h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm interested in the point you raise by talking about identification of people not having an accurate idea how reliable their memories are.
If someone has a *false* confidence in the reliability of input information to their reasoning, is there *any* reasoning system they can use which will really give 'valid' (or *more* 'valid') results?

The 'switch' experiments are interesting, but are really only an extreme example of selective attention. Though the experiment hasn't been done on me (as far as I know) I'm well aware that if someone I didn't know spoke to me briefly in a non-threatening context (asking directions, etc), I'd be generally unlikely to remember much about their appearance if asked even a few seconds after seeing them unless maybe if they were very distinctive, or reminded me of someone.

>>"But people *do* run into things. They just don't do it constantly. What you see is generally a fair reflection of reality. Most of the time"
So, keeping things general and simple, visual perception is actually pretty good?

>>"Most interesting of all: we have no real idea how often we do this. Is it every second? Every week? Who knows? There are no signs to let us know we've done it."
Well, there *are* some signs - such as things we were certain (or confident) about, which later turn out not to be the case.
Of course, a deal does depend on both memory and attention in such cases - some people may simply not reflect back on what they actually thought on a previous occasion, so may underestimate their mistakes in that way. Other people may edit their past in the light of new information.

There is a point that because we have finite mental resources, have no choice *but* to be highly selective in our attention and memory, which means there may be many situations when it would have been useful to have noticed something which we didn't notice, and such situations could be very hard for an individual to hope to detect.
However, that could be argued as omniscience failure or prescience failure rather than a failure of perception. Had we had a decision to make at the time and place where information *was* availaible, we could well have gathered the information with reasonable accuracy.

IMO, only trying to bear consciously in mind that their perceptions are accurate enough for most purposes, but neither objective nor infallible?



IMO, our overall perception is pretty good (but neither objective nor infallible).



Me too. Inattention is surely one contributor to the fallibility of our perception?





I was thinking more that, even after the fact, if we refer to our memory of whatever we perceived, there is nothing to indicate (to us) that this particular perception was flawed in any way. There is no 'parity-error' flag, or the like. And yet, as you say, hindsight often informs us that we *did* misperceive.

<[We] have no choice *but* to be highly selective in our attention and memory>

Indeed. This is another contributor to the fallibility of our perception. Unavoidable, as you say. On occasion, useful information will be selectively discarded (and useless information retained).



When we reach the point in time where it becomes clear that we *need* the information perceived, *then* the perception becomes - and is understood to be - a failure of perception. We rarely (never?) know which bits of data will prove valuable, and which useless, at the time of perception.



Isn't this just wishful thinking? That isn't (generally) how the world works, and we must defer to it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"IMO, only trying to bear consciously in mind that their perceptions are accurate enough for most purposes, but neither objective nor infallible?"

Which rather seems to be the caution I proposed for using binary logic. In other words, at least for situations where binary logic is a practical method of reasoning, it could be as good (valid?) as any other.

>>"When we reach the point in time where it becomes clear that we *need* the information perceived, *then* the perception becomes - and is understood to be - a failure of perception. We rarely (never?) know which bits of data will prove valuable, and which useless, at the time of perception."

I still think calling it a 'failure' of perception is stretching a point. 'Limitation' might be somewhat fairer.
Anyway, that limitation can often be compensated for by human action. if needing to know how many replacement bulbs are needed on the street where I live, I can always go and look if I don't actually know.
The fact that humans are *agents*, and not simply thinking machines actually gives a great advantage - we can not only reason, but ideally keep an eye on our reasoning, and where a particular reasoning system seems to be on shaky ground, or no systems seem capable of generating an adequate result, we can either adopt a new system or actively seek confirmation of either inputs or final or intermediate results.

P-C:



Er, no, I don't think so. You proposed committing () a known and documented logical fallacy, which renders the conclusions drawn invalid. [Not right or wrong but invalid.]



A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? The perception (or lack of it! ) in question failed to meet our needs, yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"Er, no, I don't think so. You proposed committing (winkeye ) a known and documented logical fallacy, which renders the conclusions drawn invalid. [Not right or wrong but invalid.]"

No, I did not. I proposed using one method of reasoning alongside caution that the results shouldn't be considered as absolutely true, caution which needs to be applied to *any other* method of reasoning.
Since I have neve said the results of binary logic applied to uncertain input are 'True' in an absolute sense, I don't believe I have committed any kind of fallacy.
The 'manufacturers' of formal binary logic may or may not be appalled by its cautious use in the Real world, but if so, @$*! them.

