tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.comments2024-03-13T04:57:22.459-04:00Understanding SocietyDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger2467125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-60887711520327314442024-03-02T16:15:44.215-05:002024-03-02T16:15:44.215-05:00Thanks, Adrian, I visited "Process-relational...Thanks, Adrian, I visited "Process-relational theory primer" on your blog and found it helpful. Thanks for the link. <br /><br />DanDan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-59115737149981674922024-02-20T12:16:00.232-05:002024-02-20T12:16:00.232-05:00Dear Dan - I used to read your blog more regularly...Dear Dan - I used to read your blog more regularly (back when blogging, and blog reading, was something many more of us did regularly). I'm just catching up on this post now. It thrills me to see you move to a process-philosophical position. I've been developing such a position, partly in books and articles and partly on this blog - https://blog.uvm.edu/immanence/ - for a while now, but have never applied it with any real rigor to the social. I'm very eager to see how you develop your social ontology in a more processual direction. <br />All the best,<br />Adrian aihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16612250459328642043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-77637713649634410212024-02-03T22:57:01.507-05:002024-02-03T22:57:01.507-05:00And, Nagel said, roughly, reality is how things (p...And, Nagel said, roughly, reality is how things (probably) are; not how they might (possibly) be. Of course, TN was speaking rhetorically---or, better, maybe realistically in the literal sense. My take is different, because it rests on context.<br />Which follows interests, motives and preferences, as with Davidson's notion of propositional attitudes, such as belief, desire, expectation and others. I don't know if Tom Nagel changed his mind about reality. He would not need to, unless or until he agreed with my model which parallels Davidson. So, it is hard to say. The contextual notion follows change, NOT reality, as commonly(?) accepted. That is one of my points: if we ".make it up, as we go...", contextual reality does not change math or physics. It only alters reality in cultural and sociological matters. That is the main point. So, might it change historicity? Yes. It might and has. Will again, before we are done.<br />Seems. To. Me.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-26858294788643524862024-02-02T15:49:34.872-05:002024-02-02T15:49:34.872-05:00So, allow me to co-narrate just a bit: if analytic...So, allow me to co-narrate just a bit: if analytical sociology has been emergent for, as you write, twenty years, that seems a pretty tough egg shell? I can't remember when it was I read Kuhn on scientific revolutions. But, I am old, so, it must have been at least twenty years ago, do you think? I did not follow through and have not read anything else by Kuhn, interest, notwithstanding. There are many views and fine books, including a boatload of science fiction I consumed, before the turn of the millennium.<br />One of my other views is we analyze the hell out of everything. All good, I guess. Perhaps, and maybe, analytical this, that, and the other IS valuable. Wilf Sellars was a pioneer in analytical philosophy, if I have that understanding straight. My question there is: did his thinking and work make a difference, that made a difference? I want to think so. Loved his quip on philosophy and things "hanging together"...live long, and prosper.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-44536847038403762122024-01-04T14:13:32.184-05:002024-01-04T14:13:32.184-05:00Check out Ethnomethodology for more on this subjec...Check out Ethnomethodology for more on this subject.grocklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10617946891765413515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-45094787501269570372023-12-27T18:08:35.555-05:002023-12-27T18:08:35.555-05:00Expert? No. Thinker, yes. Expert? No. Thinker, yes. Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-25456980697998795662023-12-27T11:22:05.985-05:002023-12-27T11:22:05.985-05:00I wonder if "mistakes" might just not be...I wonder if "mistakes" might just not be applicable to organizations then. Using the top executive's goal structure as the organization's feels like an arbitrary shorthand, and it's not clear that it's always/usually possible to find even a partial order quasi-metric on the states of the world that maps more or less monotonically to those of all/most members of an organization (we can use this as a definition of organizational alignment; the fact that it's such a fetish in management perhaps suggests how rare it is!) --- and without such a global partial order, there's no way to characterize what's a mistake. The executive building up their project buzzword portfolio for their next job, the low-level employee trying to keep their job until the market improves, and the CEO trying to raise the stock price short-term just before their options vest might have entirely different outcome preferences for any given project/action, so it's hard to say any outcome was a mistake or not. At least as seen from a mathematical point of view, I don't know how I'd model that without a frame of reference that'd probably be inapplicable to most actors inside.