[ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"
msd001 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 13 21:14:19 UTC 2008
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef
>> repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything.
> You sound a bit angry. I am sorry for my impatience. I never
> intended anything like what you apparently perceived.
Sorry, no intention to sound angry. I used language less cautiously
in response to Lee.
> determine the "true" pointing vector. If you're in a tree and all you
> can ever see is fractally converging branches, is there *any*
> practical value to knowledge of the "ultimate point of convergence"?
> Can you even form a coherent function model of such a referent?
No inherent value. Practical value? Coherent function model of such?
Only if we both can agree what practical value the idea-token means.
>> subjectivity" - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear
>> there was no way to "win."
> I've never hoped to win, but I often feel an unreasonable desire to be
> heard and understood.
admittedly infused with sarcasm - game theory kind of win (whether
zero or non-zero sum is indeterminate)
> assumption of absolute knowledge eventually impedes the process (from
> any -- necessarily subjective -- point of view.) This understanding
> is critical to shifting the focus from expected *outcomes increasingly
> unspecifiable*, to increasingly effective *methods in principle* for
> achieving increasingly desireable outcomes. The race continues to
> evolve, while our faithful old race car becomes obsolete.
I still agree with this.
More information about the extropy-chat