Am I right in thinking that human actions differ from the actions of atoms because each human has a reason for their actions whereas an atom is just acting randomly?
@gregologynet only part of your conclusion is correct. You're correct that human actions are different from atoms because human action's first cause is the reason behind the action. But atoms don't act randomly. They function through cause and effect. Unfortunately, no one knows the first cause of atoms (when the universe began).
So the statement "Human action is purposeful behavior" is an "undeniable truth" because anyone denying it would be acting purposefully? hmm... Then if you say "All humans disagree with me" that would be "undeniably true" because anyone trying to prove it wrong would be, well, disagreeing with you. So by your own logic you shouldn't bother talking, since no one believes you.
That's a major logical error, it really invalidates (at least for me) anything else you have to say.
@RMT87 Thanks for the link, but I'm just pointing out the faulty logic used by praxgirl. It's fine if you take the statement "Human action is purposeful behaviour" as an axiom, but trying to *prove* it using her argument is somewhere between laughable and ridiculous. I wonder if she's ever read a basic logic book.
@zamkam "I wonder if she's ever read a basic logic book."
Of course she hasn´t - just provideing a nice fassade.
As soon as you start critizising "Austrian thought" you´ll be attacked 1. by young devotees in an emotional way with a lot of personal attacks, 2. by intellectually more trained persons, who still regress to personal attacks, most highly cynical, 3. by the "trained thinkers" who use big words to describe that only their perspective can be logic, while not defining anything.
How on earth do you figure that a truely scientific human behavorist would look at that and come to the conclusion that they were all walking about aimlessly?
Iv'e known a few. Big brains on 'em. They'd notice that.
this lady is an expert at faulty reasoning. "if you try to deny that human action is purposeful you are acting purposeful yourself." It is true that my trying to deny something is purposeful, but that doesn't mean therefore that ALL actions are purposeful.
There's a lot of confusion here in the comments. Note the distinction made between human action and human "reaction". Praxeology is concerned only with studying purposeful behavior. It does not say all behavior is purposeful, it is only defining "action" to be "purposeful" for the convenience that using the term "action" provides and because it coincides with the typical use of the word action.
Study of reactions and other instinctual behavior is more appropriate to psychology or biology.
@HeyItzMeDawg well that's circular reasoning. if you define human "action" as "purposeful behaviour" then of course it's purposeful. but that's just because you chose to define it that way.
@mrtyles Stating a definition that you'll be using is not circular reasoning, it's simply establishing a common convention you'll be using to facilitate communication.
Say you're reading about statistics and an author says that standard deviation is the square root of the variance. This doesn't require proof; it is a statement of what the author is referring to when he says "standard deviation". Praxeology does the same thing, except with a word you've heard before: "Action".
@HeyItzMeDawg "Stating a definition that you'll be using is not circular reasoning"
Of course that´s circular! Kant stated: "the order we see in things is brought into them by ourselves".
One of the most profound realizations is to find that depending on the starting definitions ("axioms") different linguistic systems emerge, which fit to describe different aspects of "reality".
It's not circular reasoning, because it has nothing to do with reasoning. It's the association of concepts, ideas, or objects understood by both sides of the conversation with noises created by the mouth or squiggles written on a paper which are then used by both sides of the conversation to facilitate communication.
@HeyItzMeDawg "It's not circular reasoning" (stating a definition)...
You may call it as you like, but definitions don´t just come into existence magically, they´re created by humans who can´t escape their epistemological limitations. What definitions you start with decides what results you can find.
@TheHomoludens That is an incoherent question. Plus, choosing to do "nothing" is still choosing something over something else. When I define free will as being able to do what you want or act on your desires, I really mean as long as you can say you felt that you chose it then you freely chose it. Hence Hume's notion of free will.
@cbl2988 "That is an incoherent question" That´s a matter of understanding. I don´t debate that your perspective is logically consistent, I really meant that question in a "zen" knid of way.
I´ll explain: I´m a musician and while I do "practise" (spend quite some time with instruments) in my best moments I simply "play" (=focus of all mental resources to one activity).
The experience of that state ("flow", "wuwei", "meditation") made me sceptical to rationalistic concepts...
@cbl2988 In short: if I do something I really want, so to speak "something I(´d) love to do" then there´s no choice involved in my subjective experience.
It´s like: if you´re in bed with a person you love and desire and that person feels the same way, do you start thinking about "sex" or do you just allow it to happen?
Maybe praxeology is a good concept for economics I don´t see how it could explain the vast variety of human behaviour without the involvement of other concepts.
@cbl2988 Back to "nothing": the neural effects of "flow" and "meditation" have been scientifically well documented.
Of course my pov can also be described as "choice to do nothing", subjectively it often rather feels like being free from having to choose (btw it´s not inaction it´s going along what´s momentarily happening).
So I can´t fully subscribe Hume´s notion as fitting for my perspective.
"Freedom" and "free will" are hard to adequately define imho.
The test of the initial premise to me is to try and think of any conscious activity without at least some purpose. I tried to but after thinking about it, even the time wasting activities like pacing or daydreaming serve a purpose, such as calming the nerves, wasting time while waiting for an event to occur, or exercising the mind or creativity. Can you think of an activity that you choose to do that does not have some purpose, even if you do not intentionally set out with that purpose?
@Sylverlokk1 "If you want to enjoy life then that right there is a purpose isn't it?"
There´s no aim or goal in the act of enjoying, I´d even dare to state that "love", "happyness" and "flow" are states of the mind, where "pros and cons",...aren´t perceived as such, but merely as processes.
The dualistic mindset of "pros/cons", "gains/losses",... is a static, binary (on/off) model of the everchanging flow of reality, it can become such a strong habit, that it´s taken for "reality".
