"Well, I'm back" (2 Weeks Ago)
After a few years of absence, and a move from the BBC to here (wherever 'here' is), I'm back. Maybe for a short time, maybe for good. We'll see. There was a reason I left, all those years ago. Hopefully things have changed. We'll see.

Is there anyone still here that might remember me, I wonder?
Click here to discuss this
(6 replies, Latest reply: Last Week)

Justification (Apr 16, 2006)
It is a sad consequence of the way I see and understand the universe that I rarely get to present my beliefs and opinions in a positive and constructive manner, for your consideration, dear reader.

Rather, I find that my beliefs lead me to comment on the confidence with which we all present our beliefs, normally to observe that this confidence is not wholly justified. Often beliefs which I share are presented as 'fact' (or something similarly 'certain'), and I find myself disagreeing, not with the argument presented, but with the strength of its justification.

If I had to identify one aspect of my understanding of the universe which is most significant, I would have to say it's the (misplaced) reliance we feel able to place on our own opinions and views, compared with the (overstated) lack of reliance and confidence we are able to express about the views of others.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Apr 16, 2006)

Herman Hesse (Mar 28, 2006)
Herman Hesse wrote some spellbinding books. Here are some quotes from his writings:

Eternity is a mere moment, just long enough for a joke.

If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.

Knowledge can be communicated, but wisdom cannot. A man can find it, he can live it, he can be filled and sustained by it, but he cannot utter or teach it.

People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest.

When dealing with the insane, the best method is to pretend to be sane.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: Sep 22, 2008)

Celebrating diversity! (Nov 29, 2005)
What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?" - Nietzsche
Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Nov 29, 2005)

What is? (Sep 2, 2005)
What *is*?

To start with, I think therefore I am. Outside my mind, nothing is certain; nothing *is*. ... But the Real World (RW) *probably* is. Very probably. We can work with that.

So let's assume the RW, as we perceive and understand it, *is*, acknowledging but setting aside the debates about our non-objective perceptions and so on. But perceiving the RW as one big lump isn't very useful to us. It's easier to understand if we can sub-divide it a bit.

So, pretty early on in our history, maybe quite soon after we developed the ability to communicate with one another, we must have created the concept of length, to describe the separation of objects we perceive in the RW. Then, via the creation of numbers and counting, we created units of length, and became able to measure - and even compare - distances.

Around the same time , we must also have created the concept of time, to describe the separation of events we perceive in the RW. And our numbers and counting enabled the creation of units of time, and we became able to measure - and even compare - durations.

None of these eminently useful things - length, time, numbers and counting - exist in the RW. They're all mapping tools that help us to understand it. Yes, there are identifiable objects, and they are separated in the RW, but there is no length out there, just separated objects. Similarly, there is no time out there, just separated events. No numbers or counting either.

It's fascinating, when you think carefully about it, how much of the RW we perceive exists only in our minds. So much of our understanding is based upon the tools we've created to help us live in the RW.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(5 replies, Latest reply: Jan 13, 2006)

Time and again (Aug 31, 2005)
For the purposes of discussion, I shall assume that the past is fixed and known [1]. The future, in contrast is not fixed and not known. The present is that instant where the unknown future solidifies into the fixed and immutable past.

Psychologists and neurologists tell us that it takes about a quarter of a second for our minds to turn raw sense data into something we can understand in the context of the world as we know it. We live not in the present, but just enough in the past to give us the perspective we need to make sense of it.

"History repeats itself" is invariably quoted in the context of repeating past mistakes, and failing to learn from history. I have always thought this misleading. It is only because history repeats itself that we can make sense of the world. We interpret new events according to similar events we have observed in the past. And because history repeats itself, this is a successful strategy.

As the future draws closer to the present, the probabilities of events happening or not happening becomes clearer. Predicting next month's weather is a guessing game, but predicting the weather for the next ten minutes is a lot less random. Nevertheless, the future can only be understood in terms of the probabilities of events happening of not.

In a process reminiscent of quantum theory, the probability functions governing future events collapse in the moment of the present and become fixed and immutable: the past.

Some belief systems recommend that we try to live in the now. That we suspend the integration of events into our mental world models, and just allow the present to wash over us as it happens. I'm sure this can be approached, if not achieved, but does it have value? Without the integration into our own understandings, limited though that might be, surely we can do nothing but passively observe the future becoming the past? Is our participation in the world a Bad Thing, or is there something I've missed?

