How to weigh an idea?
I am working on a functional methodology under the general title “Architecture of the Break.” Within it, I have set myself the task of examining and systematically arranging—along a scale of weights—“human representations of reality,” which, in the framework of my approach, I refer to collectively as “ideas.”
A key part of my approach is a functional description of the methods for weighting “ideas” (including the creation of a mathematical model). This allows one to quickly and easily determine—using this toolkit—the level of significance, accuracy, productivity, and universality of any given “idea.”
Why this matters to me: everything I had encountered before was either too complicated or too entrenched within a specific paradigm of truth (political or ideological). The approaches I studied did not meet the criterion of universality, because within them the paradigms in which they were created are treated as ideal, while everything else is considered fake. I did not like this, because it contaminates the lenses through which I am trying to achieve “clarity of understanding.”
My approach also allows one to work with pure speculations and even make certain predictions regarding the fate of a speculation—specifically, whether it can grow into a level of necessary truth. But that is for later; for now I offer the core of my system for discussion. (I could easily add two more pages of justification, but this seems to be a different format.)
The core of my approach is a system for ranking any “idea” by its weight across three criteria:
1. Universality — Scope of Applicability
A measure of how broadly a given idea X can functionally regulate different domains.
Universality prevents “Niche Blindness” (when an idea applies only within a narrow area while ignoring others).
2. Accuracy — Verifiability and Predictive Power
A measure of how precisely idea X corresponds to testable consequences (both empirical and deductive).
Accuracy allows us to diagnose conflict at the lowest level. If an idea we rely on is inaccurate, it cannot serve as a foundation for rational action.
3. Productivity — Generative Power
The ability of idea X, once adopted as a law, to generate new, logically necessary, nontrivial consequences that could not have been derived from prior experience.
The proposed hierarchical model looks as follows:
Level 1. Axioms (Foundation of Being)
Weight: Highest
Determined by: Maximum Universality
Essence: Ideas without which thought and the perception of causality are logically impossible (laws of logic, the existence of time and space). Their Accuracy is not discussed (though sometimes contested), and their Productivity is continuous—they constantly generate the very possibility of thought.
Ontological Status: Necessity
Level 2. Deductive Constructions (Constituting Principles)
Weight: High
Determined by: High Productivity
Essence: Ideas adopted as laws that generate new, necessary consequences (for example, mathematical theorems or a nation’s Constitution). Their strength lies in asserting a new order and being functionally necessary for the operation of a system.
Ontological Status: Functional Necessity
Level 3. Empirics (Experience and Facts)
Weight: Medium
Determined by: Maximum Accuracy and Low Universality
Essence: Ideas that have been validated by past experience and can be verified. Their weakness is that they describe only what has already happened (low Productivity) and apply only to specific conditions (low Universality).
Ontological Status: Demonstrated Contingency
Level 4. Models and Interpretations (Lenses)
Weight: Below Medium
Determined by: A combination of Universality and Accuracy
Essence: Philosophical and worldview systems. They are not facts (low Accuracy), but they offer a universal way of organizing facts. Their weight depends on how successfully they systematize incoming information.
Ontological Status: Methodological Optionality
Level 5. Speculations (Noise and Possibility)
Weight: Low
Determined by: The absence of all three criteria
Essence: Unverified hypotheses, fantasies, personal desires. They are inaccurate, non-universal, and lack proven productivity. Yet precisely here lies the seed of any future Deductive Construction, as these ideas are free from the burden of past experience (Empirics).
Ontological Status: Pure Possibility
I will not elaborate here on the mathematical model for distributing weights. Instead, I will analyze several “ideas” using this method:
1. “Theory of Crystalline Humans”
The fundamental nature of human consciousness and emotions is determined by crystalline structures in the brain that resonate with Earth’s energy fields.
Analysis:
Universality: Low. Cannot regulate physics, economics, law, etc.
Accuracy: Zero. Cannot be subjected to empirical observation or deductive verification (no scientific implications). At least at the current moment.
Productivity: Zero. Generates no new necessary laws or working technologies.
Conclusion: Speculation (Level 5)
2. “Increasing Centrifugal Force by 10% Doubles Bearing Wear”
Analysis:
Universality: Low. Applies only to this specific system of bearings and centrifugal force; cannot regulate, say, family relations.
Accuracy: Maximum. Highly verifiable.
Productivity: Low. Does not generate new fundamental laws; it describes a consequence of existing physical laws.
Conclusion: Fact (Level 3)
3. “Natural Rights of Man”
Universality: High. The idea was intended to regulate politics, law, economics (property rights), and ethics simultaneously.
Accuracy: Zero (in fact). It contradicted the empirical reality at the time of its emergence.
Productivity: Maximum. It generated entirely new, necessary consequences: separation of powers, democracy, market economy. It created a whole class of new solutions.
Conclusion: Constituting Principle (Level 2)
It is worth expanding on this. For a contemporary Westerner, this idea appears self-evident, natural, and universally correct. However, at the time of its creation, it was not so. Its architects (Locke, Rousseau, the Founding Fathers) performed an Act of Will, translating it into a Constitution, thereby forcing reality to conform to it. This is a paradigmatic example of a successful Architectural Act.
In this text, I will also not describe the mechanics of an “Idea” rising from Level 5 (speculation) to Level 2 (deductive construction).
I ask participants to evaluate and provide recommendations on this model. Critical remarks are welcome.
(P.S. I understand that the idea of “Natural Human Rights” may, for many readers, occupy the same role as “sunlight”—without which the world collapses. If that is the case for you, please do not spend time commenting. I fully acknowledge, respect, and accept your position.)
A key part of my approach is a functional description of the methods for weighting “ideas” (including the creation of a mathematical model). This allows one to quickly and easily determine—using this toolkit—the level of significance, accuracy, productivity, and universality of any given “idea.”
Why this matters to me: everything I had encountered before was either too complicated or too entrenched within a specific paradigm of truth (political or ideological). The approaches I studied did not meet the criterion of universality, because within them the paradigms in which they were created are treated as ideal, while everything else is considered fake. I did not like this, because it contaminates the lenses through which I am trying to achieve “clarity of understanding.”
My approach also allows one to work with pure speculations and even make certain predictions regarding the fate of a speculation—specifically, whether it can grow into a level of necessary truth. But that is for later; for now I offer the core of my system for discussion. (I could easily add two more pages of justification, but this seems to be a different format.)
The core of my approach is a system for ranking any “idea” by its weight across three criteria:
1. Universality — Scope of Applicability
A measure of how broadly a given idea X can functionally regulate different domains.
Universality prevents “Niche Blindness” (when an idea applies only within a narrow area while ignoring others).
2. Accuracy — Verifiability and Predictive Power
A measure of how precisely idea X corresponds to testable consequences (both empirical and deductive).
Accuracy allows us to diagnose conflict at the lowest level. If an idea we rely on is inaccurate, it cannot serve as a foundation for rational action.
3. Productivity — Generative Power
The ability of idea X, once adopted as a law, to generate new, logically necessary, nontrivial consequences that could not have been derived from prior experience.
The proposed hierarchical model looks as follows:
Level 1. Axioms (Foundation of Being)
Weight: Highest
Determined by: Maximum Universality
Essence: Ideas without which thought and the perception of causality are logically impossible (laws of logic, the existence of time and space). Their Accuracy is not discussed (though sometimes contested), and their Productivity is continuous—they constantly generate the very possibility of thought.
Ontological Status: Necessity
Level 2. Deductive Constructions (Constituting Principles)
Weight: High
Determined by: High Productivity
Essence: Ideas adopted as laws that generate new, necessary consequences (for example, mathematical theorems or a nation’s Constitution). Their strength lies in asserting a new order and being functionally necessary for the operation of a system.
