The standard model, relativity, and force dynamics of the mind incorporating the mind forces of kindness, beauty, truth, and understanding

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Not yet. But I'm hoping it can lead to empirical research that can allow it to be predictive.

Prediction requires theory. Experiment can lead to formation of a theory, but is not itself predictive.

12 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Why can't it be in philosophy at least? It is not pure speculation, there are practical applications, and it's an imaginative integration of knowledge.

If you want to call it omphaloskepsis that’s fine with me, but you set out framing this in scientific terms, so that would be a rather drastic course correction - an admission that you can’t make a scientific case here.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Prediction requires theory. Experiment can lead to formation of a theory, but is not itself predictive.

If you want to call it omphaloskepsis that’s fine with me, but you set out framing this in scientific terms, so that would be a rather drastic course correction - an admission that you can’t make a scientific case here.

The framework incorporates the dark tetrad, big five personality traits, light triad traits, intelligence, and various talents into a framework, if it cannot have the potential to be predictive then psychology is just a descriptive activity, not a science as you define it, since it can't predict.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Which means you agree. It can be further developed so it is worth sharing the framework in categories other than speculation. I am a writer/philosopher who wants my ideas to be shared and understood, I'm not demanding anything unreasonable from anyone.

From a philosophical POV, it's your responsibility to transfer your understanding to other's via metaphor's and analogue's and etc.

It's also your responsibility to defend your ideas, with arguments that are understood by your interlocutor; not just demands of correctness because you thought it.

It's a difficult skill to acquire, hence the very small number of notable exponents at the highest level of talent... 😉

Edited August 1 by dimreepr

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

From a philosophical POV, it's your responsibility to transfer your understanding to other's via metaphor's and analogue's.

It's also your responsibility to defend your ideas, with arguments that are understood by your interlocutor; not just demands of correctness because you thought it.

I have no idea what arguments are understood by the people that comment, I can only infer that by your responses, which means it will take time for me to get you to understand.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

I have no idea what arguments are understood by the people that comment, I can only infer that by your responses, which means it will take time for me to get you to understand.

Exactly <sarcasm> and the irony is the icing on the cake... 🙄

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

The framework I believe is a work of philosophy that can inspire scientific and philosophical inquiry so I share it.

The heart of the problem is using a language model to substitute for studying science. ChatGPT probably tells you how wonderful your "theory" is, but popular science articles abuse the word. A real theory is the strongest explanation science can ever have. You don't just "theorize" and then call it your theory. Real theories are the result of many scientists experimenting, analyzing, testing, reviewing over time, knowing one false result can disprove the whole thing, but thousands of positives will still never "prove" the explanation is correct. It will always be a theory, which is always just our best supported explanations. 

You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. 

You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The heart of the problem is using a language model to substitute for studying science. ChatGPT probably tells you how wonderful your "theory" is, but popular science articles abuse the word. A real theory is the strongest explanation science can ever have. You don't just "theorize" and then call it your theory. Real theories are the result of many scientists experimenting, analyzing, testing, reviewing over time, knowing one false result can disprove the whole thing, but thousands of positives will still never "prove" the explanation is correct. It will always be a theory, which is always just our best supported explanations. 

You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. 

You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

Great post +1, it reminds me of the vaccine argument; some science went wrong 'somehow' 'once upon a time' therefore we should suffer 'small pox' bc chicken pox isn't that bad... 🤒 

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. 

You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

Philosophy is about the dialectic, it is about the intangible and immeasurable things that matter to humans like justice. How can you have scientific rigor for something that is intangible and immeasurable?

My framework cites well-known psychological frameworks and puts them together using physics principles, there is no need for units, the focus is on the psychological dynamics not on the physics which just serves to bridge the frameworks cited.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Philosophy is about the dialectic, it is about the intangible and immeasurable things that matter to humans like justice. How can you have scientific rigor for something that is intangible and immeasurable?

Surveys for starters

1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

My framework cites well-known psychological frameworks and puts them together using physics principles, there is no need for units, the focus is on the psychological dynamics not on the physics which just serves to bridge the frameworks cited.

Then where is the physics ? The entirety of physics requires at some point measurements and mathematical relations hence requiring units 

 Here is the nitty gritty detail. Every physics field you mentioned above has momentum terms they can all be described for all its interactions via kinematics. Specifically under the Euler- Langrangian.

How are planning to integrate emotion to kinematic action ?

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Surveys for starters

Then where is the physics ? The entirety of physics requires at some point measurements and mathematical relations hence requiring units 

Philosophy is not about surveys.

The physics principles are just there to act as a bridge to psychological concepts.

[Mordred]

Surveys is how you get a mean average response study on a populace of ppl.

 It's commonly done under phycologist studys

Edited August 2 by Mordred

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Surveys is how you get a mean average response study on a populace of ppl.

