MagnetoHydroDynamics comments on The scourge of perverse-mindedness - Less Wrong

95 Post author: simplicio 21 March 2010 07:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (249)

Comments (249)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: EphemeralNight 24 June 2012 09:52:18AM 1 point [-]

This may be the wrong tact. As I pointed out above, I think it likely that the problem lies not in the nature of the phenomenon but in the way a person relates to the phenomenon emotionally. Particularly, that for natural accidents like rainbows, most people simply can't relate emotionally to the physics of light refraction, even if they sort of understand it.

So, I think a more effective tact would be to focus on the experience of seeing the rainbow, rather than the rainbow itself, because if a person is focusing on the rainbow itself, then they inevitably will by disappointed by the reductionist explanation supplanting their instinctive sense of there being something ontologically mental behind the rainbow.

Because, however you word it, the rainbow is just a refraction phenomena, but when you look at the rainbow and experience the sight of the rainbow there are lots of really awesome things happening in your own brain that are way more interesting than the rainbow by itself is.

I think trying to assign words like "just" or "wonderful" to physical processes that cause rainbows is an example of the Mind Projection Fallacy. So, let's not try to get people excited about what makes the rainbow. Let's try to get people excited about what makes the enjoyment of seeing one.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 June 2012 12:28:20PM 0 points [-]

That is an interesting analysis. I think I might view "just" and "wonderful" more like physically null words, so as to say they do not have any meaning beyond interpretation.

I guess I am just getting too rational for interacting with normal people psychology purely by typical-mindedness.

Comment deleted 24 June 2012 01:27:18PM * [-]

Comment author: [deleted] 24 June 2012 02:01:23PM -1 points [-]

You are misunderstanding the purposes of this discussion.

I don't have any problems, I can hardly not see anything as beautiful without maths.

But normalfolk are not so fortunate. How do we trick them into thinking that reductionism is cool?

Comment deleted 24 June 2012 02:09:13PM * [+] (2 children)

Comment author: [deleted] 24 June 2012 04:24:09PM 0 points [-]

Maybe, that is the problem. Can't you look at a coastline and see the beauty of it without thinking about fractals? Can you not enjoy a flower w/o thinking of Phi?

No, why should I? It adds to the awesomeness of coastlines that they are paradoxically unmeansurable, and that flower leaves grow according to repulsion which results in fibbonachi spiral systems.

I can already do the simple trick of "that's a pretty thing" but when I think about the maths it gets better.

Also, if by reductionism you are talking about reducing objects down to their interactions, this is where things get unnecessarily complex for the 'normal' folks.

By reductionism I mean the reductionist thesis: The brain has a multi-level model of reality but reality is single-level. Reducing a rainbow means finding out that raindrops cause rainbows by refraction.

The reason why reductionism is important is that by virtue of Mind Projection, we might be tempted to think that Rainbows are fundamental, solely because we haven't reduced them to constituent parts yet, so our world-model contains an opague black box called "rainbows."

Reduce down to a distinction between objects and concepts FIRST. Once that is straight, talk about how 'things' interface.

What do you mean?

Comment author: Monkeymind 24 June 2012 11:55:50PM * -1 points [-]

"What do you mean?"

I may have wrongly determined (because of your name) that you held the same view as other plasma cosmologists (the Electric Universe folks) that I have been talking with the last couple of weeks. Their view is that reality is at the single level, but 'observable reality' (the multi-level model) is the interface between the brain and reality. Consequently, all their discussions are about the interface (phenomena).

If so, then understanding the difference between an object and a concept might help one come up with ways to make reductionism kewl for the 'normal' folk. Math is an abstract and dynamic language that may be good for describing (predicting) phenomena like rainbows (concepts) but raindrops are static objects and better understood by illustration.

While the math concepts make the rainbow all the more beautiful and wonderful for you, this may not be the case for normal folks. I for one have a better "attitude" about so called knowledge when it makes sense. When I understand the objects involved, the phenomena is naturally more fascinating.

But as you suggested, I may be totally misunderstanding the Scourge of Perverse-mindedness.

BTW: The negative thumbs are not mine, but most likely your peers trying to tell you not to talk to me. If you doubt this check my history.... Take care!

MagnetoHydroDynamics comments on The scourge of perverse-mindedness - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (249)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (249)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login