Ontological Status: Functional Necessity
Level 3. Empirics (Experience and Facts)
Weight: Medium
Determined by: Maximum Accuracy and Low Universality
Essence: Ideas that have been validated by past experience and can be verified. Their weakness is that they describe only what has already happened (low Productivity) and apply only to specific conditions (low Universality).
Ontological Status: Demonstrated Contingency
Level 4. Models and Interpretations (Lenses)
Weight: Below Medium
Determined by: A combination of Universality and Accuracy
Essence: Philosophical and worldview systems. They are not facts (low Accuracy), but they offer a universal way of organizing facts. Their weight depends on how successfully they systematize incoming information.
Ontological Status: Methodological Optionality
Level 5. Speculations (Noise and Possibility)
Weight: Low
Determined by: The absence of all three criteria
Essence: Unverified hypotheses, fantasies, personal desires. They are inaccurate, non-universal, and lack proven productivity. Yet precisely here lies the seed of any future Deductive Construction, as these ideas are free from the burden of past experience (Empirics).
Ontological Status: Pure Possibility
I will not elaborate here on the mathematical model for distributing weights. Instead, I will analyze several “ideas” using this method:
1. “Theory of Crystalline Humans”
The fundamental nature of human consciousness and emotions is determined by crystalline structures in the brain that resonate with Earth’s energy fields.
Analysis:
Universality: Low. Cannot regulate physics, economics, law, etc.
Accuracy: Zero. Cannot be subjected to empirical observation or deductive verification (no scientific implications). At least at the current moment.
Productivity: Zero. Generates no new necessary laws or working technologies.
Conclusion: Speculation (Level 5)
2. “Increasing Centrifugal Force by 10% Doubles Bearing Wear”
Analysis:
Universality: Low. Applies only to this specific system of bearings and centrifugal force; cannot regulate, say, family relations.
Accuracy: Maximum. Highly verifiable.
Productivity: Low. Does not generate new fundamental laws; it describes a consequence of existing physical laws.
Conclusion: Fact (Level 3)
3. “Natural Rights of Man”
Universality: High. The idea was intended to regulate politics, law, economics (property rights), and ethics simultaneously.
Accuracy: Zero (in fact). It contradicted the empirical reality at the time of its emergence.
Productivity: Maximum. It generated entirely new, necessary consequences: separation of powers, democracy, market economy. It created a whole class of new solutions.
Conclusion: Constituting Principle (Level 2)
It is worth expanding on this. For a contemporary Westerner, this idea appears self-evident, natural, and universally correct. However, at the time of its creation, it was not so. Its architects (Locke, Rousseau, the Founding Fathers) performed an Act of Will, translating it into a Constitution, thereby forcing reality to conform to it. This is a paradigmatic example of a successful Architectural Act.
In this text, I will also not describe the mechanics of an “Idea” rising from Level 5 (speculation) to Level 2 (deductive construction).
I ask participants to evaluate and provide recommendations on this model. Critical remarks are welcome.
(P.S. I understand that the idea of “Natural Human Rights” may, for many readers, occupy the same role as “sunlight”—without which the world collapses. If that is the case for you, please do not spend time commenting. I fully acknowledge, respect, and accept your position.)
Comments (47)
I like the idea of weight because weight is a result of gravity. Heavy (or massive) ideas bring other ideas into orbit around themselves.
An example is the idea of home. It probably came into existence with agriculture because farmers have to stay in one place. They can't follow herds. they have to wait through the summer for crops to grow and they can't just tote around the harvest. They have to stay and protect it from robbers.
There's an ancient artifact that is believed to be an early map, with the most heavily occupied area in the center. Nomads wouldn't have a map like that because for them the center of the map would always be changing.
So all sorts of things begin to orbit that idea of home.
This is truly a high-quality level of rhetorical mastery.
The nomadic idea of ??"home" is tied not to the land, but to everyday life, loved ones, and life itself. The idea of ??"home on the land" enabled the development of many things related to establishing a life in one place, and, as you noted, primarily agriculture. However, the idea of ??"home in the mind" (as among nomads) enabled the development of speed of movement and rapid expansion and contraction.
In the history of the world, it was nomads who managed to build the largest (in terms of size) states, but it was sedentary people who built the most stable states.
Yes, the settled people did invent a map with a center. The nomads simply made sure that this center was located where their headquarters were located at that moment.
What else? I would note that nomads are best adapted to the unexpected (famine, cold, catastrophes) – the so-called "black swan." Sedentary people, on the other hand, learned to overcome difficulties based on the principle of "nowhere to run."
History always tells us that a problem can have several solutions, and the model I propose allows us to consider their pros and cons.
:up: Through European history those two sides revolve around one another since the ideological ancestors of the bourgeoisie were traveling merchants who paid rent to noble castle owners to camp by their walls in the winter. And the nobles themselves were descendants of semi nomadic warlords. The rule seemed to be that when you take over society, you settle down.
Quoting Astorre
:up:
I made a table of your system. I can’t upload a picture, so I drew a simplified one using my keyboard:
|-----------------|------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|-----------------|.........1..........|.....2.......|.....3......|.....4......|.....5......|
|-----------------|------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|.Universality.|......HIGH......|............. |..LOW...|..HIGH..|..LOW...|
|-----------------|------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|.Accuracy.....|.....................|..............|..HIGH..|..LOW...|..LOW...|
|-----------------|------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
|.Productivity.|..NOT..LOW..|..HIGH..|..............|.............|..LOW...|
|-----------------|------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
1. Foundations, 2. Constructions, 3. Empirics, 4. Interpretations, 5. Speculations.
This visualised form of your system helped me notice a few things:
First, an idea cannot be both highly universal and highly accurate (though it can be low on both). Otherwise, your system would fail to account for certain possible outcomes (HIGH, HIGH, [ANY]).
Second, levels 2 and 3 can be determined solely by Productivity and Accuracy respectively, provided those values are high.
Third, both levels 1 and 4 can be identified by their high Universality. In fact, they can share the same combination: high universality, low accuracy, and not-low productivity. This makes distinguishing between the two levels ambiguous. But this is not a weakness. On the contrary, I think it shows that your system reflects real-life situations quite well. Often, the difference between interpretation and foundation can be just a matter of belief—I (or we as a society) strongly believe certain things to be true, and so they become foundational within my (our) worldview.
And, of course, level 5 is also clearly defined, as it lacks any high values.
Nicely done. I really enjoyed analyzing your system.
Are you talking about physical time and space (space-time)? Also, isn't "there is at least one thinking mind in existence" axiomatically true?
Thank you for your comment. Do you think it's possible to provide a precise estimate of each parameter of the idea without empirical methods (psychological or sociological)?
Currently, the Model does a good job of achieving its explanatory power, but the estimate of each parameter is highly dependent on the interpreter.
The examples given here are, of course, not exhaustive. However, even axioms are sometimes revised. This is an extremely rare, but possible, phenomenon.
But if you are trying to recall an image from your distant past memories, for instance a friend you have met 20 year ago last time, then the idea of the image would be faint and weak.
But I find it a bit challenging to understand how idea could have weights. Or how can ideas be weighed. Weights can be only measured on the physical objects with solidity and mass, and by gravity from the earth.
Ideas which is purely mental in nature, and copy of the perceived impression cannot have weights. Your thoughts?
How would this be applied, for instance, on the ideas of the birth of a star and the beginning of life? Taking both as ideas about reality based on reality, they are both very "Niche" with little in common. Or does your new method only apply to certain areas of reality?