 It's commonly done under phycologist studys

I didn't do psychology at the undergraduate level but my BSc in Business Management required that I learn quantitative and qualitative research methods so I know about research methods in the social sciences. I actually had to write a simple thesis to pass, and I got a strong A on my thesis so I am not oblivious to what you are saying.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Philosophy is about the dialectic, it is about the intangible and immeasurable things that matter to humans like justice. How can you have scientific rigor for something that is intangible and immeasurable?

My framework cites well-known psychological frameworks and puts them together using physics principles, there is no need for units, the focus is on the psychological dynamics not on the physics which just serves to bridge the frameworks cited.

This comes across as just woo, though: the kind of “sciency”-sounding nonsense you get from people like Deepak Chopra. To say you use concepts from physics to “bridge the frameworks” sounds fairly meaningless and it is hard to see how it can be  a sensible use of physics. Doing this, apparently without much grasp of what these physics concepts actually mean, will confuse your readers and make you look a fraud, even if your actual ideas have merit. 

What frameworks are you talking about and how does something from physics bridge them? Give an example.

Edited August 2 by exchemist

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This comes across as just woo, though: the kind of “sciency”-sounding nonsense you get from people like Deepak Chopra. To say you use concepts from physics to “bridge the frameworks” sounds fairly meaningless and it is hard to see how it can be  a sensible use of physics. Doing this, apparently without much grasp of what these physics concepts actually mean, will confuse your readers and make you look a fraud, even if your actual ideas have merit. 

What frameworks are you talking about and how does something from physics bridge them? Give an example.

The examples are in the implications. Mass is seen as talent while energy is seen as tendencies that lead to impact, the conversion is represented by the constant c and represents the efficiency of converting talent to impact. You can say why must it be in physics, and the answer is that it does not have to be but I chose it to be so that it may be more digestible, though it seems that I made it less digestible.

Look. I am not claiming to have something to publish in some journal. I understand the limitations. I wish that I learned to play the piano so I could just make up random nice-sounding sequences and not need the rigor of dozens of pages. As it turns out I did not learn the piano but I still have a creative mind that will not stop reasoning so I share the frameworks that I think of. You can say it does not have rigor and I agree but I am hoping for more of a discussion, not offense thrown at me.

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

The examples are in the implications. Mass is seen as talent while energy is seen as tendencies that lead to impact, the conversion is represented by the constant c and represents the efficiency of converting talent to impact. You can say why must it be in physics, and the answer is that it does not have to be but I chose it to be so that it may be more digestible, though it seems that I made it less digestible.

Look. I am not claiming to have something to publish in some journal. I understand the limitations. I wish that I learned to play the piano so I could just make up random nice-sounding sequences and not need the rigor of dozens of pages. As it turns out I did not learn the piano but I still have a creative mind that will not stop reasoning so I share the frameworks that I think of. You can say it does not have rigor and I agree but I am hoping for more of a discussion, not offense thrown at me.

You are not reasoning. You are, in effect, using a cooking recipe book to describe how to fix a car.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are not reasoning. You are, in effect, using a cooking recipe book to describe how to fix a car.

What if I do away with the analogy? No physics principle. Just Talent converting to impact. Would that be better?

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are not reasoning. You are, in effect, using a cooking recipe book to describe how to fix a car.

I found a better way of doing it. The improvement is below. 
Impact=(Talent×Efficiency)+(Tendencies×Adaptability)

56 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

What if I do away with the analogy? No physics principle. Just Talent converting to impact. Would that be better?

I found a better way of doing it. The improvement is below. 
Impact=(Talent×Efficiency)+(Tendencies×Adaptability)

What I learned is making it artistic by fitting concepts into a metaphorical analogy just confuses people. Might as well just be clean and clear-cut.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Philosophy is about the dialectic, it is about the intangible and immeasurable things that matter to humans like justice. How can you have scientific rigor for something that is intangible and immeasurable?

Philosophy is about judging things objectively, digging into ones soul and eliminating our 'humanity' and the biases within, in order to evaluate the information available; in many respects it demands even more rigor, than some scientists are prepaired to pay... 😣

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophy is about judging things objectively, digging into ones soul and eliminating our 'humanity' and the biases within, in order to evaluate the information available; in many respects it demands even more rigor, than some scientists are prepaired to pay... 😣

That's just not true and you should know that. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

That's just not true and you should know that. 

Which part specifically and why?

 

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which part specifically and why?

 

Below is part of an essay I wrote on the topic, you can read it or have ChatGPT summarize it if you want.
What is thinking like in Philosophy?
From personal experience, it starts with accepting information. Of course, back in the day, you can generalize accepting information as accepting stimuli. The philosopher sees and then from that reasons from what is seen. If you were to ask me how to do the distancing that philosophy is often associated with on basic stimuli, I would reply every distinct clump that you see is an unknown. This is true for sound as well. You might say philosophy is what humans do but take a deer that hears a rustling, the deer understands that something is there and that thing is unknown. If it had hands and an object to carve things out somehow, it might carve out a symbol to represent the rustling that made it and the herd run.