@Sylverlokk1 "Can you think of an activity that you choose to do that does not have some purpose, even if you do not intentionally set out with that purpose?"
Can you disprove that the idea of "purpose" is only imposed onto all actions and thus as much a matter of interpretation as let´s say the existence of God?
@TheHomoludens well I was using purpose to mean action guided towards a goal. I think I am missing something when I read your replay and see purpose in quotes. What is your definition of purpose?
I don't know. I suppose the whole theory of praxeology rests on the meaning of free will. If you accept the notion of free will being the ability to choose otherwise, you are sunk by psychological determinism. However, if you accept Hume's definition of free will--being free to do what you want--then maybe not so much. But it seems to me that praxeology asserts the former rather than the latter. Another problem is the recent advancement of neuroscience refutting the former.
It might not be possible to quanitify human behavior on an individual level, but behavior can be modified on a pretty massive scale which suggests that the differences that do exist between most human beings are relatively minor ones. In most cases considering the unique motives for every single individual wouldn't even be useful even if it could be known. For example, an FDA add tells us sugar is bad - given enough prodding almost everyone will fall in line. Behavior modification is possible
I'm curious about the first axiom. Do you mean that all human action is purposeful or that just some human action is purposeful? If the former, do you define human action in terms of it being purposeful?
No empiricist would say people are going about randomly. Empiricists also observe the motivation behind actions. It's actually based on empirical evidence from evolutionary psychology: that human beings are self-interested agents, which have goals, desires, and needs. The real question is: how would you reconcile differences in conclusions achieved by different Austrians without looking at the empirical data? What if they assert that the other guy's logic is wrong?
The real scientist is the one that uses the scientific method to reach their conclusions, and not bullshit. Sorry, but praxeology is a pseudoscience on par with dowsing or phrenology. And in being a pseudoscience, it's completely worthless.
The negation of the statement that all actions are purposeful is not that no actions are purposeful but rather than some actions are not purposeful. Now in asserting the negation of the statement that all actions are purposeful one is also by the very act of making an assertion asserting that some actions are purposeful. But one is not by acting asserting the negative of one's assertion and as such, one is not engaged in a performative contradiction.
@AbelianGroup If I attempt to refute the statement that Human action if purposeful action I would be asserting a self-defeating statement, because I would be making the statement to achieve a purpose i.e. to refute the statement that Human Action is purposeful action. Please read Human Action from Mises as he clearly and distinctly formulates his foundation, which is irrefutable. That is to say, in refuting it one affirms it.
Very shady description "human action is purposeful behavior" especially to begin with!
You can't just start from the middle and start your deduction, you must start from the ground. How do you see action vs reaction and purposeful? Purposeful as in cause and effect?
@LostRituals Mises delineates between reative (instinctual) and purposeful behavior in his work, Human Action. You can get a free PDF copy of the book from mises.org.
LinearCry: if your arm twitches and you hit someone, it's not intentional, it's not purposeful so it is not human action. Not all behaviour is human action, only purposeful behaviour is. Economics (a branch of praxeology) doesn't deal with behaviour which is not intentional. It's important, yes, but other sciences deal with it (like physiology).
@LinearCry correct. Not all human physiological movements are purposeful. That is why we distinguish them with terms. Praxeology calls purposeful or intentional "action". Reaction or spasms or instinct are all instances that are non-purposeful.
@praxgirl In most scientific pursuits I am familiar with, an axiom is not undeniable, per se, but rather it's a particular fact that is assumed. In any such axiomatic system, you cannot reason your way to the axioms (as another commenter put it, "you don't deduce an axiom"). So my question is, then, whether the definition of axiom you're using is actually more along the lines of a tautology?
@Metzenger I'm sure you were hoping for praxgirl to reply :) but from what I gather, I think it is actually meant as a definition. i.e. In praxeology, "human action" refers to "purposeful behavior".
Or, as she says in Episode 4, praxeology is focused on "all those human actions that can be described as purposeful behavior".
The transcripts are useful in collating her overall meaning:
@praxgirl Perhaps it'd be less confusing if they were called (or further qualified as) non-volitional.... (?) They all do serve a function, or "purpose." At least, that's a misconstruction I would anticipate. Only just found this channel. Looking good, so far. : ) I'll keep watching.
So the statement "Human action is purposeful" is reduced to the statement human action exist which not meaningful.
Is all human action purposeful in reality. No. FMRI brain scans show empirically the rational parts of the Brains fire after the decision action is already taken. Physical science has proven that action proceeds rational process which create the idea of purpose.
One cannot say non-purpose doesn't exist in human action because then the idea of purpose versus non-purpose is
The statement "Human action is purposeful is either false or trivial" as per Gödel incompleteness.
If I observe a human action then I must put that motion classify that motion as either purposeful, non-purposeful, or neither. If I define the motion under purpose as "human action" then I have given a definition what definition can be given for non purposeful action? ....(continued on next post)
In regards to all human action being purposive, I would agree in the sense that all human action relies upon a constitutive eternal existence (identity) and the use of their volitional consciousness (identification) within the temporal-spatio realm of said existence.
However, if you are you implying that human beings always act with a known purpose or external aim, I cannot agree, for I have found many people "act" blindly, groping in the darkness, aimlessly reaching for a unknown "something"
do not try to deduce axioms, thats nonsense. then learn how to deduce universial quantifiers by contradiction bc, as many pointed out, your way is just wrong and silly. of course, don't tell everybody deductive logic is the only method to use when you just put up an axiom, thats silly too. and don't believe hayek-mises, its bs and 'contradicted by evidence' (friedman).