Quoting Astorre
I doubt that the concept of home even existed for the nomads They lived mostly where food was available and had little use for the personalized possessions usually found in homes. Early nomads lived in caves or built branch shelters against the sun and rain, they were abandoned when they moved on. Later nomads found that as they moved around, taking advantage of the different places where food was available, that they often returned to the same areas every year. This is when the started do build more solid structures out of stone, even when they still abandoned them as the food ran out they returned the following year to repair and improve.
The concept of home probably appeared when the started to settle down and grow enough crops to dedicate time to acquire belongings and needing a place to keep them.
Quoting Astorre
Could you give an example of a large nomadic group.
It's important to clarify here. The proposed model cannot assess the value of an idea or evaluate its truth per se. It's about assessing the weight of an idea in a given mind or group at a given historical point in time.
Let's give an example. Let's take the classical scientific method of evaluating a proposition. Let's take the statement, for example, "all people are sisters." Classical science insists that the proposition must first be reduced to simple concepts. This creates problems from the very beginning. Let's consider the context of its origin. Historically, it's a feminist slogan. It can be interpreted as "only women are people." From a scientific perspective, this statement has zero weight. However, in the minds of representatives of this movement, the weight of this proposition is maximal, almost fundamental. All reasoning of a group or individual can be built on this proposition, and the proponent of this proposition refuses to admit that it's not true (and is even willing to deal with its opponent). Moreover, a person driven by this idea can begin conducting scientific research that will confirm their arguments. And even be successful in doing so. A person can then begin to act in accordance with this belief.
Here I see some limitations of classical epistemology. A patently false assertion generates consequences for reality and the lives of ordinary people who aren't even aware of it.
The model I propose can say: idea X has a weight of U2 in this group. This means that this group will restructure reality in accordance with this idea.
Of course, I've already slightly revised what I presented at the start.
At the same time, why did I consider it important to identify the "weight" of an idea? Because this approach can provide a new lens for predicting the viability of certain ideas you intend to instill in a group, as well as provide new explanations for people's behavior within groups.
But the model faces limitations. For example, I need to identify what ideas group M uses in their everyday lives. We can conduct quantitative and qualitative sociological or psychological studies, and still not obtain verifiable results. Another approach: I can interpret it myself, but then it would be even further from reality.
Quoting Sir2u
Speaking of a supernova explosion, the event itself could signify the emergence of a new civilization. But the weight of this idea is near-zero for our everyday lives. Unless, of course, it somehow begins to impact everyday life. A supernova explosion itself is an event that means nothing. But the idea that pops into someone's head: "It wasn't a supernova explosion, but an alien war that will soon reach us"—that already carries weight. For now, the weight of this idea is speculation. If this weight is artificially inflated, it could have incredible consequences. It's just a matter of finding enough believers and presenting the information correctly.
Quoting Astorre
They are propositions. Propositions are either true or false. Ideas can be building block of propositions.
Ideas are mental image. On their own it has no true or false values. As Hume wrote, ideas can be vivid or faint, strong or weak depending on the type of perception.
There could be real life cases where propositions could have weighing aspects. For instance,
1) The guitar is nice.
2) The guitar is too expensive for my budget.
Then in order to make decision whether to buy the guitar or not, I must weigh the two propositions. The more heavier proposition will be the foundation of my decision. Even here using "heavier" proposition sounds awkward. Should it not be "more effecting" or "more critical" for my situation?
Thanks for your comment. You've pointed out a very important detail. I don't yet know whether I agree with it or not, but it's definitely a weak (unresolved) point in my model.
I'm grateful because you've made me think and clarify. In fact, that's exactly why I posted this here, not just to boast, "Look how clever I came up with this."
I want to calmly consider your clarifications and will return with a response later.
Sure. Cool. I wasn't saying your idea is wrong. I was just looking at the issue from a different angle. Looking at the ideas and concepts from different angles and keep on discussing in logical point of view, is philosophy in my idea. :)
First of all, I would like to thank you again for your comment.
Quoting Corvus
What does Hume do? He says, "This statement is true because I have seen it and it can be verified."
Quoting Corvus
Hume would say that by introducing Level 2, I've simply renamed "strong desire" or "hallucination" a "Deductive Construct." If anyone can declare any fantasy a "Level 2 Law," then my model ceases to be analytical and becomes justificatory.
I don't dispute any of this. In fact, in the starting thread, I even call deductive constructs speculations elevated by an act of will to the level of constitutive law.
At the same time, I also make it clear from the very beginning and in subsequent posts that my model isn't about what is considered true and what is false. Rather, it's about what a person considers true and what is false.
Let's return to the guitar example. I'll rephrase it slightly for ease of use and clarity. If you insist, we'll return to your version of the judgments; it'll just be a bit longer.
So, you go to the store and see a guitar. You make two empirical judgments:
1. This guitar is good
2. This guitar is expensive
To be honest, neither of these judgments are purely empirical. They are evaluative. In the first case, you compared the quality of this guitar with others; in the second case, you compared the price of the guitar with others plus your wallet.
So what decision will you make? Buy or not buy? Hume would answer: it's not reliably known. Because it's not empirically verifiable. And it will only become known after you buy or don't buy.
Now let's return to my model. It doesn't establish the truth, but it can help predict behavior. The statements about the guitar in question, according to my approach, are Level 3—empirical. By themselves, they don't regulate anything. But my behavior will be regulated by the Level 2 ideas that prompted me to go to the store. This could be anything, for example:
1. I'm a brilliant guitarist, and my brilliant playing requires a great instrument.
or
2. I'm an amateur who plays for my family on weekends.
Both of these supra-statements are unverifiable; they're my fantasies, but I've accepted them as Level 2. So, when I'm in the store, I'll take empirical statements and compare them with my Level 2 ideas.
Empirical evidence won't motivate me. But my chimeras (which may or may not be true) will!
Moreover, if the Level 2 idea turns out to be a hoax, the guitarist will simply have wasted a ton of money. But reality can also change, and the guitarist will change it thanks to this guitar and his persistence – he will truly become an extraordinary musician. Currently, in the further development of my model, I'm describing how this happens. I'm describing the dynamics of ideas, adding regulators such as "ontological debt," which I wouldn't like to describe here. The model, as presented, has predictive power: will your Level 2 ideas withstand the impact of reality?
Bottom line: Empiricism is good, I'm not abolishing it. But empiricism doesn't move the world. But our chimeras—false or not—do. That's what this whole model is about.
This is where the concept of "idea weight" comes in. At first glance, an "idea" is purely mental and physically incapable of having weight or mass. However, it weighs heavily on reality. A person convinces themselves they're an outstanding guitarist, then goes and buys a real, expensive guitar. Marketers will take stock at the end of the year and say, for example, that few expensive guitars were sold this year. New ways to position the product and manipulate minds must be devised to increase sales. Then, a clever marketer will come up with an advertising concept (which is essentially a brainwashing technique) and create contextual advertising about some success story about a boy who dreamed of becoming a guitarist but later became a great musician and owns an expensive guitar.
Thus, well-crafted and delivered content will encourage more customers to visit the store. What marketers are doing in this case is constructing reality. They aren't exploring the truth, but rather motivating action. The recipient of the advertisement finds themselves defenseless in this situation. After all, they're being sold not the truth, but an idea.
The proposed model can help assess whether I really want what I want, or am I being fooled?
This example is also consistent with other cases where people are brainwashed not just by the fake value of a product, but by the fake value of "Values."
I set out to prove what knowledge is, and succeeded. I've used this personally for years to great effect. Further, I developed a way to give weight to inductive arguments which I call an inductive hierarchy. Feel free to read the summary from another reader down, it accurately captures the general picture. You'll need something like what I've written to do what you're trying. Take a read and when you're done, I'll chime in on your thread with brainstorms on how to approach your project.
