Anyone who is making cross sections, fence diagrams, or any representation of subsurface geologic conditions without the slightest regard to numerical data and geometric principles isn't doing geology

They are doing a fanciful kind of doodling, which you can train a high school student to do.

I think you would be surprised at how correlation studies are done.

And, again, at no point have I said that these things are COMPLETELY WITHOUT NUMERIC DESCRIPTORS. Far from it. But the key is that it is science that is done descriptively.

I did this for classes in undergrad, I did it for field studies, I did it for work.

Geology, like biology, has both descriptive and quantitative aspects. It doesn't make the descriptive parts any LESS science. In fact it is critical to the science.

(Just as an aside, can you possibly conceive of what I'm talking about here, even if you greatly disagree with it? I'm genuinely curious what is causing the hiccup here. Science is both mathematical and observational. It is both quantitative and qualitative. To debate otherwise is to axe half of the sciences off the block)

 

[Cypress]

A general rule of thumb is that science can provide formal knowledge (momentum equals mass times velocity), but it can't provide normative knowledge (what is freedom, what is justice?).

That's why people read Einstein and Bohr for formal knowledge, and they read Kant, Lao Tzu, and Nietzsche for projects on normative knowledge.

Formal knowledge:
energy mass equivalency, entropy, conservation of energy.

^^ These can be quantified and expressed as mathmatical equations.


Despite months of asking, no one has been able to provide equations, numerical summaries, or laboratory experiments which define normative knowledge of these types:

Aristotle's reasoning of the golden mean between courage and rashness.

Confucius' reasoning of the fine line between filial piety and remonstrance.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Formal knowledge:
energy mass equivalency, entropy, conservation of energy.

^^ These can be quantified and expressed as mathmatical equations.


Despite months of asking, no one has been able to provide equations, numerical summaries, or laboratory experiments which define normative knowledge of these types:

Aristotle's reasoning of the golden mean between courage and rashness.

Confucius' reasoning of the fine line between filial piety and remonstrance.

What is "courage"? What is "rashness"? Are these things not just experiences physical beings have? They are purely physical items.

The concept of the mean between courage and recklessness that Aristotle wrote about seem very much like an application of something akin to "game theory". It really is no more deep than simply balancing out our fears and our risk tolerance. Do we make irrational decisions based on an overestimation of our abilities? Are we locked up by fears that are unfounded but keep us unable to take action? How do we arrive at "courage" when balancing cowardice and recklessness?

That doesn't seem like it really needs a mathematical description but I can CONCEIVE of a host of brain chemistry malfunctions that can shift that. Take for instance an OCD sufferer. They will be in therapy and one of the key things they will have to face is the idea that our brains are evolutionarily tuned to highlight potential risks. OCD is what happens when brain circuitry biases to emphasize risk to the point of almost no tolerance for risk. The end result is a form of "cowardice" (not really cowardice but abject terror in doing the things that need doing).

And interestingly enough it is possible to alter the chemistry of a physical brain and create this kind of scenario. There are medicines the sufferers of things like OCD can take which help MODERATE that effect. Is it because the medicines have read Aristotle? Probably not. It's because of chemistry.

Is "cowardice", "courage", "risk", "recklessness" anything necessarily more or less than what our unique brain chemistry produces?

(Also: I'm not going to say that any and all mental illness is purely chemical...that's absurd. But it shows that a lot of what we think we "are" is a function of our physical brain and as such is amenable to understanding scientifically, both qualitatively and quantitatively.)
It is a calculation, like the hedonistic calculus of Bentham.

 

[Cypress]

What is "courage"? What is "rashness"? Are these things not just experiences physical beings have? They are purely physical items.

The concept of the mean between courage and recklessness that Aristotle wrote about seem very much like an application of something akin to "game theory". It really is no more deep than simply balancing out our fears and our risk tolerance. Do we make irrational decisions based on an overestimation of our abilities? Are we locked up by fears that are unfounded but keep us unable to take action? How do we arrive at "courage" when balancing cowardice and recklessness?

That doesn't seem like it really needs a mathematical description but I can CONCEIVE of a host of brain chemistry malfunctions that can shift that. Take for instance an OCD sufferer. They will be in therapy and one of the key things they will have to face is the idea that our brains are evolutionarily tuned to highlight potential risks. OCD is what happens when brain circuitry biases to emphasize risk to the point of almost no tolerance for risk. The end result is a form of "cowardice" (not really cowardice but abject terror in doing the things that need doing).

And interestingly enough it is possible to alter the chemistry of a physical brain and create this kind of scenario. There are medicines the sufferers of things like OCD can take which help MODERATE that effect. Is it because the medicines have read Aristotle? Probably not. It's because of chemistry.