Anything new comes from the future, the only place where possibility and potential exist. The present is where it happens, then it's gone. Evanescent; transient; may-fly art. Crumbling as it is created, never to come again. What a glorious tragedy time is!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[1] - an interesting speculation: if the past is continually changing, we'd never notice. Our understanding of time is such that whatever lies in our past is set in concrete. If the past changes, we'd remember the new version as the only version that took place. No matter how many changes took place, and how often.... Think of time as a dynamic thing, with the whole of space-time locked into its dance-steps. It makes your brain ache - and we'd never have a clue!
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Temporary residence (May 11, 2005)
A short time ago, a friend of mine went to the doctor with a touch of bronchitis. It turned out to be advanced lung cancer and his funeral is on Friday. He was only 47, three years younger than me. Like me, he smoked roll-ups for many years. S**t!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: May 16, 2005)

List of infuriating things #131178! (Nov 22, 2004)
Washing towels in fabric softener, that renders them (strongly) water-resistant. Fabric softeners may have their place - I am unsure even of this! - but that 'place' does not include fabrics required to be absorbent. Here, on a site that truly appreciates the importance of towels ( ), I expect that my fury will be understood, maybe even well-received!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

My idea of fun! (Nov 7, 2004)
On Thursday evening, the 'tummy-ache' I'd had for a week got worse and I called the doctor out. By midnight I was in hospital, and on Friday my appendix was removed. Now it's Sunday and I'm home again, feeling somewhat fragile. Still, I'll have plenty of time to play on h2g2 over the next few days! Hey ho!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Nov 8, 2004)

Partings (Oct 29, 2004)
On Monday, I heard of John Peel's passing. As Andy Kershaw said of him, he was the most important person in British rock music today. Many bands owe their existence in the public eye to Peel. Rest in peace, John.

On Wednesday, our little dog, Rowan, reached a point where his life was no longer satisfying for him or for us. His legs no longer worked properly, and he was suffering significant pain. It was time, and we made that long, last trip to the vet's surgery. Fifteen years is a long time, now he's gone.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(3 replies, Latest reply: Nov 1, 2004)

What's wrong with dogma? (Oct 4, 2004)
Dogma has a highly perjorative meaning. Why?

In any belief system, there are axioms, or dogma. Those who subscribe to the belief system must accept them, because the body of beliefs is derived from these axioms. If you don't accept the basis (dogma), then the derived reasoning won't be valid for you either.

If you don't accept that parallel lines never meet, then Euclidean geometry won't work for you. If you don't accept that Jesus is the son of God, then Christianity won't make much sense to you.

There is no reason why anyone *must* accept dogma for its own sake (or for any other reason). But, if you embrace any belief system, you must accept its dogma. If you can't do that, that belief system isn't for you.

So why the perjorative interpretation of the word 'dogma'?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(11 replies, Latest reply: Oct 7, 2004)

A definition of time (Sep 30, 2004)
Can we define time in a way that is not tautological? Many of the words we might choose to use have the concept of time embedded in them: hence my thought of tautology. Any grammatical structure with tense has our concept of time embedded in it, as do words and phrases such as "before", "after", "and then", "sequence of events", "during", "by now", "when" and so on. The list seems almost endless.

The only approach I can think of that *might* work is to withdraw from the real world, into the fantasy land of mathematics and physics. Time is an axis on a graph, a dimension akin to length, along which things have some freedom of movement. The 'now' in which people live is a point on this axis, moving at a steady rate in one direction: toward the future.

What *is* time?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(6 replies, Latest reply: Apr 15, 2005)

What is reality? (Jul 27, 2004)
This is the latest in a line of entries, but because you can't edit them, I have to post it anew:

Reality is what we perceive it to be. This is not an absolute statement, but it's as close as we can get, as the following paragraphs explain.

Axiom[1]: human perception is intrinsically subjective; objective[2] perception is impossible for us. [3]

We can understand the concept of objectivity. We can formulate objective hypotheses. But we cannot objectively verify their truth in the real world, as our perception is not objective. So the pursuit of *objective* - certain - knowledge is pointless (although the search for *knowledge* is not).

[More formally, this has to do with 'completeness': David Hilbert said around 1928 that if we are going to have any fundamental system for all of mathematics it must satisfy three basic requirements: consistency, completeness and decidability. Completeness means that if any statement is true, there must be some way of proving it by using the rules of your system. In this sense, objective science is incomplete, as objective truth cannot be proven according to its own (objective) standards.]

So what is left if we set aside objectivity? This is best answered with a brief thought experiment: Consider a group of creatures living in a reality that has objective existence, whether the creatures know it or not. Select a creature at random. What does it know of the reality in which it lives? It learns of this reality from its perceptions, so on what can its perceptions depend?