Our mere stimuli can be the starting point of philosophy. You can say that the deer is just a deer and is not philosophizing but it has a concept that an unknown is there, it does not know what it is exactly but it makes a value judgment anyway and decides that it is better to warn the herd and run, lest the unknown is a predator that eats it. The same is true when you see. When you see something with a set of characteristics you are at first, like the deer, treating the thing as an unknown and then afterward you carve a symbol on some surface and give a name to this thing with certain characteristics.

See how I have just made the common sense almost mathematical when we receive stimuli, it is first an unknown and then we agree on a symbol and a sound. That is the kind of distancing that is in philosophy at least to my knowledge. Take the last great philosophical challenge plaguing advanced societies, the question of what is a women. A layperson will say that is obvious. But what about it is so obvious other than the fact that you were taught the characteristics, sound, and symbol of women? What is a woman can be philosophical also? Well, of course, some might say that the concrete can be dealt with with science? Science will tell you to ground what you can see into something more fundamental and again and again. First, list all the characteristics that are common to the sound and symbol you give the living entity, then figure out what gives rise to the characteristics and if you are satisfied that you have a bedrock that ultimately leads to all the common characteristics, then you have your science fact. But what about the decision to assign characteristics a name and symbol, that is philosophical.

You can say science speaks of the fact of a person’s sex and sex is determined by the chromosomes and the chromosomes gives rise to the characteristics that you call female but of course on what authority that we assign the reproductive system as somehow supreme? The brain grows and develops apart from the reproductive system and is complex and just as real as the reproductive system. We can give the decision to identify a certain gender a scientific basis also, it comes from the brain, and the brain develops through its own sophisticated mechanisms just as the reproductive system develops in its own sophisticated way. Identity becomes a separate thing from biological sex, it becomes the manifestation of a complex brain that expresses itself and communicates.

The problem really isn’t whether sex and gender are real, the question is really what does it mean for the people that will be affected if we allow certain decisions to be made depending on sex or gender. Philosophically, sex is one abstraction and gender is another abstraction, what I feel is missing is not a definition but the genuine care to debate and settle the conflicts that arise.

In conclusion, symbols are all abstractions, the unknown x can be a cow, can be a dimension, can be a collection of things, that is in mathematics. In the world of language, the words that we see and use are there because we notice a certain set of characteristics and give them a symbol and sound. Therefore, thinking philosophically involves a distancing that separates us from what we were taught so that we can break the symbols apart to examine the characteristics and to see where the investigation of what it truly means for something to be the thing it is, takes us.

[dimreepr]

54 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Below is part of an essay I wrote on the topic, you can read it or have ChatGPT summarize it if you want.
What is thinking like in Philosophy?

Essentially, it's like being free to think what you want; without an idiot savant, telling you what comma would convey more/better, better.

Either way the result is the same, we eliminate the less/better, better...

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Essentially, it's like being free to think what you want; without an idiot savant, telling you what comma would convey more/better, better.

Either way the result is the same, we eliminate the less/better, better...

I think what you are saying is that we are saying the same thing just yours is more concise?

I don't claim it's a perfect essay but it is a decent essay of that length and conveys the active parts that can be learned, I feel. I guess your response is not entirely wrong for the usual length of a reply either. Less can be more but my essay is conveying less than perfect and your response conveyed even less than my essay, no offense.

 

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Philosophy is about the dialectic, it is about the intangible and immeasurable things that matter to humans like justice. How can you have scientific rigor for something that is intangible and immeasurable?

I think you've fallen into another pop-sci definition trap regarding logic. Logical arguments in philosophy are very formal. Check it out here and tell me you can't take a rigorous approach philosophically: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/

Theory isn't what you come up with in the shower one morning, and philosophy isn't just thinking about stuff. Methodology helps us reduce our subjective influence and provides a framework that produces trustworthy explanations rather than guesswork and wishful thinking.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think you've fallen into another pop-sci definition trap regarding logic. Logical arguments in philosophy are very formal. Check it out here and tell me you can't take a rigorous approach philosophically: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/

Theory isn't what you come up with in the shower one morning, and philosophy isn't just thinking about stuff. Methodology helps us reduce our subjective influence and provides a framework that produces trustworthy explanations rather than guesswork and wishful thinking.

It is a professionally made compilation of known knowledge, fair enough. But just by the title argument and argumentation, you can tell that there is no proof for a perspective or various angles to get a proof of a perspective.

The document just documents the various types of arguments.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

It is a professionally made compilation of known knowledge, fair enough. But just by the title argument and argumentation, you can tell that there is no proof for a perspective or various angles to get a proof of a perspective.

The document just documents the various types of arguments.

How are you using the term "proof"? There really is no proof in science. You can disprove something by showing it to be false, but you can't show that something is absolutely true and therefore proven. We use theory instead so we always keep testing and asking questions. There are no "answers" as much as there are best supported explanations.

Formal proofs are for philosophy and maths, and so is logic. What you think of as logic in science is reasoning. If you want proofs, you need to use the methodology.