Hmm... Lemme do some introspection. Okay mostly I use logic in the set theory sense. I categorize things which I sense, and determine relevancy to decide whether I will be able to consciously remember them later. If priority is sufficiently high, then I assimilate an experience and evaluate its impact upon my situation immediately. In order to do that, I must correlate the experience with my knowledge base, determine required responses based upon successful interactions in the past, and proceed with immediate stepwise responses appropriate to meet the goals which I just conceived on the fly. Perhaps examples will be easier, my introspection is somewhat incoherent since just got up from a long nap. The first situation is easy, the second tricky.
Easy : While going to the kitchen at night for a snack, I notice that one of the cats is lying on the rug in my path. Based upon prior behavior, the cat will probably take evasive action which could lead to the cat being kicked rather than avoided. Solution : Slow down so as not to startle the cat, approaching cautiously to see whether it will get up, or alternatively pretend that it does not notice my approach. Simultaneously with slowing down, begin veering off to one side so that the cat is reassured. Keep watching the cat, since I know the path to the kitchen in semidarkness quite well. Once past the cat, resume normal speed. Tricky : As I enter the shrink's office, I notice that a frowning, squinting man is seated in the chair which will be opposite me if I take the usual "patient" chair. Immediately activate contingency plan for seizing the initiative in review sessions. As I seat myself, squirm about to appear uncomfortable and say "I notice that we have a visitor today..." FOCUS upon the regular shrink's response to attain maximum information from choice of words, sentence structure, intonation, inflection, and body language. He responds with "Yes, Dr x is a world renowned expert..." switch attention to Dr x and notice that he is simultaneously uncomfortable and preening. Probability assessment, Dr x is not a specialist in abnormal psychology alone, and is here to evaluate my intellectual capabilities among other things. If he were a real expert, he would never be in this room, except in the sense that he is an ex-spurt, having petered out in his career and finds that time weighs so little that he can waste it on looking me over, rather than viewing a video from the comfort of his office. Fire salvo number one at doctor x, with "You always squint like that?" as I slump back in my chair and spread my legs wide, indicating vulnerability, and surrender to the authority of the incredible doctor x. Manage the session unobtrusively to minimize the validity of the observations of doctor x, making damn sure that he won't know what to believe. At session end, advance upon doctor x for a parting handshake. Squeeze hard and keep squeezing until doctor x begins pulling back his hand, communicating in unmistakable fashion that *I* had a grip on the situation, knew that I did, and that he is a slouch by comparison, or alternatively that I am just a hand bruiser. So how's it going doctor x? Had your fill and going to send in a heavier gun for interviewing on the 28th? (Presuming my shrink has a Google alert and passes this discussion along.) Alternatively, perhaps doctor x totally outclassed me, and adapted his responses to the situation as soon as I said "squint" so that he appeared far inferior to his actual capabilities... Lonnie Courtney Clay On Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:16:54 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > Lonnie... just to carry the conversation along.... a lot of people > I've heard use the word..."logic"... and there appear to be a lot of > different methods or ways to do it ... different sorts of "logic".... > Can you give me some notion of what you mean by "logic".... I'm always > sort of interested as to whether someone's notion of "logic" is more > "deductive"... or "inductive".... lawyers and such like "reasonable > inferences" a lot.... but that's a sort of "social" take on > "logic".... stick with telling me about your take on inductive or > deductive or some combination, first... would you please? > > Scientists usually tend to induction or experiment.... unless you get > to theoretical sorts of scientists... they tend toward > deduction....computer programmers?... I don't know... my guess is Math- > based.... mostly deductive.... but you tell me... I'm just guessing... > > On Jun 10, 4:04 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Well sure, I referred to the notions that you should minimize the number > of > > factors upon which a conclusion is based. It is necessary to have factors > > > which are not inconsistent with each other as well. You can often combine > > > factors which are mutually supporting into a single precept which is used > to > > support a conclusion. If you have many factors present, then consider the > > > possibility that you might be at a local minimum or inflection point in > your > > trajectory of reasoning rather than at an absolute minimum. Don't be > afraid > > to go back to "square one" and assemble factors all over again, laying > them > > out in your mind in an entirely different order of precedence... > > > > Finally, never assume that the least number of factors is the answer in a > > > chain of reasoning, because there may be a tricky bastard like me who > setup > > the situation which you are attempting to understand. In other words > *error* > > is always a factor. > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2011 12:47:28 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > 6) Learn logical reasoning, especially the difference between > > > necessary and > > > sufficient. Engrave the precept of "Occam's Razor" upon your chest > > > (metaphorically, not as a tattoo) and follow it faithfully but not > > > obsessively. Keep an eye out for others who reason logically for they > > > are > > > your natural enemies or allies. The run of the mill who can't tell the > > > difference between inclusion and exclusion in a set are of no concern. > > > Recall steps 1-5 and gain experience at incoherence and confusion when > > > appropriate... ? Lonnie > > > > > You know, Lonnie.... Ockham's Razor is just an "addage"... that wasn't > > > even necessarily stated or "thought up" by Ockham... As I've heard... > > > it was made up by others who wanted to be close to as good as > > > Ockham..... anyway.... I think maybe it would be more "fruitful" and > > > educational to actually learn something about what Ockham actually > > > thought, himself.....Fuck the addage....HAR > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:30 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > "My epistemological question is this - what do we know about > knowing > > > they > > > > don't? What is our procedural epistemology - if we don't have one, > are > > > we > > > > just smug not-quite so lackwits?" > > > > > > At the age of 11, I began to work on step 5), but I never completely > > > stopped > > > > cycling through steps 1-4)... > > > > > > 5) Work on clarity of thought and expression. Your thoughts are based > > > > upon > > > > your vocabulary and understanding of dictionary meanings which allow > you > > > to > > > > understand (mostly) what others intended you to think through their > > > choice > > > > of words. Study sentence structure and parsing. Practice discourse, > > > attempt > > > > rhetoric, and avoid arguments since they are a sure sign that you are > > > > > letting your ego misguide you away from caution. Be a wimp! I failed > to > > > > follow the path of the hopeless coward, and paid heavily for my > error. So > > > > > > "clarity" includes convincingly pretending that you think something > > > entirely > > > > different from your actual thoughts. Tailor your expressiveness to > > > conform > > > > to the requirements of a situation. Avoid the impulse to be popular, > be > > > DULL > > > > and uninteresting, beneath notice! Notice the behavior of others > around > > > you, > > > > the braggarts, the shy ones, the popular and the despised. Don't > stand > > > out! > > > > The one exception is for the standardized tests required for entrance > to > > > > institutions of higher learning, and major tests. Be a curve breaker! > > > > Make > > > > them all wonder how in HELL you are cheating so much that your score > is > > > the > > > > top of the class! > > > > > > 6) Learn logical reasoning, especially the difference between > necessary > > > and > > > > sufficient. Engrave the precept of "Occam's Razor" upon your chest > > > > (metaphorically, not as a tattoo) and follow it faithfully but not > > > > obsessively. Keep an eye out for others who reason logically for they > are > > > > > > your natural enemies or allies. The run of the mill who can't tell > the > > > > difference between inclusion and exclusion in a set are of no > concern. > > > > Recall steps 1-5 and gain experience at incoherence and confusion > when > > > > appropriate... > > > > > > Congratulations! You are now qualified to be labeled as "That queer > duck > > > who > > > > acts like Spock." > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/ZnF_bdmcvuAJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
