Home › Blogs › Winter's blog

Delusional

Comments

Mon, 08/22/2016 - 22:41 — james

Delusional?

Yes, you're delusional. And you can know the truth of that statement because I always tell lies.

Mon, 08/22/2016 - 23:45 — Winter

I didn't say I was delusional ... yet!

The preface is a hypothetical discussion, illustrating a point about the nature of delusion, which I presented in the first and second person, in order to make it more immediate (I think!) but it would have the same meaning if I had written:

If A says, "I'm delusional," should B believe him?

So, you see, I didn't say that I was delusional ... yet.

You're ahead of the story, in more ways than one, actually. But we'll get to that in due course. And it's especially handy if you not only always tell lies but actually always tell lies in order to get closer to the truth. That's gonna be helpful later, too.

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 00:45 — james

I initially composed my

I initially composed my comment to read, "No you are not delusional" but thought after considering my following statement that it could be implied that you were, in fact, delusional - or at least that might be what I was implying.

Anyway, it was a little mind bender and one has to be careful how many iterations of these self-contradictory statements one goes through. There's always the risk of falling prey to one's own gymnastic linguistics that are employed to confuse and thus control others - even in jest smiling

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 00:48 — james

After reading your introduction

I must say I'm intrigued (in an apathetic way, of course wink )

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 02:17 — Winter

Thanks again James

I am planning to proceed with fanatical indifference, and I hope you will do the same.

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 06:08 — frances (not verified)

delusional

hi wp, can't wait for your first post - i'm intrigued. I was hooked on your Sherlock Holmes/Gareth Williams series; I read it avidly. So pleased that you are embarking on a new blog and I'm under no illusion (delusion?) that it'll be thought-provoking, entertaining, unique and a good read! Thanks! smiling

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 18:12 — Winter

thanks, Frances

Kind words much appreciated. I am planning to get back to that series eventually ... but I think I need to do this one first. I hope to have some more soon.

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 03:30 — Winter

more delusional posts

I have added a few new posts to the Delusional series:

Part One: How And Why I Became Delusional
Getting A Handle On Epistemology

For the full table of contents, see the post at the top of this page.

Or here: http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2016/08/delusional.html
Or here: http://wpdelusional.blogspot.com/2016/08/contents.html

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 04:04 — james

There is so much bad

There is so much bad philosophy surrounding epistemology - from Plato to Hume to Kant.

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 04:16 — Winter

how do we know that?

how do we know anything? I mean, I'm tempted to agree with you, but I Kant! wink

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 04:25 — james

but I Kant!!

hahaha, touche. It is in the realm of the senses, Watson. But I don't want to anticipate your argument too much, WP.

You finished with-
"Some people might say you're on your way to becoming delusional. And you, of course, could say the same about them. But that might not be a good idea."

Challenging dogma has never been a healthy lifestyle choice especially if you use reality to do so rather than simply different arbitrary notions.

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 20:02 — Winter

I've made a minor edit

I've made a minor edit to that post, giving a bit more detail on why people might call you delusional. But I still don't think it would be a good idea to say the same about them.

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 13:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

Well I know that I for one am

Well I know that I for one am totally down with the fanatical indifference. Sign me up!

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 04:18 — Winter

will do!

I will sign you up with deliberate haste, after which you can proceed with reckless caution wink

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 23:13 — james

Getting A Handle On Epistemology

So that I can get a handle on your short course in epistemology, WP, can you define for me "belief" as you have used it in statements (1) & (2)?

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 23:24 — Winter

beliefs

By "beliefs", I mean: your beliefs are those ideas which you think are true.

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 23:31 — james

For "beliefs" in this

For "beliefs" in this context, do you make any distinction between arbitrary ideas (i.e. dogma) and knowledge established through personal induction or perhaps deduction?

Wed, 08/24/2016 - 23:45 — Winter

if you believe it, it's a belief

In this context, the "distinction between arbitrary ideas (i.e. dogma) and knowledge established through personal induction or perhaps deduction" comes into play when we start trying to figure out whether or not a belief is justified.

In other words, it doesn't have to be justified to be a belief. Whether it's a position you would defend, or a statement you would agree with, or an item of dogmatic faith, or whatever ... if you think it's true, and even more importantly, I suppose, if you act as if it's true, then it's one of your beliefs.

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:04 — james

ok, it's self referential

if you think it's true, and even more importantly, I suppose, if you act as if it's true, then it's one of your beliefs.

