blind men, elephant, reality

[T'ai Chi]

I often read the story about how there are say 4 blind men around an elephant.

One, feeling the tusks, says 'Hey, here's a spear!'

Another, feeling the ear, says 'Hey, it is a fan, not a spear!'

Another touching the tail says 'Nope, it is a rope.'

One leaning against it says 'It is clearly a wall.'

You get the idea.

This is supposed to show us that we each might think we know reality, but truly we are like the blind men who cannot see the whole elephant, only bits and pieces and we're even mistaken about those bits and pieces.

Whenever I read this, I think the opposite, that we can hope to 'know it is an elephant' (ie. know reality) because the narrator of the story clearly has this viewpoint, so why can't we?

[CapelDodger]

One of Aesop's, isn't it?

[thaiboxerken]

And T'ai Chi can see and his hand is between the elephant's rear legs.

[Iacchus]

Indeed, all parts are relative aspects of the whole.

[rdaneel]

Of course the blind men can know it's an elephant, all they have to do is test each others claims and continue to investigating the matter scientifically. The blind men are fools if all they do is reach out and grab one aspect of the elephant, claim to have absolute knowledge about it, and refuse to change their views no matter how much contrary evidence mounts up.

[bluess]

Its a hindu folktale, retold in a poem by Godfrey Saxe.

And rdaneel, the point of the poem is exactly that of your post.

[CFLarsen]

I often read the story about how there are say 4 blind men around an elephant.

One, feeling the tusks, says 'Hey, here's a spear!'

Another, feeling the ear, says 'Hey, it is a fan, not a spear!'

Another touching the tail says 'Nope, it is a rope.'

One leaning against it says 'It is clearly a wall.'

You get the idea.

This is supposed to show us that we each might think we know reality, but truly we are like the blind men who cannot see the whole elephant, only bits and pieces and we're even mistaken about those bits and pieces.

Whenever I read this, I think the opposite, that we can hope to 'know it is an elephant' (ie. know reality) because the narrator of the story clearly has this viewpoint, so why can't we?

Are you saying that it isn't an elephant?

[Iacchus]

Its a hindu folktale, retold in a poem by Godfrey Saxe.

And rdaneel, the point of the poem is exactly that of your post.So, does this tell us that there is an absolute basis for reality? Or, that so much of it appears to occur at random, as is the case with these blind men? Because if, like the elephant, everything existed in a complete sense, doesn't that pretty much eliminate the possibility of chance?

[Nyarlathotep]

And for those who insist that no such thing exists in the absolute sense? Because if it didn't we wouldn't be experiencing any of the particulars of it. So, does this tell us that there is an absolute basis for reality? ... Or, that so much of it appears to occur at random, as is the case with these blind men.

Babble in English, please.

[Iacchus]

Babble in English, please.Sorry, I'm merely asking if there was a chance that it was something other than an elephant?

[uruk]

The blind persons in that fable are pretty stupid. A real blind person would not just explore one single aspect of that elephant. Besides, the smell is a dead giveaway.

[drkitten]

Sorry, I'm merely asking if there was a chance that it was something other than an elephant?

You do realize that it was fiction don't you?

Is there a chance that Hamlet was something other than a prince of Denmark?

[CFLarsen]

You do realize that it was fiction don't you?

Is there a chance that Hamlet was something other than a prince of Denmark?
Not Denmark. Jutland. (http://vikja.dk/viking/ukamled.htm)

Grumble....bloody ignorant foreigners....time for another Viking raid...that'll teach'em...

[chance]

Of course the blind men can know it's an elephant, all they have to do is test each others claims and continue to investigating the matter scientifically. The blind men are fools if all they do is reach out and grab one aspect of the elephant, claim to have absolute knowledge about it, and refuse to change their views no matter how much contrary evidence mounts up.

Indeed, the whole point of the story is not about the elephant at all, but about the fallibility of jumping to conclusions.

[Iacchus]

You do realize that it was fiction don't you?

Is there a chance that Hamlet was something other than a prince of Denmark?I don't know, I'm not familiar with Hamlet. However, I would go so far as to say there's always a chance we could be wrong ... which is to say, it (reality) has nothing to do with chance whatsoever.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't know, I'm not familiar with Hamlet. However, I would go so far as to say there's always a chance we could be wrong ... which is to say, it (reality) has nothing to do with chance whatsoever.


