Post by nymph on Apr 29, 2018 3:29:04 GMT -5
[1:42 PM] gangster cartier: its a gradual evolving most times
[1:43 PM] UmbilicalSphere: im not convinced of its watertightness yet, one problem seems to be what is a persons vultology compared to to initially abstract the types, and how can that be determined to be other than circular
[1:43 PM] UmbilicalSphere: its still not an axiomatic derivation
[1:43 PM] Phibious: you will never have an axiomatic derivation of empirical phenomena
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i think neural data would be needed(edited)
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yea still only one empirical angle tho
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: it doesnt meet scientific criteria of multi-construct validity
[1:45 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i think if we could get really solid brain data that would be a key thing
[1:45 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i was curious anyway i wonder how the vult associations were first made
[1:46 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i guess it began with cognition based typings that were considered watertight... but that could still have been constructed on flawed theories
[1:46 PM] UmbilicalSphere: btw im not arguing against the CT project, i think its an excellent direction
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): you can use spinoza or autopoetic eigenbehaviors
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): you don't need causal glue in those
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): :smiley:
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): neuron glue
[1:46 PM] Phibious: There is nothing unscientific about correlation collecting.
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): maybe some neuron glue
[1:46 PM] corvo:
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): but not nearly as strong
[1:46 PM] Phibious: CT is a correlation collecting project.
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yep
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: what im asking is
>i was curious anyway i wonder how the vult associations were first made
>i guess it began with cognition based typings that were considered watertight... but that could still have been constructed on flawed theories
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: correlations between objective vultology data and what?
[1:47 PM] Phibious: observed personality traits
[1:47 PM] Phibious: this is wobbly compared to STEM but no worse than anything else studying people
[1:48 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): there's an element of signification in the gestures and expressions too(edited)
[1:48 PM] UmbilicalSphere: the problem with 'observed' there is that we get back into the theory framing perception problem
[1:48 PM] UmbilicalSphere: which re-enters circularity, though i do agree with more angles to make correlations from it adds an extra dimension of cross-checking to the whole thing
[1:48 PM] Phibious: Okay, I'm willing to risk that.
[1:48 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i mean the movements sort of metaphorically align with the meaning attributed to the cognitive domain(edited)
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): we have to be careful not upset that
[1:49 PM] f a e: how is it different from the body language signals correlated with attraction?
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): because it currently aligns with an embodied cognition perpective
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): most of it
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): some i'm not sure
[1:51 PM] f a e: How can I get rid of conviction?
[1:52 PM] f a e: im so happy idk why
[1:56 PM] f a e: omg went back to the kitchen, fixed a lil sthing
[1:56 PM] f a e: and yall are still typing
[1:57 PM] Spaceman: fae wants to get rid of conviction, meanwhile im wondering when i will ever have any
[1:57 PM] UmbilicalSphere: my Ti is coming up with potential holes but im not trying to attack the theory guys its just my Ti doing what it does
another possible origin of noise in the data seems to be what non-'neurotypical' signals may do to interrupt or shift the data.. given that the human brain is extraordinarily complex and liable to shift/break down in many different ways, and as we've seen from other avenues (eg mental illness, flat affect, emotional processes) there are non-CT based signs which affect vultology. Its possible there may be other elements, especially in highly unusual brains, that generate signs which are not completely groupable into common codes or which appear as other codes when they have a diff origin.
one danger of category systems is that overfitting takes place when elements of data emerge that contain elements of a set of data, and then one considers that data to reflect the set, or sometimes bends the set or omits elements of the data to force a fit. this can helped to be overcome by enhanced machine learning style processes which wont tend to so much overfitting bias if calibrated properly.
on the other hand, all of the typings so far might be completely and unquestionably tight, in which case this is an absolutely solid ground to work with. If you're very convinced of the soundness of the vultology codes across the board, then what i say may only be something relevant to consider if you find that your attempts to construct fully coherent descriptions of functions prompted by unpredicted vult code designations fail to properly match and click a bunch of gestalts/understandings into place. if it remains messy once a sustained intelligent attempts to reconstruct the theory in face of apparent contradictions has been done, then it could be useful to expand the search space of what may have been out of place in prior reasonings/data(edited)
[1:58 PM] UmbilicalSphere: but it may turn out to be reconstructed coherently also! so we'll see
[1:59 PM] Spaceman: unfortunately, someone needs to make a vultology video while also having their brain scanned
[1:59 PM] Spaceman: so that neural activity can be seen side by side with the vultology
[1:59 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i have brain measurement equipment but i dont have a qEEG mapping thing
[2:00 PM] Phibious: We're all aware of a certain amount of wobbliness in the system and are trying our best to refine it based on personal judgement.