There was a recent thread from a biology teacher about love and hate. I immediately noticed your comments and thought, "This guy seems like a constructivist."
I read your post. I'd like to come back to it a little later, as it intrigued me.
Your approach is immediately strikingly fundamental and phenomenological. You seem to be one level above my judgments expressed in this thread.
What else I noticed: these are essentially two facets of the same insight, which is becoming increasingly relevant in the era of post-truth, propaganda, and narrative manipulation.
Of course, your work is more substantiated, consistent, and logically sound, whereas I was setting myself somewhat more practical goals.
The material is a bit difficult to digest, as I involuntarily, while reading what you wrote, mentally compare it with what I wrote myself. I think it will take me a couple of days to grasp your approach.
My hope is it can help you with those practical goals. An idea, even if it is correct, is no good if it cannot be practically used.
Quoting Astorre
Thank you for the kind words. If you have any questions on it or need clarity, don't hesitate to ask. Either here or in that post as you prefer.
I've begun a detailed study of your work, and I'd like to ask a question on this topic, as it's related. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted it.
You propose a foundation—"Discrete Experience"—a single capacity that cannot be denied without self-refutation. This is quite succinct, given other approaches by rationalist epistemologists of different eras. If you allow me, I'll give my own definition, as I understand it: This is the act of arbitrarily selecting and creating identities (separate "objects" in experience).
Identity acquired through this mechanism is an elementary particle of knowledge, according to your model.
After acquiring an "identity," a person, when confronted with similar images in life, constantly re-examines the validity (validity, not truth) of this identity.
From this, as I understand it, it follows that the "usefulness" and "validity" of an identity are far more important than its "truth."
The model I propose does roughly the same thing: identity, distilled into a proposition (what I call an idea), is weighted not by hypothetical truth, but by three criteria: universality, precision, and productivity. (In later editions, I also added "intersubjectivity" as a multiplier.)
So, in your work, you introduce that indivisible unit, developed through discrete experience—identity. All subsequent mental constructs begin with it. There is no "identity" in my model. Logically, it would be correct to place it below the level of "speculation."
Next. According to your model, by comparing the "identity" "recorded" in the mind with reality (when they collide), a person constantly tests this "identity" for functionality. And this plasticity (rather than fossilization) of identities and the ease of their revision ensure the viability of the species. For example: if you've never seen a bear in real life, but know from fairy tales that bears are shaggy creatures with round ears, kindhearted and honey-loving, but then, upon encountering one in the forest, you discover the bear is running toward you and growling, the speed at which you revise your presets is directly linked to your survival. This is very important and suggests that when reality is lenient and doesn't challenge your identities, your life can unfold like a fairy tale. And constantly challenging your presets teaches you to be more flexible. This conclusion, drawn directly from your model, is very useful to me. On the one hand, it explains developmental stagnation, and on the other, it suggests tools for encouraging the subject to reconsider their "identities." This also suggests that before suggesting an "idea" to someone else, it's best to test it yourself multiple times, otherwise it could lead to pain (from facing reality).
For now, I'll continue reading and share my thoughts with you as I go.
Great explanation on the point. Thank you. My thought on the point is still idea is building blocks of propositions (which can be true or false), and also thoughts. Ideas on their own cannot make decisions, judgements or evaluations on the objects, situation or world affairs.
What makes it possible is reasoning and intuition. We perceive the external world, objects and situations. They register in our brain as and in the forms of ideas. Our reasoning and intuition inspect them and reflect on them, and then make judgements, decisions and evaluations.
Some ideas are copies of impressions in perception, as Hume puts it. And some ideas are apriori ideas which are innate in origin such as God, freedom and afterlife. It is the faculty of reasoning which processes the ideas from perception into thoughts and knowledge.
Is this what underpins your inquiry?
No. This model claims somewhat greater explanatory power for the reality constructed in the human mind.
To put it briefly: imagine everything you know. What drives you, why you choose one solution or another, why your thoughts are directed in one direction and not another, how you can accept or reject something. This model also claims to explain social processes in groups, communities, states, etc.
For example, you want to instill ideals within yourself, your family, the company you work for, or the consumers of your product. You can write to me and we can think together about how this can be done =)
One minor suggestion to your own definition. I would remove the term 'arbitrarily'. It may be arbitrary, but it might not. Other than that, I think that's great.
Quoting Astorre
In its original and quantitative form, it can be perceived as this. That being said, we can further discretely experience this identity into parts. Thus what is elementary can also become a composition.
Quoting Astorre
Yes, that's correct. To be clear, one can hold that remembered identity as distinctive knowledge. They can both re-examine the validity of the identity as something to hold as distinctive knowledge, or apply it and re-examine it as existing apart from the knowledge of the identity as distinctive, but as something which can be matched to reality without contradiction.
Quoting Astorre
To be clear, I do not arrive at a moral judgement (how we should use knowledge), but an observation of the formulation of knowledge and how a person most likely uses it in their self-context. I do not believe I comment in this paper, but I have explored and concluded that if one wanted to find the truth, this approach to knowledge would still be your best chance at finding it. Meaning a person can use knowledge to seek what is true, or they can use it only to the point of personal emotional benefit. Knowledge is a tool. And like any tool, it can be wielded extremely effectively or with minimal effort.
Quoting Astorre
I like this proposal. You'll have some work to do to prove it, but its a great start. In the paper you've read I only briefly touch on intersubjectivity, but I never published the follow up as people would first need to understand and be interested in the first part. Intersubjectivity cannot be first understood without the self-context being understood, so while you cannot exclude it entirely in the proposal for self-context, I think this is a wise approach to add in later.
Quoting Astorre
Correct. The initial formulation is indivisible, but there is no reason why we cannot further divide it into other discrete experiences. "A field of grass, a blade of grass, a piece of grass." You will likely need some type of identity reference when people start to dive deeper into your theory. A common issue in epistemology is the idea of what a definition actually entails. "When does a molehill become a mountain?" Discrete experience answers this nicely. Definitions within a self-context are contextual, as well as can be wordless. They can be incredibly detailed but also as simple as a memory of an overall impression. It is a theory that is not only limited to people, but can be applied to animals as well.
Quoting Astorre
Correct. But like anything it comes at a cost. Plasticity is expended energy and time. If one is limited on expended energy and time, fossilization of ideas, especially if they are statistically correct most of the time, is more efficient and can allow an even quicker reaction time.
Quoting Astorre
In this context, yes. If you could observe the bear in a zoo safely behind a cage, then you could take more time to truly explore the possibilities that the bear is everything the tales said they were, and (in another world) realize that the growl is actually a signal of affection and friendliness. In the case that growl meant what it does in our world, your quick judgement in the wild would save your life.
Quoting Astorre
Ha ha! Yes, I think this is true. If there is no motivation to use knowledge effectively, it can be a tool of amusement for oneself.
Quoting Astorre
All sound points. I'm glad to hear its useful to you!
There's an important point here that's not immediately obvious, but it's of great significance.
Let's think back to this situation. So, you encounter a bear in the forest. You have a "prejudice," or "idea," or "identity" about the bear—it's kind. (I'll use Gadamer's "prejudice" in this post.) But you also have other prejudices (perhaps unrelated to bears, but to animals in general)—animals can be aggressive.
As the bear approaches you, your prejudice about bears' kindness is immediately shattered due to its inconsistency with reality—for kind bears don't usually run at you with a roar. What happens in your consciousness at that moment? There's no time to re-evaluate your prejudices and re-experience reality phenomenologically.