<br /><br />> In the case of the design of the Ford Pinto, the top corporate executive did not intend to release a vehicle design that endangered vehicle safety,<br /><br />On the other hand, individual actions from executives in this sort of situation often retroactively don't map to safety being a a priority: whenever you cut costs by reducing safety processes with the goal of improving short-term financial metrics for immediate or short-term personal financial benefits, you are very clearly revealing a preference even when you're increasing a probability of disaster rather than making an specific one unavoidable. It might not have been their global optimum across outcomes, but I find it hard to model the situation as a mistake on their part, as it's still generally speaking a better outcome for them than the safety-and-no-bonus outcome. One could make a partial rationality argument, but that'd be stretching charity too far IMHO. Some forms of ignorance are willful enough to not be credible.<br /><br />You're literally <i>the</i> expert on this, I'm just spitballing; but I'm also wondering how or if this applies also to issues of moral responsibility for e.g. tobacco and fossil fuel executives. If organizations can't make mistakes, maybe they can't commit moral crimes either, and there's no such thing as an organizational responsibility veil.Marcelohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06028012640414182031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-3759765233925079802023-12-26T13:02:36.458-05:002023-12-26T13:02:36.458-05:00Here are two additional, possible angles or questi...Here are two additional, possible angles or questions:<br />* If ChatGPT is capable of making stuff up, from where does it get that capability?<br />* If, as has been alleged, ChatGPT only shakes down when challenged, this sounds contrived. Other questions, pertaining to these may pertain to previous comments.<br />* Honestly, if one dare be honest, this seems to comport with other things I have asserted, regarding IMPs.[Interests, Motives and Preferences], and, contextual reality. Professor Perry, are you listening or reading. You were tracking this with your notion about levels of reality. Seems to me. Happy New Year, to all! I am not making that up, unless you think I am ChatGPT...and even so, could YOU be sure?Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-83893673054916435982023-12-24T08:44:39.278-05:002023-12-24T08:44:39.278-05:00Well, seems to me the fumble recovery was a moment...Well, seems to me the fumble recovery was a momentary loss of responsive consciousness, or, a dumb move, in the heat of the moment. The VTOL was more complex.<br />Large sums of money are problematic because of Interests, Motives, and Preferences...<br />IMPs. Military industrialism entails lots of money and successful projects beget more of the same. The technology behind the VTOL had some issues with aerodynamics, and, probably, thermodynamics as well. Certain IMPish powers, no doubt, had and exerted influence over development of the aircraft. A lot was riding on the Osprey. The people riding in it were, as usual, expendables. People generally are.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-72603538096398817032023-12-22T05:35:54.187-05:002023-12-22T05:35:54.187-05:00Uh, yes. At the bottom of receipt, we find obfusca...Uh, yes. At the bottom of receipt, we find obfuscation, preceded closely by IMPs...those interests, motives and preferences driving contextual reality. Another basic tenet of all this goes back to the phrase and ambition: where'$ the money?Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-30411229119842691262023-12-21T19:41:55.389-05:002023-12-21T19:41:55.389-05:00Well. "ChatGPT only confesses..."
Does t...Well. "ChatGPT only confesses..."<br />Does this amount to artificial conscience? Wait a minute: in this case, does artificial conscience amount to defense mechanism, imitating the defense mechanisms, evolved in sentient life? Wait two minutes: where would machine intelligence get a notion of; interest in; defense? See, I question a characterization of artificial conscience=consciousness. I don't think so. Why? Well, consciousness, whatever it may be, is neither programmed, nor, programmable. A late, great thinker might have called this linguistic drivel *bullshit*. My grandfather could have said: you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. As Wilber said: and just so.<br />I do not care for what an AI entity, uh, confesses. It confesses nothing, more or less, than what it *knows*....loosely construed, hmmmm?Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-88304669682544574762023-12-14T15:55:52.276-05:002023-12-14T15:55:52.276-05:00I think a more serious issue that arises from the ...I think a more serious issue that arises from the observations here is that ChatGPT only confesses to error when challenged. I would posit that this quite obvious flaw in the application of this technology bust have been known to the designers when developing this product and they should have immediately adapted their design to make it clear. Instead, it is seemingly apparent that they have developed a system that does the opposite. When seeking 'truth', there are many (maybe infinite) plausible answers and only one correct answer. They have developed a tool that simply presents one of the many plausible answers without any controls on the actual truthful answer, relying instead on the 'readers responsibility' to determine whether the answer is correct. It is absolutely within their interests to ignore this aspect of truth seeking as they are trying to get rich quick before they are found out. Hyped trash, classic Silicon valley 2.0. Uhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246965529208375178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-491706151947788112023-11-17T09:36:35.080-05:002023-11-17T09:36:35.080-05:00Well. It is a bit of a morality tale. Galileo. Bre...Well. It is a bit of a morality tale. Galileo. Brect. The Play. The checkered history of Church and Science. The Good guys, and, the Bad ones. No one, save perhaps atheists and agnostics wants to paint church as a bad guy. Whether we ought to include agnostics is questionable. They say, mostly, they just don't care. So, they say. I would suggest, however, powerful individuals and institutions are far more susceptible to corruption than powerless ones. They possess the interests, motivation, and preferences (IMPs) to achieve impishness and resources to get that done. Now and more recently, Science has come under attack, while the church watches with amusement. Ignorance is uncomfortable with knowledge and what I have called responsive consciousness. This raises another facet to the cyclical nature of the struggle...one, that may or may not strengthen and endure. The Play goes on.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-10868492921893706362023-10-09T12:39:45.907-04:002023-10-09T12:39:45.907-04:00This is a minor point, but I believe that Socrates...This is a minor point, but I believe that Socrates and Plato would not draw a clear a line between one's own self-interest and the demands of justice. Relevant sections of the Crito are 47b-48b. He claims that (i) "life [is not] worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits" (47e) and (ii) "the most important thing is not life, but the good life" (48b) (Grube translation). While these comments could be read impersonally, given the context, it seems to me that self-interest is built into the foundations of the discussion. The context is that one's soul is ruined by unjust actions. This is analogous to ruining one's body with unhealthy actions. Ruining one's body would not only prevent one from doing certain necessary physical tasks, but it would also be bad and painful in itself. Analogously, ruining one's soul would not only prevent one from doing just actions, but it would also be bad and psychologically damaging to oneself. It is so bad and damaging that it makes life not worth living.<br /><br />All that to say: I don't think it's clear that Socrates "is not willing to consider reasons of self-interest (or the interests of others) until he has satisfied himself on what virtue or justice requires of him". He seems to me to believe that the demands of justice constitute egoistic reasons for action.Another Iannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-58345803988944585442023-09-25T08:00:41.471-04:002023-09-25T08:00:41.471-04:00Sociology is the systematic study of society, huma...Sociology is the systematic study of society, human behavior, interesting culture, groups, individuals , it makes us to understand our self, and also make us to thinks critical relevant in order to handle issues to ourselves and also understand the world as a whole, and understand human begin feelings better. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-35196204984326934892023-09-18T10:57:23.053-04:002023-09-18T10:57:23.053-04:00Socrates' arguments are bullshit, he knows it,...Socrates' arguments are bullshit, he knows it, and the reader is signalled this.<br /><br />He tells us in the dialogue the real reasons for "compliance": he's too old, he doesn't want to start somewhere fresh at this age (away from his family), and Athens is the cultural capital of the world (so living elsewhere would just suck.<br /><br />The rest of the dialogue is just Socrates doing what he loved best: shooting the shit and bullshitting people.Xenophon's bumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-35864914935269442992023-09-16T12:32:15.754-04:002023-09-16T12:32:15.754-04:00Thanks, Ian, for these thoughtful comments. I'...Thanks, Ian, for these thoughtful comments. I've got the same concerns as you about overly abstract understandings of "state", etc. And the results are pernicious: atrocities are committed in the name of "following orders" and "rightful authority".Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-62754772044394279022023-09-16T08:49:41.699-04:002023-09-16T08:49:41.699-04:00"This argument for the duty of compliance app..."This argument for the duty of compliance appears to present a theory of the state that is wholly unlimited in its justification of the unconstrained authority of the state. There are no limits on the actions the state can undertake; there are no rights of citizens that the state must respect; there is no recourse for the citizen against "illegitimate or mistaken" commands by the state."