We're not going to do better by slapping sciencey-looking numbers on things, and I say this as a math guy.
Neural activity is not inherently more scientific than other observations, it's using a symbol of science like a magic totem.
[2:00 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yea its not about just moving to neural activity, its about multi-construct validity
[2:00 PM] f a e: @spaceman why do you want conviction?(edited)
[2:01 PM] UmbilicalSphere: investigating a phenomenon from multiple empirical angles to determine the increasingly undoubtable likelihood of its existence
[2:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i don't think we will find more clarity going the neural route. We'll find patterns in some places and shit that completely wrecks CT because of non-neurotypical brains and plasticity
[2:02 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i used drugs for 15 years and have graphemic synesthesia. i'm pretty sure my brain is not normal looking lol
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i'm just one person and i know we like to refer to Nardi's work but obviously that doesn't align with CT either. He's INTJ by his approximation
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): We typed him SiTe
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Again just one person
[2:04 PM] f a e: Yeah and Nardis book convinced me I used Ni lol
[2:04 PM] f a e: Aha moments
[2:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): but i don't care about sample sizes, extrapolate at will. if we try to "prove" CT neurologically it will make the pool of outliers larger
[2:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): and do horrible violence to the theory
[2:05 PM] UmbilicalSphere: nothing would be proven by referencing neuroscience
[2:05 PM] UmbilicalSphere: its the correlations between independent angles of empirical data that generate validity
2:06 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): that's why it's in quotes :smiley:
[2:06 PM] UmbilicalSphere: hey now be autistically precise so i can understand you
[1:43 PM] UmbilicalSphere: im not convinced of its watertightness yet, one problem seems to be what is a persons vultology compared to to initially abstract the types, and how can that be determined to be other than circular
[1:43 PM] UmbilicalSphere: its still not an axiomatic derivation
[1:43 PM] Phibious: you will never have an axiomatic derivation of empirical phenomena
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i think neural data would be needed(edited)
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yea still only one empirical angle tho
[1:44 PM] UmbilicalSphere: it doesnt meet scientific criteria of multi-construct validity
[1:45 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i think if we could get really solid brain data that would be a key thing
[1:45 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i was curious anyway i wonder how the vult associations were first made
[1:46 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i guess it began with cognition based typings that were considered watertight... but that could still have been constructed on flawed theories
[1:46 PM] UmbilicalSphere: btw im not arguing against the CT project, i think its an excellent direction
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): you can use spinoza or autopoetic eigenbehaviors
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): you don't need causal glue in those
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): :smiley:
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): neuron glue
[1:46 PM] Phibious: There is nothing unscientific about correlation collecting.
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): maybe some neuron glue
[1:46 PM] corvo:
[1:46 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): but not nearly as strong
[1:46 PM] Phibious: CT is a correlation collecting project.
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yep
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: what im asking is
>i was curious anyway i wonder how the vult associations were first made
>i guess it began with cognition based typings that were considered watertight... but that could still have been constructed on flawed theories
[1:47 PM] UmbilicalSphere: correlations between objective vultology data and what?
[1:47 PM] Phibious: observed personality traits
[1:47 PM] Phibious: this is wobbly compared to STEM but no worse than anything else studying people
[1:48 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): there's an element of signification in the gestures and expressions too(edited)
[1:48 PM] UmbilicalSphere: the problem with 'observed' there is that we get back into the theory framing perception problem
[1:48 PM] UmbilicalSphere: which re-enters circularity, though i do agree with more angles to make correlations from it adds an extra dimension of cross-checking to the whole thing
[1:48 PM] Phibious: Okay, I'm willing to risk that.