Also, I don't recall claiming that binary logic was the best method of reasoning for all situations.
It's clear there are circumstances when different kinds of reasoning are appropriate, but there are certainly situations where a binary logic framework, (or some close cousin) is extremely useful for analysis.
Logical reasoning can allow us to understand what is logically impossible and what isn't without having to p*** about with probabilities, and we can then get down to examining in more detail the practicalities of things which seem to be at least feasible.

No, you haven't, and you haven't claimed they're valid either, which is just as well. But you have suggested the use of logic under conditions where it cannot deliver the weight of evidence we like to associate with it.

Logic only provides valid answers if you meet its input requirements. Your suggestion does not, whatever circumlocutions you present in 'justification'. Violating the Law of the Excluded Middle invalidates any resulting conclusions. As I said before, this does not show these conclusions to be true or false, it merely invalidates the use of the tool.



I think *this* is the problem. Quite reasonbably, we all shy away from recognising that we ought to do it the hard way, when it's so much easier to create spurious justifications for continuing to do things wrongly, but easily.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"But you have suggested the use of logic under conditions where it cannot deliver the weight of evidence we like to associate with it."

I'd suggest that what *you* like is your problem, not mine.

>>"Logic only provides valid answers if you meet its input requirements. Your suggestion does not, whatever circumlocutions you present in 'justification'. Violating the Law of the Excluded Middle invalidates any resulting conclusions. As I said before, this does not show these conclusions to be true or false, it merely invalidates the use of the tool."

The value and reliability of the output of logical (or any other kind of) reasoning does depend on the inputs. However, a claim that only certain [unachievable] kinds of input are acceptable *at all* is simply a definition or a personal preference, not something binding on anyone else.
You may sell me a hammer labelled "Under no circumstances should this be used for even *starting off* screws", but I don't have to pay that opinion any attention, since it has no bearing whatsoever on the practical usefulness of the tool.

>>"I think *this* is the problem. Quite reasonbably, we all shy away from recognising that we ought to do it the hard way, when it's so much easier to create spurious justifications for continuing to do things wrongly, but easily."

Who on earth are you to tell anyone else how they *ought* to think?
I don't reason in order to to satisfy anyone else's philosophical aesthetics, I reason in order to come to usable conclusions in a finite time, and I suspect I'm far from alone or even unusual in that.

If one method can produce a result as useful as another in a given non-trivial situation, then it's as valid to use it in that situation as to use the other method. If a method is capable of repeatedly producing useful results across a range of situations, then it's reasonable to conclude its usefulness isn't mere luck.

Not the right person, that's who. I wouldn't dream of it. I didn't invent logic. It comes with the instruction written on the can. No-one can make you follow them, but the warranty is invalid if you don't. Your philosophy: your choice.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"Not the right person, that's who. I wouldn't dream of it. I didn't invent logic. It comes with the instruction written on the can. No-one can make you follow them, but the warranty is invalid if you don't. Your philosophy: your choice."

Well, personally speaking, I have limited trust in warranties, and skepticism for much else on the packaging.
'No user sevicable parts inside' is a challenge, not an injunction, and certainly wasn't written for *my* benefit

I'd suggest that formal binary logic is actually a codified version of the way people *already think* in many circumstances.
If someone wants to do the intellectual equivalent of patenting something people were already growing and then saying "You can't possibly grow *that* outside our hygenic factories", they can stand back, and watch me not care.

Potholer, calm down. No-one's trying to constrain your thoughts or actions. That someone made clear the limitations of a product shows a willingness to help, not intent to coerce!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm already *aware* of the limitations.
Anyone who's ever come to a conclusion by *whatever* method, realised it is wrong, and then looked to find out why should be aware that in any reasoning system, it's possible
a) to have had incorrect input
b) to have had uncertain input on which one gambled and lost
c) to have simply not considered one or more steps of reasoning

I don't see how any contemplation of Mw/Bw actually adds to the above, or gives any special insight into how to ameliorate any of the effects.

<>

And I'd suggest that *any* formal logic is actually a codification, usually simplified to make certain relationships explicit. *Whatever* formal system you use, if the inputs have uncertain values then the outputs will have uncertain values too.

The Law of the Excluded Middle gives rise to a fallacy only if it is is misused (which of course it frequently is). The opposite of "arbitrary", for instance, is not "absolute", but "non-arbitrary", as something may clearly be other than either arbitrary or absolute, but cannot be both completely arbitrary and non-arbitrary at the same time.

The problem of uncertain inputs, and the correctness of formal logics are somewhat different topics.

Noggin

Name: Joetough

Chair title: Director of General Ignorance Faculty

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them: I am a skeptic, free thinker and educated graduate. I woulde look forward to participating in your group!

Hi Joe, and welcome!