We interrupt your regularly scheduled thread for this important breaking news.

Reports indicate that nothing is 100% certain

Film at 11.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled thread for this important breaking news.

Reports indicate that nothing is 100% certain

Film at 11.

Indeed. Wonderful too, how that is one of the main principles of scientific inquiry.

[Iacchus]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled thread for this important breaking news.

Reports indicate that nothing is 100% certain

Film at 11.So what do you say we drop this "whole elephant" thing then, Okay?

[Iacchus]

Reports indicate that nothing is 100% certainAbsolutely!

[drkitten]

Not Denmark. Jutland. (http://vikja.dk/viking/ukamled.htm)

Um, no. Denmark, and specifically set at Elsinore. Fiction, remember?

[CFLarsen]

Um, no. Denmark, and specifically set at Elsinore. Fiction, remember?
I don't care about fiction. I want facts.

When it comes to facts, I'm your worst f**king nightmare... ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

So what do you say we drop this "whole elephant" thing then, Okay?


Ah, but just because nothing is 100% ceratin doesn't mean you can never reach a conclusion. You just have to be prepared to change your conclusion as the available information dictates. If the blind man who grabs the tusk assumes an elephant is spear like, that is a reasonable conclusion, but as he finds the other parts he has to change his idea, to incorporate spear-like parts, fan-like parts, etc.

[Mercutio]

"Something is rotten in the state of Jutland?"

There are facts about fiction, Claus. Dr. K is right.

[Mercutio]

Ah, but just because nothing is 100% ceratin doesn't mean you can never reach a conclusion.
Iacchus has been told this many times before, Nyar. His position is the equivalent of saying that, since no two snowflakes are alike, we can never be certain whether something is a snowflake or an elephant.

[Iacchus]

Ah, but just because nothing is 100% ceratin doesn't mean you can never reach a conclusion. You just have to be prepared to change your conclusion as the available information dictates. If the blind man who grabs the tusk assumes an elephant is spear like, that is a reasonable conclusion, but as he finds the other parts he has to change his idea, to incorporate spear-like parts, fan-like parts, etc.So, you would conclude then, that reality (in whatever form it takes) is absolute? You know, if there's a chance we could be wrong, then what do we base that chance against ... if not that which exists in all absoluteness?

[drkitten]

So, you would conclude then, that reality (in whatever form it takes) is absolute? You know, if there's a chance we could be wrong, then what do we base that chance against ... if not that which exists in all absoluteness?

"Babble in English, please."

[thaiboxerken]

Reality is absolute and doesn't depend on our beliefs or conclusions to be thus.

[Iacchus]

His position is the equivalent of saying that, since no two snowflakes are alike, we can never be certain whether something is a snowflake or an elephant.No, this sounds very much like what someone else is saying, and perhaps you misunderstood me?

[Iacchus]

Reality is absolute and doesn't depend on our beliefs or conclusions to be thus.Well, thank you very much. Now, does that mean there's something wrong with me for believing this is so?

[Mercutio]

No, this sounds very much like what someone else is saying, and perhaps you misunderstood me?
No, Iacchus. Thank you for verifying, it is your strawman version of what other, more capable thinkers than yourself, are saying.

Or was there another reason you wanted to argue whether there could be a real elephant?

Your rant about "absoluteness"? This is the 16th thread where you have tried it. This means you have been corrected as many as 15 times before...You do not learn, do you?

[Nyarlathotep]

So, you would conclude then, that reality (in whatever form it takes) is absolute? You know, if there's a chance we could be wrong, then what do we base that chance against ... if not that which exists in all absoluteness?

That question is 100% pure navel gazing. The reality that I can touch, taste, see, hear, smell and/or pass through my lower intestine seems to be absolute. And that is the only thing upon which I can base any conclusions. All the 'maybes' in the world don't amount to a thing in reality.

In short, just because I am having to piece to gether a picture of the elephant bit by bit doesn't mean i get to make up bits that I haven't touched and add them to thepicture. The elephant MIGHT have a rotating metal piece, but just because that might be so doesn't mean I can state it as a fact with the same certainty I can say that he has a spear like piece and a snake like piece.