[1:48 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i mean the movements sort of metaphorically align with the meaning attributed to the cognitive domain(edited)
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): we have to be careful not upset that
[1:49 PM] f a e: how is it different from the body language signals correlated with attraction?
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): because it currently aligns with an embodied cognition perpective
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): most of it
[1:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): some i'm not sure
[1:51 PM] f a e: How can I get rid of conviction?
[1:52 PM] f a e: im so happy idk why
[1:56 PM] f a e: omg went back to the kitchen, fixed a lil sthing
[1:56 PM] f a e: and yall are still typing
[1:57 PM] Spaceman: fae wants to get rid of conviction, meanwhile im wondering when i will ever have any
[1:57 PM] UmbilicalSphere: my Ti is coming up with potential holes but im not trying to attack the theory guys its just my Ti doing what it does
another possible origin of noise in the data seems to be what non-'neurotypical' signals may do to interrupt or shift the data.. given that the human brain is extraordinarily complex and liable to shift/break down in many different ways, and as we've seen from other avenues (eg mental illness, flat affect, emotional processes) there are non-CT based signs which affect vultology. Its possible there may be other elements, especially in highly unusual brains, that generate signs which are not completely groupable into common codes or which appear as other codes when they have a diff origin.
one danger of category systems is that overfitting takes place when elements of data emerge that contain elements of a set of data, and then one considers that data to reflect the set, or sometimes bends the set or omits elements of the data to force a fit. this can helped to be overcome by enhanced machine learning style processes which wont tend to so much overfitting bias if calibrated properly.
on the other hand, all of the typings so far might be completely and unquestionably tight, in which case this is an absolutely solid ground to work with. If you're very convinced of the soundness of the vultology codes across the board, then what i say may only be something relevant to consider if you find that your attempts to construct fully coherent descriptions of functions prompted by unpredicted vult code designations fail to properly match and click a bunch of gestalts/understandings into place. if it remains messy once a sustained intelligent attempts to reconstruct the theory in face of apparent contradictions has been done, then it could be useful to expand the search space of what may have been out of place in prior reasonings/data(edited)
[1:58 PM] UmbilicalSphere: but it may turn out to be reconstructed coherently also! so we'll see
[1:59 PM] Spaceman: unfortunately, someone needs to make a vultology video while also having their brain scanned
[1:59 PM] Spaceman: so that neural activity can be seen side by side with the vultology
[1:59 PM] UmbilicalSphere: i have brain measurement equipment but i dont have a qEEG mapping thing
[2:00 PM] Phibious: We're all aware of a certain amount of wobbliness in the system and are trying our best to refine it based on personal judgement.
We're not going to do better by slapping sciencey-looking numbers on things, and I say this as a math guy.
Neural activity is not inherently more scientific than other observations, it's using a symbol of science like a magic totem.
[2:00 PM] UmbilicalSphere: yea its not about just moving to neural activity, its about multi-construct validity
[2:00 PM] f a e: @spaceman why do you want conviction?(edited)
[2:01 PM] UmbilicalSphere: investigating a phenomenon from multiple empirical angles to determine the increasingly undoubtable likelihood of its existence
[2:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i don't think we will find more clarity going the neural route. We'll find patterns in some places and shit that completely wrecks CT because of non-neurotypical brains and plasticity
[2:02 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i used drugs for 15 years and have graphemic synesthesia. i'm pretty sure my brain is not normal looking lol
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): i'm just one person and i know we like to refer to Nardi's work but obviously that doesn't align with CT either. He's INTJ by his approximation
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): We typed him SiTe
[2:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Again just one person
[2:04 PM] f a e: Yeah and Nardis book convinced me I used Ni lol
[2:04 PM] f a e: Aha moments
[2:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): but i don't care about sample sizes, extrapolate at will. if we try to "prove" CT neurologically it will make the pool of outliers larger
[2:04 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): and do horrible violence to the theory
[2:05 PM] UmbilicalSphere: nothing would be proven by referencing neuroscience
[2:05 PM] UmbilicalSphere: its the correlations between independent angles of empirical data that generate validity
2:06 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): that's why it's in quotes :smiley:
[2:06 PM] UmbilicalSphere: hey now be autistically precise so i can understand you