As you can see from recent postings, we're currently rambling about the 'real' world: what we can know of it, how we perceive it, and so on. Not quite about faith/religion, but all of these things are related fairly closely, philosophically speaking!

Feel free to post your thoughts!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Setting aside the details of logic and its application, does anyone have any observations to offer on how our perception fails us (when it does), and how significant (or not) this may be?

I note, as Ed said recently, that isolated, personal, failures of perception can be overcome by cross-checking with others. Perhaps, in this more global sense, our perceptive failings might be more related to what we believe? [I.e. our belief in X compromises our interpretation of what our senses feed us with.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Mainly just want to bump this back up so I can find it again when I have more time.

But just as a thought, wouldn't our ability to correct failures of perception also be related to what we believe?

Noggin

I'd have thought what we *do* with our peceptions was maybe the main factor - just as is the case with the conclusions of reasoning, a perception not sooner or later directly or indirectly acted on is in some ways only 'theoretical'.

A self-consistent belief system could certainly play a part in people maintaining inaccurate perceptions even in the face of what other people might see as contrary evidence from reality.

Some belief systems may cover large areas with explanations consistent with any kind of outcome, but only by losing predictive power in the process.

Interesting. 1. Are we talking individual perception, or collective (with the consequent possibility of cross-checking)? 2. Can we detect such failures, and if so, how? Assuming we could detect and correct such failures, our beliefs would surely play a significant role.



Yes, indeed, But let's put this in context. The way our perceptions work, the belief systems we all have contribute directly to our very ability to perceive. While a lesser belief system might result in "innaccurate perceptions", a more useful one might result in greater accuracy. And yet both belief systems, the one that works well, and the one that works less well, influence our perception in the same way. Inasmuch as perception is the capture and recognition of patterns, then the patterns we recognise must come from somewhere - our personal 'library'; our beliefs and experiences.

In other words, a belief system is an unavoidable part of the way we perceive; the poorer the belief system, the more innaccuracy results.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

This is my understanding of how our perception works. I'm recording it here in the hope that it will form the basis for a conversation on its benefits and failings, and so on.

Our sense organs receive information from the outside world. These data are refined by recognising patterns in the data, and discarding what remains. Pattern-recognition is recursive: first we recognise the simplest of patterns (maybe straight lines, or light and shade...), then we assemble those patterns into more abstract patterns (maybe three-dimensional shapes), and more abstract still (maybe the shape is a house).

The patterns that we seek to recognise come from our internal world model, and so to that extent we are capable of recognising only what we expect to recognise. [I assume the very simplest patterns may be genetic or instinctive: the same for all humans. The more abstract patterns are learned.]

The patterns recognised are then analysed further, again with the aid of our internal world model (maybe the house is John's house). The objects we've recognised are assembled into an 'image', and any gaps filled with what 'ought' to be there (i.e. what we expect to be there). Similarly, anything too bizarre is 'corrected'.

The resulting 'image' is then passed to that thing we have in our minds that makes 'images' that we can 'see' in our mind's eye: the *imagination*.

When we remember something, the process is similar, except that the pattern-matching has already been done.

If this is a fair and correct description of how we perceive, it is a wonder it works at all, never mind that we complain () about its inaccuracies!

It seems possible, if not very likely, that there may be some things that can be seen only by those who believe. I.e. by those who expect to see such things. [Ed: there could be faeries at the bottom of your garden, but *you* can't see them! ]

Let's not forget that this 'seeing what we expect to see' is not some kind of self-deception, or shying away from 'the truth'. Those are conscious actions (?), and perception is pre-conscious. We see what we expect to see because that's an integral part of how our perception works.

The whole process of real-time perception takes about a quarter of a second, and so we live a quarter of a second in our own past! We aren't aware of it because our minds have developed all kinds of clever tricks to fix it for us, without us ever noticing.

Did you know that our peripheral vision is black-and-white, not colour? If we think we see colour out of the corner of our eyes, it's because our minds sketched it in for us! [And probably got it right! ]

Pabulum.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I heard my name mentioned a few posts back.

Perhaps the fallibility of human perception and reasoning is a bit of a red herring. Since we're talking philosophy here, we're free to postulate for the purposes of argument.

So...let's postulate an infallible being who is able to infallibly perceive its surroundings (within the limits of its sensory apparatus) and is able to infallibly store and process the sensory data.

Where does this lead us? (if anywhere). I can think of a couple of comparisons vis-a-vis humans:
The being would not need to reason heuristically (and hence would not make heuristically induced errors)
BUT: The being's knowledge of the world would still be limited by the range/ granularity of its senses.

Does such a being require 'alternative' forms of logic?