AND WHAT If you do not try to deny that human action is purposeful?? then you are not acting purposefully yourself, because you do not care, thus human action is not always purposeful, so if praxeology is deduced from this undeniable fact which is only undeniable if someone tries to deny it, then praxeology has limits. Ergo if a hot chick READS a text from above the camera, and acts smart by nodding then now and then She may still be a dumb b*tch, payed by someone to amuse the masses. Thank you
@just1believer wrong. Not acting is also a choice, a course of action. You choose not to act in the present because you don't value the possible outcomes, or you anticipate more desirable outcomes in the future by waiting for different circumstances to arise. The only way to deny the purposeful nature of human action is to claim that human beings act randomly with no direction from their minds. It should be clear that such an assertion is nonsense.
It is an undeniable fact that all human action is purposeful because if I argue against that assertion I'm doing something purposeful? That's silly.
By the same logic, all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion. Because if I disagree with the assertion that all conversation is an attempt to disprove an assertion, then I'm attempting to disprove an assertion. Therefore all conversation is an attempt to disprove an assertion.
@cbroberts88 exactly what i was thinking. just because i have to refute the claim that all human action is purposeful on purpose doesn't mean i'm always acting purposefully. her axiom only proves that disproving an assertion is a purposeful action.
her proof is like someone saying to me "You're always speaking, and because you have to speak to tell me you're not speaking then it proves that you're always speaking."
But all actions are inherently purposeful. You may or may not INTENTIONALLY make it 'purposeful', but it stands that human action itself is purposeful. For example, take a very very simple action like BREATHING- ok? now humans breathe.
That is fact. ok so we have fact- human breathe. Wth can we deduce from this?
first we can deduce that the implicit values of that instance where you act must be purposeful. there is an inherent purpose, an inherent imbalance, dissatisfaction, etc.
Now, you can still claim whatever bullshit you want. you can say, 'I am trying to breathe", "i am trying not to breathe", etc- but all that is just BULLSHIT and irrelevant to the FACT that you breathed.
If you breathe, you breathe- that is fact. and to deny it is to literally kill off yourself and any of your further arguments
all praxeology is lookin at is really that which underlies and can be universally deduced from the implications of such actions. that is all- hence why it is inherently sound. We aint denyin or claimin any opinions here- only dealin with facts, fundamental facts and implications
PURPOSE IS NOT THE SAME AS MENTAL INTENT/OPINION! Economists and praxeology can careless about such opinions or mental intentions. The only thing we really care about is what are the facts- namely, you act, and you have an opinion and inherent value/purpose/dissatisfaction, etc-
And another way to iterate this FUNDAMENTAL distinction is looking at her example of the 'do it yourself handyman'. He can MENTALLY CLAIM that he is "trying" to save money by fixin his own roof. and he can make up any amount of BULLSHIT he wants about it- he can claim he is "trying" to get some sun, etc etc- but its all bullshit and rather irrelevant to the fact of the action itself. namely- he attempted to fix his own roof- that is fact
The PURPOSE is not necessarily same as the purported mental intention/opinion. Its his opinion / mental intention that he is "trying" to save money, get more sun, etc. But the PURPOSE is really just the fact that there is an imbalance of dissatisfaction in him which he seeks to fill- that is all. very basic, fundamental and thus universal.
We are really just sayin that 1 + 1 = 2 here. It don't matter whether you think 1+1= 10, 99, or 793521. it doesn't even matter if you think 1+1 = -384. That is irrelevant to the fact and implications of 1+1=2. You can try to say that 1+1=99, 44, etc but it doesn't mean that it really is.
Likewise, you can purport whatever superficial "intention" for any action or "lack of intention", but it stands that there is some inherent purpose of the human action- some dissatisfaction. or else, no humans or living beings will ever act. This is really just a rule from physics that is carried over to the study of human action- Change can only occur in imbalance. If everythin is in equilibrium, there is no action. very simple.
@swu880 "We are really just sayin that 1 + 1 = 2 here."
Difference being:
1+1=2 is a convention as anyone can easily test: if all humans agreed to exchange "1" and "2" the equation would stay valid. Thus maths are a linguistic system and don´t even deal with reality, only with logical consistency.
Praxeology otoh tries to explain human actions. If it can´t give predictions and only explain looking back (facts) it´s a useless sophistic philosophy.
wow- 1+1=2 is by no means just a convention. That is like sayin- oh "gravity" is just a "convention". it is a FACT. understand? its a logical deduction made by the facts and SOUND LOGIC. what is sound logic? logic that is based on fundamental axioms or that which is virtually indisputable.
you can only say that symbols and meaning are conventions- that is all. geez its obvious you have failed in logic, math and critical thinkin
MEANING and symbols are really arbitrary marginal opinions. but the fact remains that there is gravity. and 1 plus 1 equals 2 NOT 351 and DEFINITELY NOT -25
praxeology is merely lookin at the very very fundamental basis of human action and asking a very simple question: what the hell is universally implied by such action and behavior?
its a very simple question- but by no means is it useless.
Bob on this Tuesday at 3pm walks into Joe's shop and buys an apple for $1.