. . . . . and this is where the vast bulk of society is. To paraphrase the founders of NLP, you are only committed to an institution if your delusion is not shared with others.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 00:15 — Paul Holme (not verified)

Belief and delusion

First - I can't say how pleased I am to see you back, WP! Oh, alright - very pleased!
Second - this new blog of yours marches (so far) an astoundingly parallel course to my own internet inquiries; from Fetzer (JFK, 9/11) to the International Flat Earth Society, to (most recently) the Mandela Effect. On the last, I believe such an error (delusion, if you will) could only have arisen in the era of MS Word's Spellcheck: the notion that every occurrence of a given meaning residing in your head (the spelling of 'Johnnie Walker' for example) could be changed by a wizard's single keystroke. So 'Johnnie Walker' printed on the back of a bus somehow has the same cosmic value as its digital counterpart on your computer, or its appearance in ink on a notepad. There's a Master Keystroke for everything - God's keyboard. Of course, in this scheme, our memories are for some reason not affected. Not a well-thought out conspiracy threory!

And on the present issue - Oh yes! Truth is a popularity contest. Since nothing can be known objectively - that is, EVERYTHING is belief - whatever your evidence (V1 - V2) or reasons (R1 - R2), they won't amount to a hill of beans until you can get someone to agree with you. Advancing new ideas has always been a dangerous business; the cultural immune system (to use Robert Pirsig's phrase) is forever on guard against threats to the status quo. New ideas - like newly born, living creatures - must fight tooth and nail to survive.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 01:55 — Winter

Hi Paul

Thanks for your kind words and all three of your comments. I have time to get them approved for posting at the moment, but I don't have time to give you a decent response. So that will have to wait ... but I will be back with more ASAP.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 14:29 — Winter

to Paul re: Belief and delusion

Thanks again, Paul for this comment. I wish I had a better way to quote parts of it, Your original text is in italics.

First - I can't say how pleased I am to see you back, WP! Oh, alright - very pleased!

Thanks very much. It's good to have a point on which we agree.

Second - this new blog of yours marches (so far) an astoundingly parallel course to my own internet inquiries; from Fetzer (JFK, 9/11) to the International Flat Earth Society, to (most recently) the Mandela Effect.

I will be curious as to how much further our courses run in parallel. I hope you will chime in now and again as the series develops and let me know whether my our thoughts have been following the same general patterns.

On [The Mandela Effect] I believe such an error (delusion, if you will) could only have arisen in the era of MS Word's Spellcheck: the notion that every occurrence of a given meaning residing in your head [...] could be changed by a wizard's single keystroke. [...] There's a Master Keystroke for everything - God's keyboard. Of course, in this scheme, our memories are for some reason not affected. Not a well-thought out conspiracy threory!

You have probably seen some Mandela Effect videos that I haven't seen, but as far as I know, this is a Straw Man argument. I have never run into anyone who says or even hints that Mandela Effect changes could have been made by a single keystroke, or by any number of keystrokes, by a wizard or otherwise. If you know of anyone who is saying this, I would appreciate a link.

I will talk more about The Mandela Effect as we go along.

[...] Truth is a popularity contest. Since nothing can be known objectively - that is, EVERYTHING is belief - whatever your evidence (V1 - V2) or reasons (R1 - R2), they won't amount to a hill of beans until you can get someone to agree with you [...]

I couldn't agree less. I am not talking about "political truths" or pop-culture fads or individual delusions. Those are all beliefs but none of them approach the sort of truth I am talking about.

When I say "true" and "false" I am talking about something much more robust.

True is true even if nobody believes it. False is false even if everybody believes it.

That's why we're talking about whether or not beliefs are justified. If truth were a popularity contest, if EVERYTHING were belief, this question would never come up.

Sun, 08/28/2016 - 22:14 — Paul Holme (not verified)

What are facts?

I can see I am going to have to approach this extremely carefully!

About our day-to-day, shared, stable, more-or-less physical world our agreement is so relatively universal that its acceptance as fact goes for the most part unargued. That relative stability allows for considerable prediction. Hey, it allows for life! Grand Central Station exists, we can confidently say (even though the Twin Towers do not). It also allows for the discipline of science. One of the attractions of space exploration, I am sure, is its extraordinary predictability. It works with mathematical precision; like clockwork. Missions can be – because they must be – timed to the second. Of course there’s the unexpected – stuff fails, but it’s the same stuff, amenable to the same mathematical rules. Messy humanity barely intervenes.

But things get awfully complicated awfully quickly. The weather is still a woefully little-understood phenomenon, and our efforts to control it as if it were mere matter are sending our precious climate for a loop. Biology is a still more radical departure from the stability of the purely physical; the varying diagnoses and prescriptions of doctors are a cliché. At this point – and we haven’t yet touched psychiatry! – things are beginning to look a bit wobbly on the objective front.