[Aoidoi]

The 5th blind man by quizzing the elephant realizes that it never forgets.

Unfortunately, the 6th blind man determined that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and now the rest of the blind men can no longer repeat their observations.

Then a 7th blind man talks to the departed spirit of the elephant, at which point the 5th man is forced to admit that at some point the elephant does, in fact, forget. It can now only remember individual letters and vague statements about it's life.

[Iacchus]

Your rant about "absoluteness"? This is the 16th thread where you have tried it. This means you have been corrected as many as 15 times before...You do not learn, do you?No, what I'm arguing against is a consensus.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, thank you very much. Now, does that mean there's something wrong with me for believing this is so?

No. Why?

[Ladewig]

When it comes to facts, I'm your worst f**king nightmare... ;)

In the topic of facts, my worst nightmare is Dr. Mas.

Ohmygod! Larsen is Dr. Mas!

[slingblade]

So, does this tell us that there is an absolute basis for reality? Or, that so much of it appears to occur at random, as is the case with these blind men? Because if, like the elephant, everything existed in a complete sense, doesn't that pretty much eliminate the possibility of chance?

I almost hate to say it, but this time I do get what you are asking.

To answer you, I am not sure that we can know there is or isn't a basis or reason for reality in all cases.

For example:

You, Iacchus, are sitting under a tree, in the fall. As you sit, certain leaves appear to fall from the tree at random. There seems to be little pattern or order to it; perhaps you notice that the lower leaves tend to fall sooner and more often than the leaves at tree-top level, but that's about all you, from where you sit, can see. To you, it appears random.

In fact, each leaf falls according to when certain conditions are met. At some point the tree stops nourishing the leaf, which causes the stem to shrink. The wind blows, creating friction which loosens the stem. After the leaf is shrunken and whipped around enough to fall, it falls. It won't fall until then, unless the winds become violent, or some other condition alters drastically.

Now, is the moment when a particular leaf falls predestined or predetermined?
I don't know. I doubt it, but that's only my opinion.

My point is that if we could see every single element which caused any incident to occur, we might see that no chance was involved at all. But I don't think knowing this would then eliminate any possibility of chance.

I simply think we cannot know or answer the question of chance, yet.
But my personal opinion is that chance exists. Randomness exists.

If you asked me to pluck a number from a hat at random, what factors would exist, that I cannot see, which would show me it was not random at all? That I had, somehow, to pick that particular number because of those unseen factors? And if we cannot see the factors, do they then really exist?

Wow, now my head is spinning a bit. Must. Stop. Thinking. Hard.

;)

[uruk]

I almost hate to say it, but this time I do get what you are asking.

To answer you, I am not sure that we can know there is or isn't a basis or reason for reality in all cases.

For example:

You, Iacchus, are sitting under a tree, in the fall. As you sit, certain leaves appear to fall from the tree at random. There seems to be little pattern or order to it; perhaps you notice that the lower leaves tend to fall sooner and more often than the leaves at tree-top level, but that's about all you, from where you sit, can see. To you, it appears random.

In fact, each leaf falls according to when certain conditions are met. At some point the tree stops nourishing the leaf, which causes the stem to shrink. The wind blows, creating friction which loosens the stem. After the leaf is shrunken and whipped around enough to fall, it falls. It won't fall until then, unless the winds become violent, or some other condition alters drastically.

Now, is the moment when a particular leaf falls predestined or predetermined?
I don't know. I doubt it, but that's only my opinion.

My point is that if we could see every single element which caused any incident to occur, we might see that no chance was involved at all. But I don't think knowing this would then eliminate any possibility of chance.

I simply think we cannot know or answer the question of chance, yet.
But my personal opinion is that chance exists. Randomness exists.

If you asked me to pluck a number from a hat at random, what factors would exist, that I cannot see, which would show me it was not random at all? That I had, somehow, to pick that particular number because of those unseen factors? And if we cannot see the factors, do they then really exist?

Wow, now my head is spinning a bit. Must. Stop. Thinking. Hard.