1. The reality in which the creature lives.
2. The creature's mind.
3. The mind(s) of one or more of its fellow creatures.
4. Some combination of the above.
5. None of the above.

Option 1 represents objective perception. What the creature perceives is dependent only on the external reality in which it lives. It has certain knowledge of its environment.

Options 2, 3 and 5 represent variations on the theme of solipsism. The creature's perceptions have no connection with the reality in which it lives. It has no certain knowledge of its environment.

I believe that option 4 represents the position in which we (humans) find ourselves, that our perception depends upon our minds *and* on the reality in which we live. We have knowledge of our environment, but it isn't certain (i.e. objective) knowledge. This, in my opinion, is the perceptual reality that lies in between Objectivity and Solipsism.

Abandoning our preoccupation with objectivity has benefits. For example:

+ To affect certain knowledge of an objective world is self-deception that muddies our thinking. Deliberate self-deception like this requires strong justification, and I can see none.

+ The illusion of certainty masks other possibilities. Any significant and new discovery will probably contradict current wisdom. If we *know* we are right, we discount - or fail to recognise - indications to the contrary, preventing any such discovery. Being aware of the fallibility of our perceptions improves our perception!

+ What we (subjectively) perceive has a probability of being correct. We can attempt to quantify that probability. Previously, it never occurred to us to consider such things: certainty is 100% probable. Learning to evaluate the accuracy of our perceptions will surely move our understanding forward.

So reality is what we perceive it to be. Probably.

---< o >---

[1] Axiom: an assumption or act of faith; a statement whose truth is accepted without proof.

[2] Objective: something whose truth is not dependent on people's opinions or conceptions.

[3] As axioms go, this one is relatively safe. Consider:

Hypothesis: human perception is intrinsically subjective; objective perception is impossible for us.

Analysis: If the hypothesis is true, then it is impossible for a human to verify; there can be no objective proof of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is false, then an objective refutation ought to be possible. The solipsist view - that "I" am the only real thing, and all else is a figment of my imagination - has remained objectively unassailable for millennia. If there were an objective refutation for the solipsist view, it would also invalidate our hypothesis. No such refutation has emerged.

Conclusion: The evidence is not conclusive. On the balance of probabilities, the hypothesis is probably true.
Click here to discuss this
(8 replies, Latest reply: Aug 9, 2004)

Time for bed, said Zebedee? (Jun 18, 2004)
Look behind you, into the past. It's gone, remote, and you can't touch it. Turn round again: the future is also barred. Now is when you are. Only now, that slice of time of more or less zero magnitude, is when you are. Take hold of now, and stretch it until it reaches the edges of everything. Let now encompass all time instead of none. It's all a matter of perspective.

Late night musings recorded; time for bed.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

The Unknown Rule of Debate (May 11, 2004)
I am constantly surprised in on-line debate forums when I see the number of posts that insult and ridicule those with whom they disagree. We debaters need to learn from diplomats. If we expect those with whom we debate to learn anything, we must present our arguments in an acceptable (to them) way.

If we put our point(s) in a way which ridicules and scorns those who disagree, then those who disagree are unlikely to listen. Would *you* in their position? I wouldn't.

Inside our own heads, even the most reasonable of us maintain the belief that we are right, and those who disagree with us are wrong. And I suspect this is just how things ought to be. But in our dealings with others, we achieve much more if we treat their opinions and beliefs with (outward) courtesy and respect.

If you are out to *force* the world to your point of view, go for it. Be as offensive as you like. No-one will listen to you. ... No-one will like you either. You will achieve nothing. Even if you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. People will prefer being wrong over being publicly humiliated, *every* time.

But if you hope to teach and to learn, give your debating 'partners' a face-saving way to accept what you say. Help them to avoid the humiliation or shame of having to 'back down'. Diplomats understand this, if debaters don't. Courtesy and respect toward your opponents (and their beliefs and opinions) is the Unknown Rule of Debate.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(19 replies, Latest reply: Oct 6, 2004)

The map and the territory (Apr 27, 2004)
As Magritte commented on his famous picture, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe". The map is not the territory.

There are some very particular ways in which the map should and must resemble the territory, and those are the qualities that allow the map to work.

In all other ways, there need be no similarity at all between the map and the territory. This does *not* affect the relationship between the map and the territory at all. The map still works as a map.