Now I'm just guessing, not deducing logically: most likely, the ineffective tool needs to be discarded quickly (not everyone will experience this behavior; some will become stupefied and frustrated). It's also necessary to quickly find a new assessment tool. Another prejudice immediately pops up: "An animal that runs at you and growls is aggressive" (this isn't necessarily true, it's just an example).
So, you've encountered a conflict of prejudices. It would be great if you had all these prejudices sorted out in advance, according to scales in the depths of your mind. Let's say, according to the three scales I suggested. Then the prejudice about bears being kind would be at level 4 (consistent with fairy tales), and the prejudice about animals being aggressive would be at level 3 (an empirical fact). If you acted like an AI, no conflict would arise: the lower-level prejudice is instantly discarded, and you process information at a more basic level.
But you're not an AI; your ideas aren't balanced. Something aggressive is rushing at you, and you don't know which prejudice to choose. You become paralyzed.
In your paper, you write:
Quoting Philosophim
I agree with this when the conditions are "laboratory" and you're not in any danger. But here, in the moment when reality has challenged you.
Sadly, my experience tells me that this can happen differently for each subject. I'd like to share my observations in the wild. This example is very colorful.
In the summer, I went with my children to a natural habitat of (land) tortoises. Tortoises were simply crawling around on the steppe. I walked up and picked one up. It instantly retreated into its shell, retracted all its limbs, and didn't move. It seemed even its heart was still. It stops. Then I pick up another turtle. The second one behaves aggressively, tries to wriggle away, hisses at me, and tries to bite. Then I pick up a third turtle. It immediately defecates and acts somewhat sluggish. It doesn't hide or wriggle away. It seems resigned to its fate (that's a joke, of course).
It's amazing that these organisms aren't even mammals yet. And yet their behavior is so diverse. What can we say about a human encounter with a bear, a sheep, or another human? We can't even imagine the images that pop up in their heads, how they're arranged.
In your work, you say: "In calm conditions," this is how the mind works. And I really like your model, especially since I've even started using it myself.
My model suggests that it would be extremely effective to also bring order to your mind.
This is where our differences are clear: you're more of a description, while I'm more of a proposal, a lens that could be effective for Architects. Of course, I'm not claiming to be the absolute truth.
Could you elaborate on how your model would explain the mental processes in the examples given?
I uploaded our conversation to the AI ??(Grock) and asked him to tell me how he would act. Here's the response he received:
Based on these statements, fortunately these calculators have not yet learned to rewrite themselves, like humans =)
Agreed. This is more the morality of knowledge and inductions. Whereas the hierarchy of inductions is a rational evaluation, the 'morality' of what should be used in a particular context can be swayed by other potential outcomes such as death.
Quoting Astorre
Yes, this can definitely happen. I think in addition to a hierarchy of inductions, there is a hierarchy of risk. This is essentially the morality of knowledge or "How should I use knowledge and inductions." Lets say in my hierarchy I know there is a high probability, 90%, that a bear running at me won't eat me. But I know its possible the bear would. Even though a probability is higher in the inductive hierarchy, and its a much lower chance that the bear will eat me than not, the risk of that 10% is so catastrophic to life that its not worth the risk in most cases.
The reason why the morality of knowledge is so hard to peg down is because we have to determine value. In most situations, the value of your own life would be of a higher worth than risks for little reward. But what is a 'little' reward. If I had a 90% chance of not being eaten by a bear, and someone said they would pay me 10 million dollars, is it worth the risk? 100 million? 1 billion? What's the value of your life in that instance?
The problem again is that we do not yet have an objective morality established. I attempted to start one, but it is based off of a reducto ad absurdum argument at best, and likely both too complicated and mundane to work through to get to human evaluation. At best, one can craft guidelines that likely work in most contexts. The problem of course is someone will insist inevitably that these guidelines work for all contexts, and you run into absolutism problems, or someone will discounter a general morality as 'too subjective' and dismiss it outright because they personally don't like it.
Hopefully, the advantage of the theory to you is that you do not have to work on separating the rational from the moral. When the two are tied together, that just adds complexity. But to your point about the turtles, this is also compounded by the independent context of everyone's instinct and outlooks. While we can train an objective outlook, everyone's individual risk assessment and tolerance of the unknown is going to differ. Is there a 'best' scenario that applies in all cases? Probably not considering the variety of responses people and animals have to the same situation. Can we once again make guidlines for general applicaiton? Perhaps.
Quoting Astorre
Thank you, I'm glad you've found it useful! I agree that calm conditions allow an individual time to think through the possibilities before needing to come to a conclusion. Pure deduction often takes time and energy. The more detailed you want to go, the more it takes. There is always a pull between how deep a person wants to analyze something before making a judgement call about it. I think a calm and trained mind can help a person work efficiently and not have to weigh the specter of potential loss if one does not make a decision immediately. The less time and more pressure we have to make a decision quickly, the more difficult its going to be to think about it rationally.
Thanks for the chatGPT link, its neat to see a summary of how the LLMs work internally. Yes, its nice they haven't learned to rewrite themselves yet, but its probably only a matter of time. :)
This is a very important point. You see, it seems to me that you analyze and evaluate facts and events rationally. (If only because an irrational person couldn't possibly write a paper like yours.)
However, and this often happens in life, people are willing to calmly face death, even when the probability of death is 90% or higher. And absolutely free of charge. It is only necessary to have certain prejudices (beliefs, ideas, identities)
I think the desire to understand why things happen the way they do prompted me to begin research in this area. An important clarification: I'm not trying to remake anyone by showing humanity how to live correctly. My goal is to provide a tool for description.
What's surprising is that such examples are also found in the animal kingdom. For example, mothers of many species (I've observed this especially in mammals) readily sacrifice their lives to preserve their offspring. Of course, animals don't have the complex minds capable of abstraction that humans have. Perhaps what a mother does in the wild is instinctive (although such behavior isn't observed in all animals); perhaps it's intelligent to some degree; Perhaps explainable by evolutionary theory or other approaches. I don't think anyone can seriously claim to know the truth on this matter.
However, similar behavior is common among Humans. Which is good, since we ourselves are representatives of this species, with the appropriate degree of abstraction, it can be described.
What is this? The influence of ideas, God, biology, evolution? Or perhaps aliens =)?
For now, I've settled on the mechanism I proposed at the beginning, with subsequent refinements. It's not the truth, but a descriptive tool. What are your thoughts on this?
I tend to be more rational now as I've trained myself, but it was not always so. Early on in life I ran by intuition. If I can go from that in early college to someone who is known by my friends and job as a logical person to go to when hard problems need solving, anyone can. I believe anyone with the will and the knowledge how to be rational, can become more rational in their life with effort.
I believe in your project. One of the most important things to me is giving the general person the tools to be better. Academia is often a lock and key of social class. Most people are trying to scrape together money for next month's rent. It doesn't mean they're stupid, inferior, or lack passion for a greater understanding of their world. Words that can capture concepts succinctly and effectively are very useful for clear thought.
Looking at your model, I personally would change your Cognitive Deductions to be more like applicable knowledge. A deduction not empirically tested in some manner can often be wrong, and experience, or empirical evaluation is that test.
So Number 2 should be the marriage of empirics and deduction, and models should include deductions. Finally, I would also include that axioms are also empirically tested. Other than that I think its good!
As for your first 3, I would add one more: Testability. We often easily come up with concepts that are fine constructs of logic and deduction, yet utterly untestable. Testability includes 'falsification', which is not, "That its false," but that we can test it against a state in which it would be false, yet prove that its still true. For example, "This shirt is green." Its falsifiable by it either not being a shirt, or another color besides green. A unicorn which cannot be sensed due to magic is not falsifiable. Since we cannot sense it, there can be no testable scenario in which the existence of a unicorn is falsifiable.
