Stage 4, if I understand Kegan correctly, just means you have a system. Any system. It can be completely bogus. The Buddhist systems are completely bogus, imo.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Perhaps I don't understand Kegan correctly, but imho stage 4 marks the departure from externally assimilated beliefs to internally constructed ones, and that necessary involves the exploration of the criteria for valid beliefs? (Not that I want to discuss Kegan exegetics here.)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Oh, I see, interesting! Yes, I can see how you could interpret it that way. But my understanding is that generally the system you adopt at stage 4 is one that is publicly available.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Stage 4 does give you more control, because you do take beliefs and emotions as object, rather than subject. However, your self (subject) is structured by principles you take over from your culture; you can’t construct those from scratch.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Rationalism/empiricism is one possible stage 4 structure.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Could you somehow prove that there is no optimal learning theory, or do you derive your rejection of rationalism just from your difficulty to find it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
There can be no absolute proofs about anything in the macroscopic world. However, there are stronger and weaker arguments. And there are strong reasons to think there can be no optimal learning theory…
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Philosophers of science spent decades trying to find a provably correct theory of induction. Instead, they found more and more reasons to think that no such theory is possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
So there is no proof, just handwaving. (Btw., would you not be surprised if there was such a proof?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
There aren’t any proofs of anything, other than in math. There is only evidence and reasoning, which can’t add up to proof. Sometimes they are overwhelmingly convincing, though.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree of course that outside of mathematics, there can be no positive proofs. But an optimal learning algorithm would be inside of mathematics, and the universe it observes, too.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.