That is the very fact of action. now then, what the hell is derivable and logically implied from the action? what the hect can we say about bob and joe? Can we answer any of the 6 basic critical questions which you seem to be unfamiliar with: Who, What, Where, When, How, Why? The why is by far the most intriguing
Its intriguing not in the same sense as psychologists or socialists i mean sociologists would find it intriguing. When praxeologists ask WHY a man acts, he asks about the LOGICALLY implications of the action- that which LEADS man to act and that which follows.
so hence why its logically deductible to say that Bob values at that exact moment of transaction the apple more than that dollar. and joe's values are vice versa. We don't make any absolute statements here- only marginal ones!!!
see, in logic, you can make an absolute statement of all marginal statements- this is called an axiom. its somethin that is universally true across the board across all margins ( in most cases, the statements are the margins themselves). To prove them is almost itself a folly- (its like provin 1+1=2). its by no means a convention- its a fact/axiom/logical deduction hence its sound
if you claim given the facts of bob and joe's exchange, that all people value apple more than the dollar or vice versa, it is logically false. not only is it false but its foolish. A sound statement would be the one that i make above- see there is no way to deny the implications. go ahead you can try without violating at least half a dozen other sound axioms, laws and facts.
praxeology aint about makin predictions- its about something called CRITICAL ANALYSIS- aka logic. thats all. but don't take critical analysis lightly. critical analysis is the means by which the chair you sit on is made- its the means by which the computer you use is constructed.
predictions come from after careful analysis. they arent the focus- merely the effects.
for example, analyzing the actions of humans, we can make the above deductions. now, IF, IF bob TRULY did not value the apple more than the dollar he had in his hand at that very moment, then guess what, the transaction would not occur at that moment. That is the 'prediction' which praxeology derives!
Just because human beings must utilize a subjective medium (language) to communicate mathematical truths does not mean that mathematics is strictly a linguistic system. Humans must agree on language conventions like what the definitions of one and two are but that has no bearing on the meaning that is expressed by the statements 1+1=2 in the traditional decimal system and the statement 2+2=1 in your hypothetical system.
@HeyItzMeDawg Your insisting on an "objective reality" independent from the subjective description is an assumption; it might be true in some cases, but generalizing it is not backed by logic.
Your position is positivistic, I´m too sceptic for that...
@TheHomoludens I'm not insisting on an objective reality, just claiming that the subjectivity of language does not deny the existence of objectivity.
I'm claiming that you have yet to demonstrate that an objective reality cannot exist. You're free not to do so, but recognize that's a pretty significant assumption you're making.
@HeyItzMeDawg "I'm claiming that you have yet to demonstrate that an objective reality cannot exist. You're free not to do so, but recognize that's a pretty significant assumption you're making."
My perspective is non-dualistic, meaning that "reality" is beyond "objectivity"/"subjectivity", it´s the sum of all phenomena.
The distinction obj./subj. to me appears to be part of our interpretation of "reality" and is (at least in parts) aquired.
@HeyItzMeDawg In moments of "flow", "happiness" or "play" humans can forget and transcend the distinction. So if there´s a different access to reality, why restrict the discussion to a narrow interpretation - unless the goal is scientific, empiric theory.
@HeyItzMeDawg "Just because human beings must utilize a subjective medium (language) to communicate mathematical truths does not mean that mathematics is strictly a linguistic system."
Maths are possibly the case of a perfectly intersubjective language, the subjective part is non-existant. Does that make maths "objective"?
Imo it doesn´t.
What else than a linguistic system could maths be? I´m waiting for proposals...
@TheHomoludens So, you claim that math is not a subjective method of communication, but it's also not an objective method of communication. Can you explain this further?
I never claimed that mathematics is not in some part a linguistic system; I did point out that mathematics implies objective facts because of the meaning behind the definitions/symbols used.
@HeyItzMeDawg "So, you claim that math is not a subjective method of communication, but it's also not an objective method of communication. Can you explain this further?"
Maths aren´t dealing with objects, they´re dealing with axiomatic definitions and conclusions. Maths in practical use are a descriptive tool, but pure maths don´t describe anything but their own logical consistency. Is "logic" an "object"?
@TheHomoludens In the end, both imply verifiable empirical facts: that when you take one object and stick it next to another object, you have two objects sitting in front of you. Just because I can say that sentence in a different language or make up my own language to say it in does not mean that the meaning expressed by it is merely convention made up and used by people or that objectivity does not exist.
"truth" in linguistic systems like maths doesn´t equal "truth" in attempts to describe "reality". The map (useful and accurate as it may be) is not the territory.
@TheHomoludens To the extent to which a map is modeled accurately, it is indeed true that truth on the map is truth in reality. "The map is not the territory", yes, but if we can agree on common definitions (a particular point indicates the center of a particular geographical metropolis, and an inch on the map equals a particular distance in the territory), then we can, to the extent that the map is accurate, obtain the distance between the centers of two cities in reality.
@TheHomoludens And aren't those induction models based on axioms? Karl Popper and others made this point.Can you show me economic models that are solely based on induction that have been accurate long-term predictors?
Man can't be reduced to mathematical equations because we have subjective valuations.
It's telling that the schools that solely employ induction and are overly reliant on mathematical models have such poor predictive ability--especially long-term predictions.
@joepeeler34 "Man can't be reduced to mathematical equations because we have subjective valuations."
I think humans have much more than subjective "valuations" imo...
"It's telling that the schools that solely employ induction and are overly reliant on mathematical models have such poor predictive ability" - true, just because a theory uses maths doesn´t make it scientific or accurate.
@joepeeler34 I think that historically the success of physics and chemistry that fueled the industrial age has lead to the emphasis of empiricism even in contexts, where quantification is inappropiately normative (e.g. psychology and social "sciences") and creates an illusion of accuracy. Now we have statistics backing all theories, even mutually exclusive ones and noone seems to care about integrating these theories.
@joepeeler34 Otoh I think a purely deductive system like praxeology has its own dangers: it claims desribing reality, while it´s merely a logically consistent theory, again based on definitions which can´t be tested.