Quoting Astorre
I believe its evolution. I wrote another paper on a proposal for what 'good' is at an objective level. And by this I literally mean objects themselves. As we are composed of matter and energy, I wanted to see if there was a fundamental moral underpinning to base existence that would eventually apply to humanity. As I said, its not a simple topic but here it is if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1
Thanks for the link, I've read it. I'm currently very busy developing this model and want to take a break from both ontology and ethics. I'll return to your text later. If you're interested in these issues right now, I suggest you read my first major work on ontology, one chapter of which I posted on this forum.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16103/language-of-philosophy-the-problem-of-understanding-being
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, I'm familiar with Popper's ideas. I generally like modern postpositivism. I considered incorporating falsifiability into my model, and frankly, it would have benefited from it in its rigor. However, I deliberately avoided it. I'll explain why.
The point is, I was experimenting. I tried explaining Popper's "falsifiability" to three acquaintances with bachelor's degrees in their respective fields. This was because I wanted to help them understand their personal (in my opinion, unjustifiably trusting) attitudes toward numerology or astrology. They are accomplished experts in their fields, and when meeting someone, they always remember to ask about their zodiac sign. I spent several lunches explaining Popper's approach, and they even absorbed the material. However, within a few days, they discarded this tool for assessing scientific validity as unsuitable for them, preferring astrology.
Well, then. I wasn't upset, but apparently falsifiability isn't a standard criterion for evaluating a statement for the average person.
Ideas float around in people's heads and are accepted as true or false, mostly without regard for Popper's approach (even though this assertion of mine is partly speculative, I found it to be quite reasonable).
Quoting Philosophim
Frankly, this was the intended idea; I simply chose a very brief conceptual presentation for the forum so I could consult with you about the general idea.
In fact, what interests me most is the "dynamics of ideas": how they leap from one level to another, what needs to be done to achieve this, what conditions must be met. And most importantly, how ideas accumulate "ontological debt," which ultimately leads to their collapse.
Earlier in the correspondence, in response to one of the questions, I analyzed in detail the old feminist slogan "all people are sisters." This pure speculation, elevated to the second level by an act of will, generated so many consequences for reality that it continues to infect new minds. Nevertheless, having accumulated its "ontological debt" (due to its inconsistency with reality), this idea ultimately collapsed.
Using my proposed approach, it's also possible to predict the fate of other interesting ideas, such as "inclusivity," "transgender," and so on. (Frankly, I'm deliberately avoiding discussion of these ideas, as in some societies these ideas even outshine the idea of ??"freedom of speech.")
Of course, until a more or less coherent mathematical model is attached to the model, my thoughts will seem like the ramblings of a madman.
I don't yet know what should be published publicly and what's best left for labs.
At the same time, thank you so much for your feedback and your approach, which I really liked!
This topic hasn't generated much interest on this forum, but I'll try to expand on the content once I've refined my ideas into something worthwhile. I'll keep you posted.
Fantastic exploration of how language shapes thinking. Very well written. :)
Quoting Astorre
Interesting but not unexpected. I too have found explaining falsifiability to be 'clunky'. It may be that the approach to explaining it is the issue, not the underlying concept itself. If we changed how we explained it if it would go better. Something to the effect of, "We're testing to see if its not real. If it is real, then we won't be able to find that it isn't real." I'm not sure myself. The real question is whether your rules as is can break away people from poor ideas and concepts without including this in some way. You'll find that out through application I'm sure.
Quoting Astorre
I agree, this is interesting to me as well. Often times an idea is not motivated by rational thinking, but emotional, cultural, or personal benefit.
Quoting Astorre
That's always how it begins. I think you have a great idea here with good motivations. Feel free to share with us here as you move along.
Quoting Astorre
Very much the same back! Its always a delight to find other passionate and creative people. I wish you the best in your explorations and work!
I am not sure that we can not weigh our thoughts. A thought about fairies and unicorns would not weigh much. However, the thought of a nuclear war that is recorded in pictures and written accounts of what happened would have a lot of weight, both emotionally and logically, because of being supported by facts. You know, as in "weigh the evidence carefully". And the scales by which we judge.
There might be a cultural bias favoring physical weight only, but this would be too limited for an understanding of weights and our experience.
They will probably outgrow their preference for the mystical. I will quote one fact from AI to add weight to what I have said. "Younger adults (18-30s) tend to identify as more superstitious." Those over 65 are more likely to have lost their sense of wonder and be more grounded in empirical information. However, those of us who have not grown old and retain our child-like thrill to discover, might have an advantage. That is totally my opinion. I would also argue that a love of superstitious notions is most likely to catch the imagination of adolescents. 18 is way too old.
I like what I read in a very old book about logic. The author said we can never be so well informed that we can be absolutely sure of what we think we know.
Good point. I suppose ideas could have their properties, hence idea of gold would be heavier than idea of paper for the same mass and size. However, it would still be our faculty of reasoning which investigates, and can make the judgement. Ideas themselves would be still unable to present the knowledge of their own properties just by entering into mind.
I have great respect for your age and really enjoy your comments on this forum. They always convey a sensitive nature, tempered by a strong sense of self-control and self-discipline. That's why I'd like to elaborate a bit on what I'm writing here.
So, I'm not going to claim anything, but it certainly seems that everyone has a certain hierarchy of ideas. When making decisions, most of us would rather be guided by what we accept as fact than by what's written in the tabloids or on a fence (though this isn't necessarily true in all cases).
But what do we accept as fact? I'll give you a real-life example from history. Before the modern heliocentric model of the solar system, there was a geocentric model (the Ptolemaic model). People thought the sun revolved around the earth. The astronomy of that time accepted this as fact. Astronomers calculated the motion of the stars based on the earth being at the center. And you know, they were quite successful at this. Calendars were compiled and lunar cycles were calculated using this model.
However, due to the retrograde motion of the planets (natural to the heliocentric model), the geocentric model constantly required the addition of epicycles (circles within circles).
By the 15th and 16th centuries, there were already about 80 of these epicycles. Developing navigation and trade demanded incredible precision from astronomy to stay on track. But the existing model had become so cluttered that it required incredible calculation efforts.
Nevertheless, everyone liked it, and the church accepted this model as the truth. Geocentrism was the truth. Just imagine that. From within this model, it was impossible to revise it until Copernicus came along and said, "What if...?" He went beyond what was generally accepted as fact. How difficult it was for him and his followers to revise geocentrism. But it was revised.
Today, we look upon people who believe the Earth is flat, or upon geocentrists, as cranks. The same applies to adherents of other "facts" considered true in earlier times.
Imagine that perhaps our descendants will look upon us the same way in 300-500 years.
That is, everything we scientifically verify, compare with logic, and study factually will perhaps seem bizarre to our descendants.
Hence, I conclude that what we call "facts" may be nothing more than a trick of our minds.
Based on this reasoning, I constructed and proposed the model at the beginning of this post. I think you'll find it interesting to reread it.
There's a crucial point here that we haven't sufficiently addressed. In real life, it often happens that our ideas, even when confronted with reality and not verified by it, are nonetheless not discarded, but rather strengthened. Let's look at an example.
Let's say we hold the idea "bears are kind" at Level 2 (this could be for various reasons, but we simply believe it). Then we encounter a reality in which a bear runs toward us aggressively and growls. But the mind refuses to reject the idea "a bear can be aggressive," because you have blind "faith." It seems like it's simply the wrong bear. Or perhaps your enemies sent it to undermine your beliefs.
In psychology, this is called "confirmation bias"—a type of cognitive distortion.