If you call a map "accurate", what are you comparing? If something is accurate, it "conforms precisely to a measurable standard". In the case of maps and territories, as we have already seen, there are qualities that they need not share. If "accurate" should refer to *these* qualities, it will only introduce confusion.

It's similar in some ways to guarding against expressing your opinion as a 'fact'. To do so is to confuse.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(11 replies, Latest reply: May 7, 2004)

Justice (Apr 26, 2004)
Some weeks ago, I left my car unlocked overnight. Someone opened it, and stole all my outdoor wear. It turned out to be worth around three hundred pounds! Today I read in my newspaper of a "suit that protects from lethal substances but which may prove fatal if touched has been stolen from a car in Durham". Am I permitted a nasty chortle, d'you think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(3 replies, Latest reply: Apr 27, 2004)

Absolutely! (Apr 26, 2004)
Considering my recent ramblings on certainty, and my older doubts about objectivity, and aligning them with 's "Epistemology without truth" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A2421208, which concludes, among other things, that absolute truth is unattainable), I am wondering if *all* absolutes are misleading and/or counter-productive?

Impractical daydream though it is, I wonder how our world would change if the expression of a Sure Thing was simply not allowed? I don't just mean 'against the law', I mean that if you did it, your fellow citizens would frown upon it, and perhaps shun your company.

If such expressions were commonly avoided, it seems likely that the language in which we currently express so many unjustified certainties would have to change. Like E-prime (English without any part of "to be"), our language would be changed. And if we think in words to any significant extent (I think we probably do), then the very way we think would change too.

The concept of absolutes, of being certain about something, is not difficult to grasp. But it seems to me that the problems absolutes raise far, far outweigh any benefit they may offer. Off with their heads. I say!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(7 replies, Latest reply: May 10, 2004)

Musings on certainty (Apr 21, 2004)
1. My experience of life indicates to me that human perception seems generally accurate, but definitely fallible.

2. My experience of life indicates to me that human memory seems generally accurate, but definitely fallible.

3. I have only ever noted the fallibility (described in 1 and 2) in other people. I have observed the fallibility of others' perceptions and memories, and noted that they had no inkling of a problem. Thus I deduce that: (a) if others perceptions and memories fail them and they don't realise it, the same probably happens to me from time to time , and (b) in general, there is no indication when my perception or memory is inaccurate: I assume, as I must, that my perception/memory works reliably.

4. The 'model' of the Universe that I have in my mind resembles a map. The map is not the territory, but using it to navigate the Real World normally results in what I expect; the map appears to work. And yet I must resist the temptation to assume that the Real World resembles my model in any meaningful sense, as I have no justification for this. [Analogy: a road map allows me to get from Brighton to Carlisle, but the flat paper map bears little resemblance to the land of Great Britain.]

Taking all the above together, it appears that certainty (0% or 100% probability) does not exist (for me!) in the Real World in which I live. Of course, this does not provoke a slide into chaos or solipsism, because all other values of probability *do* exist (again, for me). By analogy, the entire fence seems available for my use, but the two fence-posts (0% and 100% probability: the end-points) do not.

In one sense, therefore, I could be wasting my time and reasoning skills. Does it have a point? I think so: living my life, thinking and saying that X *is* Y, and similar things, contains implied certainties that I now know are unjustified. The implied certainty of *is* introduces problems, but does not appear to offer corresponding benefits. [Consider the apparent paradox I came across in my recent journal entry "nothing is certain".]

Now I must assemble these thoughts in a more cogent and useful format....
Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Apr 23, 2004)

Nothing is certain, therefore nothing is impossible. (Apr 19, 2004)
Journals appear most-recent entry first. Unfortunately, this is an addition to the entry I wrote yesterday, so it would probably be easier if you read the following note first, then came back here.

If nothing is certain, subject to the qualification and explanation described in the following entry, then in the same way, nothing is impossible. That introduces a breath of fresh air into reality, don't you think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Nothing is certain (Apr 17, 2004)
Certain: here, for simplicity and clarity, we shall consider certainty to mean that something is 100% - no less - probable.

Nothing is certain: a philosophical truism, poorly expressed. So poorly expressed that it leads to an apparent paradox: Nothing is certain, except for "Nothing is certain", which must be certain, mustn't it? You can demonstrate this in a number of different ways, but the apparent contradiction remains the same.

If we add context to "Nothing is certain", the paradox goes away. It's the implied certainty in the "is" that causes problems. Because human beings have fallible perceptions and memory, any observation a human might make could be mistaken. A human making a mistaken observation it can't tell. It seems to that person just like other observations they have made, which proved accurate. In this sense, for a human, no perception made can be certain.