Basically that´s he same way scholars were taught philosophy in the middle ages: the church knows what´s true and the pupils can only do their best to understand the "flawless" logic of the teachings.
@praxgirl My arm twitches and it strikes yours, causing your drink to spill. I deny my action was purposeful and in that denial I am acting purposefully, but that does not change the fact that my original action was unintentional and without purpose.
There are a variety of habits and instincts we have whose purpose is no longer consciously considered, if it ever was (it may be inherited). Free will is a magnificent place to start, but all human action is not necessarily purposeful, is it?
@praxgirl yikes, I just noticed Episode 3. I feel like I'm going to have to go through all 10 before I comment! :)
But perhaps phrasing the axiom as "some human actions are purposeful" or "conscious human decisions are purposeful" or even "humans have free will" may have headed off a lot of these comments.
@praxgirl Does it matter what he means? His logic is valid. Isn't that all that should matter?
You can't prove that all X is Y by showing one example in which a particular X is Y. That just proves that some X is Y.
Your statement "human action is purposeful behavior" doesn't specifically say "all", but surely you don't mean "some" - that's a pretty weak claim to use as an axiom.
@cbroberts88 I believe you misunderstood her position. First you stated something that is only an example and not an axiom,then you go on to try and apply the example to another situation. The axiom(or a priori statement) is that All human action is purposeful and whether you confirm or deny this statement you prove it to be true,but in your second scenario if someone were to agree with the first part of your statement it would nullify the rest. Just my two cents,though im not a praxeoligist.
@cbroberts88 It all goes hand in hand with marginalism. If you argue against something it is probably because you feel the need to express your views. Maybe you were just trying to better understand it. But whatever the reason, the fact is that you found enough utility in arguing against the axiom to do it. If you didn't care enough, you wouldn't have done it. You wouldn't have because you didn't see any purpose in doing so. When discussing "purposeful action" you must see it subjectively.
@cbroberts88 How is it silly? If you were to argue that human action was not purposeful, you would be diving head-first into a self-contradiction. What is meant by "purposeful" behavior is simply the fact that all human action is directed towards ends. Arguing against the assertion that human action is purposeful is clearly in and of itself purposeful. It is a universal law.
Your example, which claims to follow the same logic, is actually a non sequitur. Check your premises.
@cbroberts88 It does not follow that all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion just because you pointed out a particular conversation where the assertion holds true. In the same manner, one could attempt to "prove" the human action axiom by identifying a particular action as being purposeful (e.g., Joe buys ice cream). However, we can see almost right away how silly this would be.
@cbroberts88 By using the same logic we used in our assertion about human action, we can see just how silly the assertion that all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion really is. One would only need to agree with the assertion to disprove it. By saying, "Yes, all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion.", I have discovered a conversation which does not follow this rule while also walking into a self-contradiction.
@cbroberts88 By arguing against praxeology, you are taking action to disprove purposeful behavior, therefore proving the praxeological point that you too are acting in a purposeful manner and making your entire statement null and proving praxeology, once again, correct.
@Paulintheoh8 You´re like a christian priest claiming that all people must be converted to christianity; all who oppose that of course do so, because of devilish deceptions that those people need to be freed from.
@djuxo Atoms do make decisions. Check out wave function collapse in quantum theory. The problem is that their decisions don't amount to much unless you have a delicate mechanism (like a brain) to magnify them. So I'm not really challenging your question, but recommending that you rephrase it: At what point does the magnification of wave-function collapse ("butterfly effect") become "decision-making" rather than the random behavior of non-sentient matter? But that has an assumption too :-(.
I want to understand this, but it's not making sense to me. Praxgirl, what I'm getting is that human behavior is too complex to measure en masse and that we can logically deduce how people will react - with certain purposes. What then of market research? The behavior of millions of consumers is predicted (accurately) via surveying a statistically valid subset. Big companies spend big $ for analysis; should they instead just sit around and think of what consumers will do?
@akjones498 That market research may predict if a certain percentage of consumers will have interest in a particular product, but can't tell for certain if any particular individual will have interest, or if those interested will actually buy the product in the market if/when it's produced.
@akjones498 The prediction of praxeology are apodictic and qualitative ,. A lower price will give you more sales than a higher price other things being equal. And gives you insights into funcamental market mechanisms. Market research tries to give you insight about consumer preference, however you can't actual be sure until the transactions take place. Plus the research data is usually interpreted in light of some sort of explicit of implicit pareological theory.
A friend sent me this, and I am thankful. Question: If atoms do not make decisions, at what point does the collection of atoms (humans) make decisions. Conversely at what point does the loss of atoms from the collection of atoms turn people from decision-making atomic collection to a action/reaction collection of atoms. Silly, for sure. Continuing on to Video 3.
I do take issue with the strawman presented at GCS though. A scientist would not say that "oh, it's just people walking aimlessly." To say that they're walking aimlessly would be to impose a purpose on the physical actions that you're trying to claim they're not doing. Furthermore, it's not even correct to say that all a scientist would say is "this is a bunch of people walking," because it's perfectly reasonable (and scientific) to take into account the why.
@praxgirl My concerns arose from your use of the phrase "a truly scientific behaviorist" followed by "people walking back and forth AIMLESSLY." That's where the strawman arises, because:
1. A behaviorist would be unscientific to claim the walking is aimless (which I believe you note), but
2. You're making the assumption that an empirical studier would actually make the claim for its aimlessness
...I also grant that this may be a smaller issue than I could be making of it.....
@Blazhei I'm not assuming that a scientific behaviorist would do such a thing. Most don't. Only true, consistent empiricists would have to admit that all they see is aimless movement. This only lends to my argument that behaviorists aren't even consistent because of their lack in a solid epistemological background (which I didn't get too deeply into but I might in the future).