What must happen for a person to begin to re-evaluate their Level 2 ideas in line with reality (Level 3 facts)? Maybe the bear should bite the bearer of the idea or someone close to them? In real life, things can be more complicated.
When a person (or society) refuses to accept refutation, they begin to expend colossal energy maintaining their idea.
You need to come up with thousands of interpretations to justify why the "kind bear" just bit off someone's leg.
You need to censor those who witnessed the bite.
You need to convince yourself that the wound is a "form of hug."
As you understand, we're not talking about wild animals here. The bear example is used as an illustrative example.
So, what's clear at this stage of the research is that if you're stuck within a belief paradigm, it's quite difficult to break out of it. On the other hand, if you constantly react to any noise that contradicts the paradigm in small ways, then nothing good will come of that either. After all, a person is shaped by the ideas they accept on faith (if I'm not mistaken, the author of this was A.P. Chekhov).
Nietzsche criticizes such dogmatism. He suggests becoming "who you are." He argues that there are no facts, only interpretations. Therefore, they must be verified and independently understood.
However, this isn't always the case. Not everyone is ready for this.
In this regard, my question is not "what should I do?" or "what's the right thing to do?", but rather, how does this mechanism work? What motivates a person to reconsider their views or defend their ideas to the end, even to the death?
Yes, ideas do have properties, and if we could use AI, I would gladly do so. I can not use AI, so I will ask you to Google "properties of ideas". The first time I googled that, I got an explanation of property rights. The second time, I got an explanation of the properties of ideas that are the subject of this post.
Instead of the "property of thoughts, try using the term "quality of thought". That will get a more profound explanation.
The classics that were the foundation of education in the US are heavier reading than Captain Underpants, which has nothing to do with character development, and is only about amusing children, so they will read the book. While the classics have been left out of school libraries because they require deep thinking, and children accustomed to being amused and junk food, no longer read the classics.
Quoting Astorre
Hopefully that will be so.
Quoting Astorre
I wish most of us wanted facts, but that is not what I see. I love your notion of a hiarchy if thoughts. I have never thought of what you are talking about until you brought it up. I think our hierarchy of thoughts begins with how we feel, not exactly how we think. We desperately need to feel like we belong to something bigger than ourselves and to be accepted and valued. However, it is not easy to have the feeling in our huge populations where we are strangers in a crowd. On top of that, we are running our lives on what we individually want and not a shared culture with shared beliefs and values. Media and commercials have seriously disrupted the human social experience.
To cope with today's reality, we seek a group that we may or may not personally know the members of this group. This is an identity thing and how we "feel" about who we are and who they are. Our group may be the individuals who accumulate a lot of guns and walk into a public place and shoot as many people as possible. A person may feel these people are like them, and the killers give them permission to be killers. This is especially so if somehow these mass murders look like a heroic act for some reason. :lol: I have to learn more about Jung to explain. Anyway, we are breaking up and then uniting in new ways.
Maybe we are among the beautiful-haired people who use the best product for our beautiful hair. Maybe we are against abortion and belong with those who struggle to prevent abortions. Or the new one, maybe we look like a girl but feel like a boy. The point is we are getting our identities by imagining we are members of groups, and some of these groups believe ridiculous things, such as we are told that we have to wear masks because the government wants to control us. Don't get vaccinated because.....? :brow: I am sorry, but we are not seeking truth. We want to be loved and accepted and valued, and that means finding the group that best fits us, and boy, oh boy, can some of these people be radical.
On the other hand, colleges are tightly controlling what professors say. The professor must be technologically correct and can be sued for saying something politically incorrect. Kind of like Galileo. On all levels, education is manifesting intense concern about technological correctness. This is a totally different mindset from education using the classics to produce good citizens and a strong democracy.
Quoting Astorre
Yes, the adherents of other "facts" can feel strongly about what they believe, and we can feel strongly about them. It really gets difficult when someone would be a very good friend, if only she didn't believe what she believes. Seriously, one person has destroyed friendships and even torn apart families, as happened during the civil wars in the US and UK. It would be so wonderful if we could agree on what is true and with reason live together happily forever after.
That was a hope of the Enlightenment, and I am puzzling about why that is so hard. Thinking the government wants us to wear masks because "they" want to control us is just nuts. Failing to understand what oil has to do with US military actions and the US having enemies is shameful. We can not achieve our potential if we do not base our lives on good moral judgment and correct reasoning. How can we build a better hierarchy of thinking?
This I never got an answer to. I have a feeling its a variable scale. There's likely a mean and median, but not anything universal. I believe that's for psychology to discover.
This is a very important detail in the formation of beliefs. It is precisely this desire to belong to a group, so simple and stubborn, that dictates many of our prejudices (ideas). Rarely is anyone willing to declare something true, despite the community or group to which they belong.
This has long been a restraining factor and a powerful tool in the hands of "social engineers."
It stems from the feeling of security that group membership provides. The desire to be understood and included. The notion of a shared identity and the need to fit in. However, the modern world and the internet, as well as large metropolitan areas, have slightly altered this in people. Now you can find like-minded people online. There's no longer any need to know your neighbors or stick together in extended families. The world has become more individual. AI has further exacerbated this: now, even for a heart-to-heart conversation, you don't need to maintain a close relationship with someone. After all, you have a wonderful, flattering companion in your pocket, ready to share your every experience, offer wise advice, and adapt to you in a way no one else has before.
Echo chambers or global villages. At the same time, despite the new format of society, even the most extreme form of individualism does not provide the mobility to reconsider ideas. It does not refine the cognitive lens to a philosophical degree of purity. Still, this desire to conform to prevailing ideas remains within us, even if the communities that share them are already a figment of our imagination.
What awaits us next? Deepening relativism and the destruction of old dogmas and the overthrow of "gods"? Or perhaps such a structure is completely unsustainable, and the decayed (due to the lack of a unified ideology) society will be replaced by other, more united ones? One can only guess.
In exploring this topic earlier, I introduced an additional factor in the evaluation of an idea into my model: intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity is the number of minds in which an idea has been accepted as dogma.
However, when analyzing the hierarchy of personality, it is not as universal as when analyzing society. Some beliefs (ideas) can even be found only once in a single individual and still guide their actions.
Therefore, at the current stage, we have four tools for assessing the "weight of an idea":
1. Universality
2. Accuracy
3. Productivity
4. Intersubjectivity
But I still think this is insufficient. There must be
something else.
Quoting Athena
A great method for this was suggested by Popper, previously mentioned in this thread:
Quoting Philosophim
However, as he later noted, and I agree with him, the method is somewhat clumsy:Quoting Philosophim
I propose this approach, although it's more laboratory and philosophical than widespread.
It's called the "inversion filter." The essence of the method is this: Take any Level 2 statement and flip it backwards. Then, we check to see if the statement becomes more effective.
For example: take the statement "All bears are kind." We flip it backwards: "All bears are mean." Both resulting statements are false, but that's good—they could both be dogmas. Next, we check which of these two statements would generate more productivity for us if we found ourselves in a forest with wild bears. Based on our knowledge of bears, the latter, of course. From the perspective of someone who knows nothing about bears other than that they are kind—this would at least make us doubt its truth.
Try it yourself with other Level 2 ideas. What do you come up with?
But can thoughts reflect the nature of the reality in the external world? Or are thoughts purely mental states of conscious beings?
You said so much, and I am a bit overwhelmed, so I am reducing what you said to this paragraph. I chose this statement because it directly hits upon a problem I, and others, are dealing with at the moment. Someone wrote a book about civilizations falling when they become too complex. I think we are in danger of falling because what we have is too complex to survive.