So I may as well jump in right here and ask – What is objectivity? Is there such a thing? Obviously that’s a rhetorical question, and my own answer is, There isn’t. The world we obsessively sort, as thinking beings, into classified categories is inseparable from whoever’s doing the sorting. It is impossible to separate the consciousness that interprets from the data being interpreted. Of course some interpretations work better than others, but there’s no science apart from scientists. Beyond Robinson Crusoe politics permeates everything. How else to put this? Even the simplest statement about the real (not the virtual) world requires a subject – the thing or person that experiences. Yes, I guess that’s what I’m trying to say – everything is experience. And the conscious part of experience is belief.

So, you and I have beliefs. Does it matter if we see the world differently? If we’re going to have a community it does! What is a community but a group that shares values in common? And what are values but the relative importance we assign to phenomena? To everything we encounter we assign a value. Experience is nothing but value. It can be said without contradiction that what does not have value does not exist.

So - against all that conventional (not quantum) science holds to be true - there seems to me to be literally no sense in saying that facts exist regardless of who believes them. The only world there is is the world we know. And that world is in constant flux, as we wrangle over supposedly hard ‘facts’.

Sun, 08/28/2016 - 22:34 — Winter

I understand your point of view

But I don't agree with it.

If you don't mind, I would prefer to respond with posts for the series rather than comments for this thread.

Then maybe 5 people will read it, rather than maybe 3.

More soonest.

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:04 — McJ
McJ's picture

Good to see you back

There is just nothing like the anticipatory feeling you get before diving into a series of dismal, tedious essays! party time! I'm at a loss for the words to describe it.

Good to see you back writing again, Winter! excellent!

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:30 — Winter

thanks McJ

I think the word you were looking for was "dread" wink

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:16 — james

Two Conflicting Hypotheses

At the risk of being a spoil-sport, neither hypothesis should be accepted because they are hypotheses (my own bit of circularity!)
That there is a conflict between the two hypotheses shows that there is a contradiction. There are no contradictions in reality (fictional art or artful fictions are not reality). So therefore, we have a case of missing information or false information or both in play.

So, firstly, it is back to the data and forget about hypothesising or employing logic at this stage because we are effectively putting logic in front of the data and this is to get the inductive process backwards.

Secondly, this is presented as a false dicotomy. There is nothing to say that there could not be a third of fourth possibility and, in fact, the conflict between the two hypotheses with evidence presented for both indicates the existence of at least one other possibility.

Thirdly, this is all arbitrary smiling

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:29 — Winter

this is where I have to disagree with you ...

... on almost all points!

First: this is only a thought experiment. I never claimed that it was a precise description of any real situation. And because it is my thought experiment, I am allowed to say what it is, and it is allowed to be as I define it.

If there is a conflict between the two hypotheses, that is because one of them is true and the other is false. This is the case in any properly designed scientific experiment, for example, precisely because in such experiments, H2 always says "H1 is false."

An actual contradiction would imply that we had done something wrong; in this situation, if there were not a conflict between the two hypotheses, that would show that we had done something wrong.

Secondly, it's not a false dichotomy. There is no third option. Either H1 is true and H2 is false, or H2 is true and H1 is false.

That's the problem definition, and of course it's arbitrary. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 01:10 — Paul Holme (not verified)

Two Conflicting Hypotheses

Quantum mechanics does not accord with this, WP. Nor, IMO, does the rest of the real world, which is not 'out there', but lodged in each of our heads (and hearts). Non-rational, not rational argument, settles what is the truth between two die-hard positions; the exercise of power in all its forms - censorship, fund withdrawal, ostracism, ridicule, intimidation, and outright war. Fetzer's interview with the Flat Earth proponent tends to support this - neither was persuaded by the mere arguments of the other.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 14:45 — Winter

to Paul re: Two Conflicting Hypotheses

Hi again Paul. You wrote:

Quantum mechanics does not accord with this, WP.

Quantum mechanics talks about the behavior of subatomic particles. In this context I am not talking about electrons or photons or anything else that small, so quantum mechanics is kind of irrelevant at the moment. Later in the series I will have something to say about quantum mechanics.

Nor, IMO, does the rest of the real world, which is not 'out there', but lodged in each of our heads (and hearts).

I couldn't agree less. I have known people who are now dead because they got this bit wrong.

There are posts in the pipeline about the nature of realty, and I will say more about what I think when I get to them. So I'm sure we'll talk about this more later too.