Given this argument, it appears that any and all aspects of the Real World - whatever that is - must remain uncertain for humans. Something in the mind of a human *might* prove to be certain - to that human, and no other - perhaps we can have certain knowledge of some aspects of our own minds. But this does not seem all that useful, as far as I understand it. For practical purposes, nothing is certain.

Now we can see there's no paradox. We can be certain in our minds that none of our perceptions is certain. Just as long as we don't forget that our perceptions are accurate enough for most of the time. Although nothing is certain, some things are very very probable. Our empirical observations, and a little hindsight, confirm this.

Everything we have ever experienced or learned contributes in some way to a model of the Universe that we all have in our heads. This model enables us to predict what might happen if we did something, allowing us to do it, or not, so that we prosper. Your model and mine could be quite different. I don't know, and I don't think it matters. We use our models for the same purpose, which suffices for our purposes. Our models are like a map of Great Britain; they enable us to 'navigate' the Universe just as a map of Great Britain allows us to navigate in that country. The moral I wish to draw from this illustration is that the map is not the country, and the model is not the Universe.

Our models of the Universe have value to us because they allow us to live and prosper in that Universe. It is true that a successsful model and the Universe must have certain things in common, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for any resemblance between the two. What we think we 'see' out there may bear little resemblance to what *is* out there.

How much does that matter, I wonder?
Click here to discuss this
(10 replies, Latest reply: Aug 15, 2004)

A change of focus (Apr 16, 2004)
Over the last few years, I've worried away at Objectivity and classical science, and made some progress. I might even go so far as to claim *worthwhile* progress. Now I find that my thinking is pushing me toward a slightly different target: certainty.

The Objectivity thing is, in the end, too abstract to mean much in the real world. Certainty is much closer to reality as I experience it. Or rather, certainty is entirely absent from the reality I perceive! We can be sure - very very sure - of some things. Sure enough to rely on them, and get away with it in the vast majority of cases. But how many times can you remember a Sure Thing turning out not to be? Quite a few.

I've even worked out what it is that I find so annoying about Richard Dawkins when, on the face of it, he talks such good sense. It's the certainty which he claims for his knowledge, and the certainty with which he expresses it. I'm surprised someone as learned as Dawkins appears to be has failed to grasp the non-existence of certainty!
Click here to discuss this
(10 replies, Latest reply: Apr 18, 2004)

Duaphor (Feb 25, 2004)
The Duaphor, a contraction of 'dual metaphor' - can be written "24" in txtspk! - describes the Achilles' heel of Aristotelian thinking. It is the mindset that says there are only two members in a set:

- It says "If it isn't black, it must be white."

- It says "If you're not with us, you're against us."

- It says "This is true, therefore all else is false."

- It defines the 'either/or' mindset.

- It is judgemental.

- It assumes certainty without justification.

- It says "Steve is drunk" and ignores alternative explanations as to why he's walking so erratically.

The duaphor places blinkers on your thinking and your perception.


Reject the Duaphor!
Reject certainty!
Glory in endless possibilities!
Reserve judgement!

Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: Feb 25, 2004)

Law-breaker! (Feb 20, 2004)
What happens to someone if they 'break the law'? Why? ... What is the *purpose* of what they do to you if you break the law? The "penalty", it's called. What is it supposed to achieve?

These aren't difficult questions. Even the answers aren't *too* demanding. The problem we normally have is that we don't bother asking the questions. We all assume we know the answers, and that everyone else agrees with us.

Then we get involved in a discussion about crime, criminals and/or prison, and we can't understand why people don't seem to understand what it's all about.

There are a number of possible purposes for the penalties imposed upon law-breakers:

1. Revenge. An eye for an eye, and all that.
2. Deterrence. Discouraging potential future criminals by example.
3. Reparation. Trying to make amends for the offense.
4. Reorientation. Train or condition offenders not to offend again.
5. Protection of potential future victims.

You will almost certainly agree with one or more of the above. Just remember that not everryone shares your view. For example, *I* think the single, most important, purpose of penalties for breaking the law is 5: the protection of potential victims who have yet to be harmed:

We can't un-murder the poor bloke he got yesterday, but we can protect the woman he plans to kill tomorrow, by (for example) locking him up.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(3 replies, Latest reply: Apr 20, 2004)

Revenge (Feb 18, 2004)
*Honey* is sweet; *revenge* is pointless.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Feb 18, 2004)


Older Entries >>
Back to Researcher's Personal Space