Is "cowardice", "courage", "risk", "recklessness" anything necessarily more or less than what our unique brain chemistry produces?

(Also: I'm not going to say that any and all mental illness is purely chemical...that's absurd. But it shows that a lot of what we think we "are" is a function of our physical brain and as such is amenable to understanding scientifically, both qualitatively and quantitatively.)
It is a calculation, like the hedonistic calculus of Bentham.

^^™ Vague musings, and diffuse babble disguised to appear scientific.

Just blurting out vague statements that the human brain has functions to allow reasoning and emotion explains nothing about normative knowledge m


Give me the mathmatical equations and scientific laws that would allow someone to determine if and when lying was okay, when courage crosses the line to rashness, when remonstrance is warranted over filial piety.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

^^™ Vague musings, and babble disguised to appear scientific.

So I get the sense that the insults will not stop anytime soon. That's unfortunate.

Give me the mathmatical equations and scientific laws that would allow someone to determine if and when lying was okay, when crosses the line to rashness, when remonstrance is warranted over filial piety.

That's a strange question. Again, not all things are mathematical, even in science. As I've more than adequately proven time and again on this thread.

Let's talk about "filial piety" for instance. There's absolutely no need for anything even remotely metaphysical or beyond the realm of basic biology and "game theory".

Basic biology: we are social animals that require a LOT of development before we are able to exist on our own. Parents for the kind of animal we are are VERY important. There's much less need for anything like "filial piety" in salmon or some animal that is just laid in an egg and abandoned.

I also say "game theory" in that it is to the advantage of the offspring to maintain good connection to their parents as well, even after they are no longer raising someone. This helps stabilize the security of SOCIAL NETWORK which is, again, critical to the survival of a social animal like us. It is to our benefit to care for the elderly and those who raised us.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

^^™ Vague musings, and diffuse babble disguised to appear scientific.

Just blurting out vague statements that the human brain has functions to allow reasoning and emotion explains nothing about normative knowledge m


Give me the mathmatical equations and scientific laws that would allow someone to determine if and when lying was okay, when courage crosses the line to rashness, when remonstrance is warranted over filial piety.

I know of no math equations that can predict an individual's behavior. Statistics will give indicators of most likely responses based upon averages, but that's it.

 

[Cypress]

I know of no math equations that can predict an individual's behavior. Statistics will give indicators of most likely responses based upon averages, but that's it.

Science gives us no knowledge of when or if it's okay to lie.

Some people think it's fine to create sock puppets and decieve other people.

I think it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if I were hiding a Jewish family in the basement.

Other people think it's okay to tell little white lies on a routine basis.


We don't look to physics or biology for insights into these questions. We look to moral philosophy, ethics, religion for insight and enlightenment.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Science gives us no knowledge of when or if it's okay to lie.

Some people think it's fine to create sock puppets and decieve other people.

I think it would be okay to lie to the Nazis if I were hiding a Jewish family in the basement.

Other people think it's okay to tell little white lies on a routine basis.

We don't look to physics or biology for insights into these questions. We look to moral philosophy, ethics, religion for insight and enlightenment.

Agreed.

Agreed. Some people think it's weak and dishonest to trick others with socks.

Agreed, but many Germans of the day would disagree.

Agreed. There's no mathematical formula for morals. Only generalities such as "Is the white lie intended to deceive or harm? Is it to comfort and soothe?"

Agreed on the different and appropriate areas for discussing morals. This is akin to the Scientism thread; science may provide some insights to behavior, but it doesn't provide much insight to human morality or the lack of it. What is the scientific answer to the cruelty of the Third Reich? The atrocities committed by Russians in Ukraine?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Some people think it's fine to create sock puppets and decieve other people.

As I noted I wished to apologize to you for all that has gone before. But I understand that some emotions are attractive, they stimulate whatever neural networks are functioning in our brain or it stimulates the dopamine circuits to give pleasure, so we hold onto them, even when they are no longer of value. For instance, hatred and anger.

We don't look to physics or biology for insights into these questions. We look to moral philosophy, ethics, religion for insight and enlightenment.

But, again, the point CAN be explained by biology. We are social animals. As such, when someone like me switches their identity it can feel like some sort of "deception", and I'm willing to call it for what it is. But why does that deception matter? In reality it doesn't if one actually uses formal logic (ie focus on the content of the point rather than the person). But the primary reason we value "honesty" in any given society is that it maintains a social cohesion.

It is part of the kind of animal we are.

I have seen wild animals blatantly steal from other animals. But if they are not in a social group there is no opprobrium attached. It isn't a "moral evil" and as such a lot of these things the great Philosophers stumbled onto (mainly through OBSERVATION of how people function...another point for another time), but they are not some "universal truth". They apply to social animals and for a specific reason: social cohesion to maintain that survival advantage.