<br /><br />I think your reading of Crito is entirely correct. <br /><br />Socrates has talked himself into the notion that compliance with 'the state' is synonymous with duty, which in turn is synonymous with virtue. <br /><br />For a figure who is extolled as a paragon of not just critical thinking, but often characterized as an iconoclast, willing to defy the intellectual conventions of the community, such a stance-- obey the dictates of the state no matter what-- is essentially paradoxical, certainly inimical to the persona presented to us by Plato. Socrates, it seems, when faced with the dictates of the ruling authority, would have each of us become automatons. This is the hero of freedom of thought?<br /><br />Here's where I think Plato's 'logic' is led astray, as so many are to this day: he invests ultimate value in idealized abstractions (most notoriously in the chimerical Forms). The [s]tate and the [c]itizen, [v]irtue and [j]ustice are not the objects of his attention, only /S/tate, /C/itizen, /V/irtue and /J/ustice in their absolute, idealized constructs, which become the standard against which the individual, the actual person living in the real world, is to evaluate themselves. <br /><br />But there is no such thing as a state in the abstract. There are institutions of authority inhabited by human beings, no shortage of whom are corrupt, malign, cruel and/or incompetent. There seem to be no shortage of instances in which the corrupt, malign, cruel and/or incompetent commandeer the institutions of political authority in order to further their corruption, malignancy and cruelty, to enrich and empower themselves despite their incompetence. <br /><br />Political office has always attracted those who lack moral compunctions, seeking only to benefit themselves and their chosen few allies, whether in a pretense of democratic governance, or outright autocracy. The problem is not that such people haven't been properly taught the merits of /V/irtue by a Socrates, it's that such individuals don't give a fuck either way. <br /><br />The institutions of governance, thankfully, are not entirely overrun by despots, oligarchs, sociopaths and deranged, delusional morons, but many offices (here in the US, and around the world) certainly are held by despots, oligarchs, sociopaths and deranged, delusional morons. <br /><br />To stand in opposition to their illiberalism, their violence, their bigotry, their depravity, when these are enrobed in the authority of the state-- that is, when the worst among us wield power (to be blunt, I'm thinking of Donald Trump here, and any who would choose to align with him) and their despicable efforts are granted the imprimatur of the law-- that defiance, protest, refusal to comply, become consistent with justice and virtue. <br /><br />If this weren't the case, the terms 'justice' and 'virtue' would have no meaning at all.<br /><br />And that's precisely the intellectual and moral perversion disciples of idealized abstractions, like Socrates, inevitably drift into, while trying to convince us of their enlightenment and sanctity.Ian Douglas Rushlauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08338844963229458967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-29744925081935054872023-09-15T11:17:45.333-04:002023-09-15T11:17:45.333-04:00Times, circumstances, ethical and moral edicts cha...Times, circumstances, ethical and moral edicts change. We might now regard a command to commit suicide unconscionable. But, in Socrates' time, the City made and enforced the rules, for a greater good. How elegantly utilitarian! Logical, to a fault. If it is commanded that people be principled; hold to a set of values; have honor and integrity, many will adhere. Some will not. We can ponder how history may have been different, if Socrates had gotten out of Dodge. In the larger scheme of things, probably not much. But, there is always the 'what if' factor. And there is little chance of guessing the outcome correctly. Rules change, too.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-75874683373729758012023-08-19T11:29:16.835-04:002023-08-19T11:29:16.835-04:00After reading ideas and postulates over a number o...After reading ideas and postulates over a number of years, I hold emergence is a key feature of a great many things, probably including what we call *consciousness* itself. My brother has gotten curious over this and lobbed a good one at me a couple of days ago. He said: *consciousness is a dimension*. I have not read everything on the topic, but had never read that before. The Swiss behaviorist, Piaget, more-or-less said the same thing on childhood development. One of the Ridleys wrote a book about emergence years ago. I have used the phrase, responsive consciousness, to draw an imaginary line, beyond which children, all things normal, cease being reactive sponges and become responsively conscious adults. This happens at different times in different individuals. So, yes, I think emergence is pretty influential, all ' round...like some *cosmic rule*---my autodidact, polymath brother again.