@praxgirl Hm, I'm still not seeing why the behaviorist would have to draw the conclusion that it is /aimless/ movement... I'm not sure why he would have to draw any conclusions as to purpose at all. Not drawing a conclusion isn't the same thing as drawing a conclusion of "aimless."
I think a video about the epistemology would be a good choice, though!
@praxgirl Say I'm a scientist studying people at GCS. If I see one person enter the building, walk to the ticket area, buy a ticket, and then go to a boarding platform, wait 5 minutes for a train to arrive, then get on the train, how would I come to the conclusion that this was "aimless"?
Please explain to me where observation turned into "oh, this must be aimless"?
@neuronstorm Ludwig von Mises, the "founder" of praxeology, does not say that all human behavior is purposeful, but that "action" can be defined as purposeful behavior and that it is something that humans have the capacity for. It's a particular jargon he chose to use, probably to keep his writing more concise.
@neuronstorm In this case, it's a semantic issue only. "Human action" /is defined/ to be "purposeful." In this sense, the word "action" is taking on a far stricter definition than the colloquial definition of action. As another commenter stated, non-purposeful physical action is outside the scope of praxeology, which studies purposeful physical action, ie human action. The confusion occurs because the same word - action - is being used to describe both a broad and strict concept.
Well done Praxgirl, I'm always happy to see someone generating interest in logical thinking.
Two questions though: how does praxeology account for people making choices that they know in advance will be detrimental to themselves, and how does it account for those who display willful ignorance? I have met people with no interest in expanding their understanding of their world, who actively shut down any attempt at thoughtful discourse.
@jdoverholt Praxeologically speaking the action people take demonstrate that the choice they made made them better off than not performing that action. Non-praxeologically speaking you could say that the choice did not make them better, for example psychologically speaking you smoking did not help you deal with your real problem, pathologically speaking your health is worse off by smoking, ethically speaking you are being a bad role model. Even when you don't want either of those things.....
@jdoverholt ...your action demonstrates that you thought you'd be better off by taking that smoke in the moment after you smoke, than the moment before you smoke. So praxeologically speaking. It could happen that the tobacco you smoked was fake, so you didn't even get the effect of nicotine, but it doesn't matter, you performed the action purposefully, whether that purpose was fulfilled after the fact, for study of human action, it doesn't matter.
@jdoverholt "how does praxeology account for people making choices that they know in advance will be detrimental to themselves"
I'm going to take a stab at that one and say time preference. The value the benefit that the detrimental choice gives them in the present higher then the eventual cost paid in the future.
One of those benefits could be avoidance of pain or the pursuit of pleasure. People with addictions come to mind.
@jdoverholt "and how does it account for those who display willful ignorance? "
I don't think people that are displaying willful ignorance are making choices. They have already made their choice. They have already placed their "bet" on another choice and believe their previous choice will eventually deliver the desired outcome. (Keynesians come to mind.)
Am I right in thinking that human actions differ from the actions of atoms because each human has a reason for their actions whereas an atom is just acting randomly?
gregologynet 1 week ago
@gregologynet only part of your conclusion is correct. You're correct that human actions are different from atoms because human action's first cause is the reason behind the action. But atoms don't act randomly. They function through cause and effect. Unfortunately, no one knows the first cause of atoms (when the universe began).
praxgirl 1 week ago
It's all very... religious, there's a good deal of 'scientist' bashing going on here.
DrPhallus 1 week ago
@DrPhallus You're projecting
dubified89 1 week ago in playlist Lessons
So the statement "Human action is purposeful behavior" is an "undeniable truth" because anyone denying it would be acting purposefully? hmm... Then if you say "All humans disagree with me" that would be "undeniably true" because anyone trying to prove it wrong would be, well, disagreeing with you. So by your own logic you shouldn't bother talking, since no one believes you.
That's a major logical error, it really invalidates (at least for me) anything else you have to say.
zamkam 1 month ago in playlist Lessons
@zamkam the methadology is explained more here. just google: lessons for a young economist Robert Murphy pdf. click 1st link
RMT87 1 month ago
@RMT87 Thanks for the link, but I'm just pointing out the faulty logic used by praxgirl. It's fine if you take the statement "Human action is purposeful behaviour" as an axiom, but trying to *prove* it using her argument is somewhere between laughable and ridiculous. I wonder if she's ever read a basic logic book.
zamkam 4 weeks ago
@zamkam I'm not sure that her statement of the axiom was as it was given originally... The version I've heard is "humans act."
ReasonAndLiberty 3 weeks ago
@zamkam You don't need to read a whole book. A single page on the internet reveals you to be an idiot
wikipedia. org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
jeffiek 3 weeks ago
@jeffiek And anyone who ever heard what "tautology" means, will find the praxeology is based on one.
Pseudo-science!
TheHomoludens 2 weeks ago
@zamkam "I wonder if she's ever read a basic logic book."
Of course she hasn´t - just provideing a nice fassade.
As soon as you start critizising "Austrian thought" you´ll be attacked 1. by young devotees in an emotional way with a lot of personal attacks, 2. by intellectually more trained persons, who still regress to personal attacks, most highly cynical, 3. by the "trained thinkers" who use big words to describe that only their perspective can be logic, while not defining anything.
Sophism...
TheHomoludens 2 weeks ago
@zamkam "Then if you say "All humans disagree with me" ..."
Do you know what the word ALL means?
ONE person trying to prove your bullshit wrong is not ALL person.