In the meantime ... I respect your right to form and hold your own opinions, and you are welcome to express your opinions here, even if we don't agree, as long as you do so in a civil way (which you are doing, so no prob!)

And if you can convince me that I'm wrong, I'll change my opinion. But don't hold your breath on that one.

Non-rational, not rational argument, settles what is the truth between two die-hard positions; the exercise of power in all its forms - censorship, fund withdrawal, ostracism, ridicule, intimidation, and outright war.

Please do not confuse truth with conflict.

Non-rational argument may settle a conflict between two die-hard positions, but it doesn't do anything to advance the truth.

Similarly, please do not confuse truth with power.

The exercise of power in all its forms is about power, very seldom about truth.

Granted, the results of such an exercise can create new truths. (i..e. the civilian infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed.)

But the falsehoods told by the powerful in attempts to justify the abuse of power are still falsehoods, even if many people believe them. (i.e. that Iraq had WMD and/or was behind 9/11.)

Fetzer's interview with the Flat Earth proponent tends to support this - neither was persuaded by the mere arguments of the other.

IMO Dr. Fetzer wasn't persuaded because the guest's argument was so weak. And the guest wasn't persuaded because he doesn't care about things like strength of argument. In other words, neither was persuaded -- neither could have been persuaded -- because Dr. Fetzer likes V and his guest likes R.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 01:00 — Paul Holme (not verified)

False Hypotheses

This is interesting.
Might it not be the case that there is an infinity of hypotheses to account for any given phenomenon? If that is so (as I think it is) then to what are we to turn for 'the truth' about a given datum but our own previous best experience - which is none other than a string of hypotheses that have worked up to now? From the infinity of choices available we must, and do, select. Given an infinity of choice this is NOT an impartial process! Those pre-existing best hypotheses may now and then be turned on their heads as new data contradict them, but this only results in a new series of hypotheses being tested for workability in the new situation, and pronounced 'true' if acknowledged authorities on this issue accept them. In due course these new 'truths' will be overthrown by better ones. On this matter ponder that the earth WAS flat at one time - that was the currently accepted truth - but is now an oblate spheroid :Cool Our tendency to laugh patronizingly at those who don't share our views should always, IMO, be held firmly in check.

Sat, 08/27/2016 - 15:02 — Winter

to Paul re: False Hypotheses

Hi again Paul

This is interesting.

Hooray! another point on which we agree!

Might it not be the case that there is an infinity of hypotheses to account for any given phenomenon?

No. Infinity is not a number; it's a concept. There couldn't be an infinity of anything.

More to the point, it wouldn't be a useful mode of investigation -- quite the opposite.

But even more important: this is my thought experiment. I get to say what it is, and it gets to be what I say it is.

I am suggesting a thought experiment with two hypotheses, H1 and H2, such that H2 says "H1 is false" because I want to talk about situations where we have two hypotheses, H1 and H2, such that H2 says "H1 is false."

And because this is my thought experiment, I will not yield on this point.

The model I am suggesting supports many varieties of problem-solving. The concepts I am trying to explain here lie at the core of the skill-set that makes me a living. So I am mystified when people tell me, "No, that's wrong!" or "That doesn't work."

We live in a warm, dry house because it works. There's food in the refrigerator because it works. And so on.

I'll say more about this in an upcoming post. Or maybe more than one.

[...] the earth WAS flat at one time - that was the currently accepted truth - but is now an oblate spheroid [...]

The earth was widely considered flat at one time, but that didn't mean it WAS flat. It meant that the people were wrong. When experiments showed that the earth was round, some people changed their beliefs. But that didn't change the shape of the earth. Some things are immune to public opinion.

Our tendency to laugh patronizingly at those who don't share our views should always, IMO, be held firmly in check.

I don't agree with you on much, but I am not laughing at you, patronizingly or othewise.

Sun, 08/28/2016 - 22:22 — Paul Holme (not verified)

Do please carry on

Just a quick note to say I want you to continue to the end of your road, and am happy to follow the path wherever it may lead - with comments along the way, of course. You lay down the rules; it's your show!

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 01:40 — james

It's not that I don't like it

I was mistaken. Now that i know it is all arbitrary, lead on McDuff smiling

Thu, 08/25/2016 - 02:00 — Winter

if there's a conflict in the evidence...

ok ... cool! ...

Here's a point I should have clarified earlier:

If there's a conflict in the evidence, it could mean many things.