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-92031226372466191942023-08-18T12:38:19.762-04:002023-08-18T12:38:19.762-04:00Effectively you are describing a process where you...Effectively you are describing a process where you identify some stable characteristic which seems to persist, and at the same time you try to identify processess both internal and external to the entity that support or induce that characteristic.<br /><br />In that sense, why do we need to label as emergence what seems to be a way of saying that feedback mechanisms between layers in an organisation induce stable patterns? <br /><br />A thermostat is causally sufficient for a stable temperature in the room even if the occupants of the room try to set it at different temperatures or if the organisation they are members of has set hard bounds for low/high values for target temperatures.<br /><br />Should the temperature in the room be considered as a meso level emergent property or the outcome of feedback between organisation levels?<br /><br /><br />I apologize if I am grossly misrepresenting your arguments.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />-Evan-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-59764436461532507142023-08-17T13:51:21.383-04:002023-08-17T13:51:21.383-04:00Additional Information:
One of the Ridleys---Mark ...Additional Information:<br />One of the Ridleys---Mark or Matt---wrote some things on emergence, years ago. Another composition dealt with evolution, so I don't know if that fits either. My own speculation says evolution precedes emergence. Unless and until evolution led us to responsive consciousness, emergence would have been a haphazard affair;a coin toss; 'chancy', at best. It has been awhile since I read the Ridleys. Just now added that word to my tablet's memory base, and corrected the machine"s mischaracterization of tablets as tables. There is little point in relying on AI, when it cannot handle simple, contextual matters. I would not bet my life or well being on it. Would you?<br />Those last dozen words did not require contextual clarification. Whew!Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-81241045131835920912023-08-16T17:14:50.050-04:002023-08-16T17:14:50.050-04:00Had another thought. One of the brothers, Matt or ...Had another thought. One of the brothers, Matt or Mark, wrote something on emergence, years ago. I don't remember their last name, but they wrote well, IMO. This may mean not so much in your present context. Just thought I would pass along the thought. Emergence is different to how we mostly interpret evolution. However, contextual reality changes things. Along with the rest of what I have formerly described elsewhere. I am confused and perplexed with interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary interests and efforts, regarding philosophical topics. An academic friend, in South America, is helping with that. If, and only if, I can get the name of the previously mentioned thinkers, I will share that with you. Carry on, Mr. Little.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-34107040114541954042023-08-16T06:46:48.663-04:002023-08-16T06:46:48.663-04:00I, and probably others, by now, have claimed that ...I, and probably others, by now, have claimed that individuals hold interests, motive and preferences (IMPs) which may change, over time, with successive changes in circumstances, contingencies and so on. Another way of characterizing this morphosis is responsive consciousness. Persons who grow and learn, all else holding normally, are more responsively conscious at age twenty-five than they were at age ten. See Jean Piaget. Organizations may reflect this more or less because they are extensions of society and organizational leaderships evolve, as at least implied by Searle. Whether this represents evolution or emergence of both, very much depends on who one talks to and the individuals' IMPs. For example, an economist will have a nuanced position, different from that of a social scientist or psychology savant. You are on the right track, however.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-54286557732805116722023-08-15T10:32:46.806-04:002023-08-15T10:32:46.806-04:00I will proffer this much towards peeling the apple...I will proffer this much towards peeling the apple, conceding that I am no authority on Marx, Stalin or Communism. There is evidence, I think, that ideologies, including both religious and non-religious ones, are often afflicted with tunnel vision. It is a fairly common feature, born of the sense that the ideology's way is the best way, the only way, to save civilization and the World. This is why ideologies compete for hearts and minds. There is more than a little smoke and mirror activity going on. And, more than a little arrogance, ignorance and pride. All of these, attributes and axle grease alike, have been in the human psyche, since before bicameral mind evolved into responsive consciousness. It is no mystery. It is, uh, history. Or better, historiography.Paul D. Van Pelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508874039164282696noreply@blogger.com