Such stupidity as yours doesn't even rise to the level of error. Error implies the attempt to be correct.
jeffiek 3 weeks ago
@zamkam Don´t bother trying to really argue with those "individualistic thinkers" who identify themselves as "Austrian thinkers" or "praxeologists".
Their epistemology ("what can I be sure of?") and ontology ("what is there (that is knowable)?") is simply nonexistant.
Those who rant against this statement will propably regress to the ever same tautologies...
TheHomoludens 2 weeks ago
@zamkam And excuse me for regressing to personal attacks, too, but:
just have a look at "praxeology - episode 1" top comment to see about the maturity of thought brought to us by praxgirl and her followers.
Wanking highschool kids sucking on propaganda tits!
TheHomoludens 2 weeks ago
@TheHomoludens No, I will not excuse you for personal attacks.
The ad hominem attack ranks among the despicable among those that don't have any argument to present.
Insults are quite another thing. I occasionally use them myself although I typically find that accurate descriptions are sufficient.
Idiot.
jeffiek 2 weeks ago
How on earth do you figure that a truely scientific human behavorist would look at that and come to the conclusion that they were all walking about aimlessly?
Iv'e known a few. Big brains on 'em. They'd notice that.
hanbaal 1 month ago in playlist Lessons
Comment removed
mrtyles 2 months ago
this lady is an expert at faulty reasoning. "if you try to deny that human action is purposeful you are acting purposeful yourself." It is true that my trying to deny something is purposeful, but that doesn't mean therefore that ALL actions are purposeful.
mrtyles 2 months ago
There's a lot of confusion here in the comments. Note the distinction made between human action and human "reaction". Praxeology is concerned only with studying purposeful behavior. It does not say all behavior is purposeful, it is only defining "action" to be "purposeful" for the convenience that using the term "action" provides and because it coincides with the typical use of the word action.
Study of reactions and other instinctual behavior is more appropriate to psychology or biology.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago in playlist Lessons 2
@HeyItzMeDawg well that's circular reasoning. if you define human "action" as "purposeful behaviour" then of course it's purposeful. but that's just because you chose to define it that way.
mrtyles 2 months ago
@mrtyles Stating a definition that you'll be using is not circular reasoning, it's simply establishing a common convention you'll be using to facilitate communication.
Say you're reading about statistics and an author says that standard deviation is the square root of the variance. This doesn't require proof; it is a statement of what the author is referring to when he says "standard deviation". Praxeology does the same thing, except with a word you've heard before: "Action".
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "Stating a definition that you'll be using is not circular reasoning"
Of course that´s circular! Kant stated: "the order we see in things is brought into them by ourselves".
One of the most profound realizations is to find that depending on the starting definitions ("axioms") different linguistic systems emerge, which fit to describe different aspects of "reality".
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens "Of course that´s circular!"
It's not circular reasoning, because it has nothing to do with reasoning. It's the association of concepts, ideas, or objects understood by both sides of the conversation with noises created by the mouth or squiggles written on a paper which are then used by both sides of the conversation to facilitate communication.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "It's not circular reasoning" (stating a definition)...
You may call it as you like, but definitions don´t just come into existence magically, they´re created by humans who can´t escape their epistemological limitations. What definitions you start with decides what results you can find.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
This are the same basic premises Ayn Rand used to form her philosophy of Objectivism. Neat!
damanrulz70 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens To understand what I mean, you have to understand marginal opportunity cost.
cbl2988 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cbl2988 "To understand what I mean, you have to understand marginal opportunity cost."
I don´t see how this relates to "free will".
Interesting concept though...
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens That is an incoherent question. Plus, choosing to do "nothing" is still choosing something over something else. When I define free will as being able to do what you want or act on your desires, I really mean as long as you can say you felt that you chose it then you freely chose it. Hence Hume's notion of free will.
cbl2988 2 months ago
@cbl2988 "That is an incoherent question" That´s a matter of understanding. I don´t debate that your perspective is logically consistent, I really meant that question in a "zen" knid of way.
I´ll explain: I´m a musician and while I do "practise" (spend quite some time with instruments) in my best moments I simply "play" (=focus of all mental resources to one activity).
The experience of that state ("flow", "wuwei", "meditation") made me sceptical to rationalistic concepts...
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@cbl2988 In short: if I do something I really want, so to speak "something I(´d) love to do" then there´s no choice involved in my subjective experience.
It´s like: if you´re in bed with a person you love and desire and that person feels the same way, do you start thinking about "sex" or do you just allow it to happen?
Maybe praxeology is a good concept for economics I don´t see how it could explain the vast variety of human behaviour without the involvement of other concepts.
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@cbl2988 Back to "nothing": the neural effects of "flow" and "meditation" have been scientifically well documented.
Of course my pov can also be described as "choice to do nothing", subjectively it often rather feels like being free from having to choose (btw it´s not inaction it´s going along what´s momentarily happening).
So I can´t fully subscribe Hume´s notion as fitting for my perspective.
"Freedom" and "free will" are hard to adequately define imho.
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
The test of the initial premise to me is to try and think of any conscious activity without at least some purpose. I tried to but after thinking about it, even the time wasting activities like pacing or daydreaming serve a purpose, such as calming the nerves, wasting time while waiting for an event to occur, or exercising the mind or creativity. Can you think of an activity that you choose to do that does not have some purpose, even if you do not intentionally set out with that purpose?
Sylverlokk1 2 months ago
@Sylverlokk1 So if I only want to enjoy life, what´s the purpose then?
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens If you want to enjoy life then that right there is a purpose isn't it?
Sylverlokk1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sylverlokk1 "If you want to enjoy life then that right there is a purpose isn't it?"