;)
Interesting. But isn't seeing all the factors that go into an event which has taken place and making a judgement that it seems predetermined a little like hindsight being 20/20? Can every single aspect of an event be predicted based on knowable, preexisting conditions? Quantum mechanics says no, but do random or unpredictable subatomic events filter through to macro-events or do they get averaged out? And can I get the skidmark stain out of my white satin speedos before spring break? Good god! The world needs to know!!!!!

[slingblade]

I dunno, but you're not sitting next to me at the pool unless you do.

[uruk]

I dunno, but you're not sitting next to me at the pool unless you do.
Unless, of course, an unforeseen chain of predetermend events causes, NAY! mandates, a 400 lb U.S. prime choice mountain of humanity with body hair that looks Orson Wells in a cheap gorilla suit and the tinyest of white satin speedos mercilessly violated by a ruddy brown streak of unspeakable filth sets anchor by your chosen pool chair and rapes your airspace with the delicate stench of slightly over ripe mangos.
Of course uh..... that would not be me.






I smell of goat droppings in summer.

[slingblade]

Great! I often smell of freshly baked bread.

It's the secret of my success.

[uruk]

Great! I often smell of freshly baked bread.

It's the secret of my success.

battard or chiabatta ? mmmmmmmmmmm....chiabatta.

[Iacchus]

If you asked me to pluck a number from a hat at random, what factors would exist, that I cannot see, which would show me it was not random at all? That I had, somehow, to pick that particular number because of those unseen factors? And if we cannot see the factors, do they then really exist?I would say that the tangible reality that we can see, were quite an illusion then.

[slingblade]

battard or chiabatta ? mmmmmmmmmmm....chiabatta.

Sourdough, duh.



;)

[uruk]

Sourdough, duh.



;)
Well, I think there are some products at the local pharmacist for that sort of thing. Uh......are we talking about what I think we're talking about or have I just crossed a line somewhere?

[CFLarsen]

"Something is rotten in the state of Jutland?"

Well, there are some large pig farms there...

There are facts about fiction, Claus. Dr. K is right.

Bull. Shakespeare stole a vital part of our national identity and forged it into a money-making scheme.

We'll raid his country and sue his beard off.

In the topic of facts, my worst nightmare is Dr. Mas.

Ohmygod! Larsen is Dr. Mas!

BUWAHAHAAAAA!!!

Anyway....

T'ai Chi,

Are you saying that it isn't an elephant?

[Mercutio]

Bull. Shakespeare stole a vital part of our national identity and forged it into a money-making scheme.

We'll raid his country and sue his beard off.
Stole it? You no longer possess this part of your national identity?

You're just jealous because Shakespeare took your national identity and made it interesting and readable.

[CFLarsen]

Stole it? You no longer possess this part of your national identity?

You're just jealous because Shakespeare took your national identity and made it interesting and readable.
You, Master of Puny Poetry, have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want money, sex and violence (the Three Driving Forces of Humanity), turn to the history of the Danes.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Shakespeare stole a vital part of our national identity and forged it into a money-making scheme.

*snip*?Friggin' nonsense. How many would have heard of the Amled myth if it had not been labelled "the origin of Hamlet"? Even if you have read your Saxo cover to cover, how long would you have remembered this little story, otherwise? And Willie changed it so much that you couldn't even sue him for plagiarism. I doubt if anybody would even have made the connection if he had called his protagonist Brian and set the scene in Ireland.

BTW, did you know that H. C. Andersen swiped the Emperor's New Clothes from a Spanish author? Only changed a dozen words, or so. And he even admitted it.

Hans

[Mercutio]

You, Master of Puny Poetry, have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want money, sex and violence (the Three Driving Forces of Humanity), turn to the history of the Danes.
Ah, yes...the whole world over, when people talk about Hamlet, they wax on for hours, then somebody says "oh, wait, didn't that English fellow do some skit about him, too?"

The whole point, Claus my dear, is that no one outside of Jutland knows what you are talking about!

[CFLarsen]

Friggin' nonsense. How many would have heard of the Amled myth if it had not been labelled "the origin of Hamlet"? Even if you have read your Saxo cover to cover, how long would you have remembered this little story, otherwise? And Willie changed it so much that you couldn't even sue him for plagiarism. I doubt if anybody would even have made the connection if he had called his protagonist Brian and set the scene in Ireland.

Heretic. Traitor.