Where I live, a major medical insurance company could not make agreements with essential parts of the system, so it is leaving. All of the members of the company that is leaving must find another insurer or wait to be processed to form the insurer that is leaving to another medical insurer that has agreed to take on all the people being transferred. This is a little nuts because we are being transferred back to an insurer that our major hospital refused to do business with. I am assuming the insurance company now has a working relationship with the hospital.
The transfer from one insurer to another is not going well!!!! No one knows what is happening, and we are getting wrong information when we call. I know this because at the same time the transfer is in process, the gym I go to is re-enlisting members for the new year. I can not renew my membership because I am in limbo having neither the insurance I had, nor the insurance I am transferring to.
I called the insurance company I am being transferred to and was told I have to call the state and re-enroll in Medicare/Medicaid. I call the state and no one answers the phone because too many people are calling. I go on-line and that is a nightmare. Some of us did not grow up with the internet, and when we have to use it, we are like fish out of water. So then I decided to drive to the Senior and Disability Services office and see if I can resolve the transfer problem I am having. No one at Senior and disability services knew what is happening nor how to help me. Two people working at the counter kind of agree I don't have to worry about the transfer because it is happening automatically.
I hope you do not understand what I am saying, because then you will better understand the problem. This is not functional. Guess how I feel.
I don't give a hoot what someone believes. The people I need to communicate with could be Christians, Hindus, or atheists. I don't care. They could have slant eyes, or dark skin, or polka skin, I don't care. They might believe the world is flat, or that all of humanity came from a couple who were cursed by a God, and therefore we all need saving. I don't care what they believe.
What matters is my ability to call any official I need to speak with, and I need to resolve the problems that we now have with all this complexity. Most of my life I never had medical insurance, and I could walk into any doctor's office and get medical care as long as I could pay for it. There was no policy, no doctor, or no insurance company that could block me from getting the medical care I need. Now I am powerless. I have to figure out who is the right person to call, and everyone else's policy, and all the technology before I can get what I need. And there is no assurance that the people I am speaking with know how to process things.
God forgive me, but the best way to clarify what I am saying is to use AI, and I think our understanding of the problem is very important. This is far more important than if we should have tattoos and piercings, or a community celebration, or allow men and women to marry same gender people. We have a national problem and perhaps an international problem, and we need to be aware of that so we can consider ways to avoid a complete breakdown.
I've read all of this. It's a cry from the heart, and I can understand, because my parents are now pensioners in the very country they believed in, where they went to build when they were young, when they moved there, and where you, along with them, are struggling with all these bureaucratic joys. Of course, I'm talking about the United States.
Looking at my profile, it may seem a bit foreign, but that's precisely what allows one to judge with detachment.
I sincerely empathize with you. And speaking in the language of my own model, I would say—this is the very "ontological debt" that you, along with my parents, are paying for the system whose values ??you accepted. Perhaps this sounds a little harsh, but if you return to my previous posts, you'll understand what I mean. And you know what I mean? This speech is just a quiet, humble voice, seemingly foreign. But we all feel it the same way. As they say in Russia, "I ate this excrement with a Russian wooden spoon."
My parents and I often discuss such matters. And I realize that all I can offer them is comfort. The same comfort that each of us finds in this strange science—philosophy.
The US adopted Germany's bureaucratic model and Germany's education for technology for military and industrial purposes. We could compare Maxwell's bureaucratic order with Deming's order. That is https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-max-weber/ and https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/. I am quite sure your parents would value Deming's system over Maxwell's order. If they are interested in such matters, it would be so cool to have coffee with them and you, and discuss all this.
Bottom line: by adopting Germany's bureaucratic and education models, we became what we defended our democracy against in the two world wars, on steroids. To make the US great again, we need to return to what Eisenhower called our domestic education, which considered the classics as important, and move forward on Deming's model of management. This is very much a cultural thing with social, economic, and political ramifications.
Once the elders are gone, the memory of the democracy we had will be forgotten, and in its place will be nothing but the Military-Industrial Complex.
I am not good at that. :chin: I think I am very sexist, along with my female friends. When we came of age, there was an unquestioned social expectation that boys became men and girls became women and we all had rights and duties. I can feel the weight of that. It is not like liking chocolate more than vanilla and all the other frivolous thoughts we have. Our social organization has consequences, and our children and children's children live with the result of our choices.
I know that is not the frame of mind we have today; however, science has gone from believing there is no difference between male and female brains to identifying some differences. I am saying all this carefully because I want to say something that is politically/socially incorrect.
My friends and I talk about how men can compartmentalize things in their heads. That is much harder for women, who are much more apt to see that one thing is related to another. AI explains this very well, and there are some social factors to the gender difference, making it more complex than just a biological truth. What I am absolutely sure of is that for me, everything is related to everything else. I am saying, I am not detached!
I don't know if you think what I am saying is important, but what I say comes with emotions, and what I am saying is very important in my point of view. I hope you pick up on this and reply. My understanding of life is full of emotional reactions, and I like that we have begun studying this and talking about emotional intelligence. My feeling opinion is that males and females are different, and demanding women be like men and men be like women is threatening our survival. How about that for a heavy thought?
It has occurred to it has become popular for speakers to emphasize the points they want people to remember. I watch videos about history, and the speakers are all using this trick to get our minds to pay attention to what they are saying.
What they do is say...
"Now this is very interesting."
"Now this is something you want to remember."
"This is very important."
I have noticed every time one of these phrases is used, I automatically pay more attention to what is being said. I googled to be clear on this, and "Yes, our minds wander significantly while someone is talking". That obviously means when we are making an argument and want others to pay attention, we need to alert their minds to pay attention. We need to add weight to our ideas if we want to stop minds from wandering while we are talking.
An excellent example. Well, I think there can be quite a few specific, individual cases of misleading or manipulative thinking.
For example, Schopenhauer cites many such examples in his book "The Art of Winning Arguments." It contains numerous specific examples, which modern writers, of course, have significantly refined. Modern tabloid psychology is literally replete with these headlines: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (Carnegie) and so on.
So, I take my "meta-tool" for analysis. What is all this?
These are techniques for achieving one's goal: somehow selling a product, gaining favor, and then selling the product or winning a vote.
In essence, I call such oratorical techniques "Sufism." Sophistry, unlike Rhetoric, serves the interests of the speaker, not the interests of truth.
So, you've named specific cases of manipulation. They're quite easy to read, provided you follow one rule: try not to get emotional about the incoming flow of information.
The system proposed here is on a slightly different level. It allows you to evaluate and weigh the degree of falsehood (or truth) of any idea through its functionality.
Good luck with that one. I think people tend to be unaware of their emotional response. If a salesperson tells me something is a limited-time offer or supplies are low, and I might not be able to get the product or service, I walk away. I know that is a trick that triggers a fear, and the brain misinterprets the fear as an increased desire.
I was in sales for a short time. I am an excellent order taker, but not a salesperson. I just could not, in good conscience, use those tricks. That is quite an internal struggle because I could have used the money well. That is petty stuff compared to the housing bubble and a banking breakdown that hurt not only the US but also Europe. Good judgment and trust are essential to a good economy.
Oh, oh, I am on my soapbox. Democracy does not work if people do not have good moral judgment, and we do not just naturally have good judgment because that must be learned and then practiced until it becomes habitual. We also must learn principles for good judgment. All this goes with a learned sense of responsibility.
I am afraid education for technology does not prepare us for democracy. We have universal education because it is essential to being good citizens. But our education got corrupted when we entered the nuclear age and entered the Cold War. That is another subject. The point is our thinking is complex and related to our education. The following is important to why we think as we do and why some things have more weight than others.