If we delve into any non-trivial case, we can find some evidence that appears genuine, and some that appears bogus ... some evidence that appears to be more relevant, and other evidence that appears to be less relevant ... some evidence is well-corroborated and other evidence is not, and so on ... So we tend to say that some evidence is stronger, and other evidence is weaker.

Quite often the challenge is to separate the genuine from the bogus, the relevant from the distraction, and so on. Once that is done, the question of which evidence is strongest becomes a lot less difficult.

But what I'm driving at here is: once we separate the strong evidence from the weak evidence, once we see that one hypothesis is strongly supported and the other is not, what do we do then?

And one of the points I am trying to stress is this: Sometimes deciding is more difficult than simply weighing the evidence.

Fri, 08/26/2016 - 02:43 — james

The Saviour

Shazzam Kazzam! Pow!! Out of the smoke and rubble and the pain of cognitive dissonance flies the Oxfordian Super Spook ripping upwards on a blast of hot air, methane and sulfur. Hallelujah !!!

Fri, 08/26/2016 - 02:56 — Winter

uh ... not exactly ...

but stay please tuned!

Fri, 09/02/2016 - 21:02 — james

I'm Puzzled, WP

Re; Chain Fall Blues - if your father's back was to the crane and he was unable to observe the chain fall, how was he able to 'collapse the wave function' of the chain fall and so cause it to lose its indeterminate state so that it could physically manifest itself and whack your dad on the back of his head? Where on earth is the Primacy of Consciousness in all this?

Or is it that I'm just forgetting that this is 'just a story'? smiling

Fri, 09/02/2016 - 22:15 — Winter

I don't believe you, James!

I don't think you're puzzled at all. wink

Oh yeah, it's just a story ... actually it's just part of a story. I didn't want to put the rest of the story in the post, but I can share it here.

In those days they didn't have a lot of industrial safety, onsite first aid, or knowledge of concussion ... so my dad picked himself up, gave himself a shake, decided he didn't feel right, went to his car, drove himself to the nearest hospital, and walked in through the Emergency entrance. The receptionist said, "what's the matter?" and he told her what had happened, and they ran a bunch of tests, and he waited for the results, and when they had everything, a nurse came to see him. She said, "Everything seems to be all right, but your blood pressure is elevated." And he said, "Your blood pressure would be elevated too, if you had just been hit in the head with a chain fall." So they figured he must be thinking straight and they let him drive himself home. I don't think they even gave him any meds -- but they might have told him to take an aspirin if he got a headache. He did get the rest of the day off work, though!

Sat, 09/03/2016 - 00:24 — james

I'm Shocked!

Shocked, I say!! Not only do you duck my perfectly reasonable question but you call me a liar. . . . Hurrummpphh!

I'm going back (in high dudgeon) to my chocolate and solipsism right now . . . . assuming the chocolate exists.

I'm glad your father got the day off, btw. Things are certainly different these days. There's no way that a profit generating experience like that would be allowed to slip by without a big to-do.

Sat, 09/03/2016 - 00:46 — Winter

... and assuming ...

... that solipsism exists!

Sat, 09/03/2016 - 04:19 — james

Assuming?

I would have thought it is self-evident. It is to me. Therefore . . . . it is

Sat, 09/03/2016 - 10:08 — Winter

sorry, James!

I was only making a joke.

I'm certain that solipsism probably exists.

Sat, 09/03/2016 - 18:24 — james

So was I

The irony sounded really funny in my head. Funny sounds in my head . . . no, best I don't go there . . . .

Thu, 09/08/2016 - 00:23 — james

You simply can't keep a

You simply can't keep a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people quiet. Right?! That's impossible!

Thu, 09/08/2016 - 08:25 — Winter

no, you can't

but if you control the media, you don't have to.

Sun, 09/25/2016 - 01:56 — Winter

apologies for the delay

"Delusional" is on "hold" while I work on other things.

I will get back to it as soon as possible.

Sat, 01/28/2017 - 01:20 — Anonymous (not verified)

the Mandela effect

https://books.google.com/books?id=YSwrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22nelson+mandela+died%...

This link directs to a Google Books search result, displaying a section from a book titled English Alive published on October 1, 1991. As a matter of historical account, the book provides the date of Nelson Mandela's death: July 23, 1991. If one is unable or unwilling to consider all possibilities in pursuit of Truth, then failure, delusion & imprisonment are one's reward; Truth will be elusive at best & most often smugly ridiculed when encountered.

Tue, 02/14/2017 - 13:16 — Winter

thanks

I am very sorry for the long delay and I am still determined to resume as soon as possible ... but unfortunately that might be a long time.

best wishes to all
WP

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.