BTW, did you know that H. C. Andersen swiped the Emperor's New Clothes from a Spanish author? Only changed a dozen words, or so. And he even admitted it.

H. C. Andersen wasn't a true viking anyway.

[lylfyl]

I always prefered the story of The BlindElephants and the Man. . .

[scimystic]

It seems to me that Rdaneen and Bluess pretty well put this thread to rest, but that its ghost has been limping South ever since.

To return for a moment to the story: The blind men could indeed use something like scientific methodology to work out that it is an elephant, if they all started from some shared concept of 'elephant'. This is not our situation in regard to reality. To illustrate lets substitute for blind men, blind aliens who have no knowledge of Earth or its animals. And to make the problem even more interesting lets say that all of their senses are different from ours. They don't have 'touch', like our blind men. Instead they have something like dolphin sonar, and sensing of electrical fields and relative densities. What would they make of the elephant? Would they ever come up with anything even remotely like our idea of an elephant? I don't think that they would. But I think that they would come up with something. And now we come to the interesting question: Who - between the blind men and the blind aliens - would be right? Who would understand the truth about the thing that they were investigating?

[Roboramma]

They don't have 'touch', like our blind men. Instead they have something like dolphin sonar, and sensing of electrical fields and relative densities. What would they make of the elephant? Would they ever come up with anything even remotely like our idea of an elephant? I don't think that they would.
I do.

They would soon be able to find out the size of it, for instance, and that they were looking at one object, rather than several disconnected ones.
With sonar they could see it's shape and watch it's behavior.

What they would see is a large object that moves about, eats, poops, and reproduces. They would be able to observe some aspects of it's social behavior. Over time their view of elephants would converge toward ours, as their knowledge about them grew.
Why the convergence? Because we're both looking at a real thing. Maybe neither will ever have a perfect understanding, but both of us are converging toward that - getting ever closer.
See my sig for more on that.

[Soapy Sam]

Indian or African?
Mastodon or Mammoth?
Male or Female?
How many of the blind men survived?

Why are we never given the full story?

[scimystic]

I do.

They would soon be able to find out the size of it, for instance, and that they were looking at one object, rather than several disconnected ones.
With sonar they could see it's shape and watch it's behavior.

What they would see is a large object that moves about, eats, poops, and reproduces. They would be able to observe some aspects of it's social behavior. Over time their view of elephants would converge toward ours, as their knowledge about them grew.
Why the convergence? Because we're both looking at a real thing. Maybe neither will ever have a perfect understanding, but both of us are converging toward that - getting ever closer.
See my sig for more on that.


I agree with your general position, and will admit to having exaggerated to make my point. It seems entirely reasonable to me that there must be [contra Berkley] an independent and 'free standing' reality. Given this, the convergence that you speak of would happen. My disagreement [presumably with you, and apparently with the other 6.5 billion present members of my species] is over our maintenance of a word and concept which seems to me to be antithetical to understanding that our knowledge is based on such a convergence process.

I can understand our ability to choose - through observation, and observation based reason - between logically exclusive knowledge proposals. That is: I can understand our preference for 'Proposal A' over Proposals B, C, D, or whatever. What I cannot understand is the integration of our concept 'truth' into this process. If we are holding A as knowledge on the basis of our observation of A, then why should we not say this? If we are holding A as knowledge because we have read A in books that we consider to be authoritative, then why should we not say that? If we are holding A as knowledge because Joe told us A (and we trust Joe) then why should we not say that? What can we gain, in any of these cases, or in any other logically conceivable case, by saying that we hold A as 'truth'; or that we hold A as knowledge on the basis of it's being 'the truth'? I think that I do understand what we have been gaining - as individuals, tribes, and nation states - through doing this. My understanding is entirely compatible with local and short term Darwinian adaptivity for the meme ('truth'). But it is also compatible with a higher level realization that we have been paying a terrible price for our maintenance of this meme. I will not plunge back into the full argument here. I've already presented it, at length, in my essay under 'Enlightenment Re-start'. I will state only my belief that within the next couple of generations we will either see through and reject this meme, on mass, or we will achieve through it an unprecedented species die-back. [An event like the many that Jared Diamond describes in 'Collapse', but this time at the full planet level].