There´s no aim or goal in the act of enjoying, I´d even dare to state that "love", "happyness" and "flow" are states of the mind, where "pros and cons",...aren´t perceived as such, but merely as processes.
The dualistic mindset of "pros/cons", "gains/losses",... is a static, binary (on/off) model of the everchanging flow of reality, it can become such a strong habit, that it´s taken for "reality".
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@Sylverlokk1 "Can you think of an activity that you choose to do that does not have some purpose, even if you do not intentionally set out with that purpose?"
Can you disprove that the idea of "purpose" is only imposed onto all actions and thus as much a matter of interpretation as let´s say the existence of God?
Praxeology is metaphysics, not science...
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens well I was using purpose to mean action guided towards a goal. I think I am missing something when I read your replay and see purpose in quotes. What is your definition of purpose?
Sylverlokk1 2 months ago
I don't know. I suppose the whole theory of praxeology rests on the meaning of free will. If you accept the notion of free will being the ability to choose otherwise, you are sunk by psychological determinism. However, if you accept Hume's definition of free will--being free to do what you want--then maybe not so much. But it seems to me that praxeology asserts the former rather than the latter. Another problem is the recent advancement of neuroscience refutting the former.
cbl2988 3 months ago in playlist Lessons
@cbl2988 If I only want "nothing", would that be an act of "free will"?
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
It might not be possible to quanitify human behavior on an individual level, but behavior can be modified on a pretty massive scale which suggests that the differences that do exist between most human beings are relatively minor ones. In most cases considering the unique motives for every single individual wouldn't even be useful even if it could be known. For example, an FDA add tells us sugar is bad - given enough prodding almost everyone will fall in line. Behavior modification is possible
duckdown1993 3 months ago
I'm curious about the first axiom. Do you mean that all human action is purposeful or that just some human action is purposeful? If the former, do you define human action in terms of it being purposeful?
PraetorDrew 3 months ago
No empiricist would say people are going about randomly. Empiricists also observe the motivation behind actions. It's actually based on empirical evidence from evolutionary psychology: that human beings are self-interested agents, which have goals, desires, and needs. The real question is: how would you reconcile differences in conclusions achieved by different Austrians without looking at the empirical data? What if they assert that the other guy's logic is wrong?
LogicalFlawDetector 3 months ago
The real scientist is the one that uses the scientific method to reach their conclusions, and not bullshit. Sorry, but praxeology is a pseudoscience on par with dowsing or phrenology. And in being a pseudoscience, it's completely worthless.
99bit 3 months ago
@99bit If you understood a priori logic, which the scientific method relies on you would understand that it is not a pseudoscience at all.
stauguastine 3 months ago
Isn't this what Max Weber was talking about? Social acts??
musty911 4 months ago
The negation of the statement that all actions are purposeful is not that no actions are purposeful but rather than some actions are not purposeful. Now in asserting the negation of the statement that all actions are purposeful one is also by the very act of making an assertion asserting that some actions are purposeful. But one is not by acting asserting the negative of one's assertion and as such, one is not engaged in a performative contradiction.
AbelianGroup 5 months ago
@AbelianGroup If I attempt to refute the statement that Human action if purposeful action I would be asserting a self-defeating statement, because I would be making the statement to achieve a purpose i.e. to refute the statement that Human Action is purposeful action. Please read Human Action from Mises as he clearly and distinctly formulates his foundation, which is irrefutable. That is to say, in refuting it one affirms it.
stauguastine 3 months ago
Comment removed
AbelianGroup 5 months ago
Very shady description "human action is purposeful behavior" especially to begin with!
You can't just start from the middle and start your deduction, you must start from the ground. How do you see action vs reaction and purposeful? Purposeful as in cause and effect?
LostRituals 5 months ago 10
@LostRituals Mises delineates between reative (instinctual) and purposeful behavior in his work, Human Action. You can get a free PDF copy of the book from mises.org.
stauguastine 3 months ago
@LostRituals All action presuposses a cause and effect relationship otherwise the actor would not act.
stauguastine 3 months ago
@stauguastine It's no use to define action as something purposeful only. Human action is also actions of almost brain dead human.
You cannot separate intentional actions from unintentional actions because you can't get to the beginning of the causal relationship.
LostRituals 3 months ago
LinearCry: if your arm twitches and you hit someone, it's not intentional, it's not purposeful so it is not human action. Not all behaviour is human action, only purposeful behaviour is. Economics (a branch of praxeology) doesn't deal with behaviour which is not intentional. It's important, yes, but other sciences deal with it (like physiology).
krab2006 5 months ago
@krab2006 Why would you define acion as only that which includes the mind?
LostRituals 3 months ago
Oh my, an arara
SanQae 5 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de praxgirl
@LinearCry correct. Not all human physiological movements are purposeful. That is why we distinguish them with terms. Praxeology calls purposeful or intentional "action". Reaction or spasms or instinct are all instances that are non-purposeful.
praxgirl 5 months ago
@praxgirl In most scientific pursuits I am familiar with, an axiom is not undeniable, per se, but rather it's a particular fact that is assumed. In any such axiomatic system, you cannot reason your way to the axioms (as another commenter put it, "you don't deduce an axiom"). So my question is, then, whether the definition of axiom you're using is actually more along the lines of a tautology?
Metzenger 5 months ago
@Metzenger I'm sure you were hoping for praxgirl to reply :) but from what I gather, I think it is actually meant as a definition. i.e. In praxeology, "human action" refers to "purposeful behavior".
Or, as she says in Episode 4, praxeology is focused on "all those human actions that can be described as purposeful behavior".
The transcripts are useful in collating her overall meaning:
praxeology.tv/blog/2011/8/9/calling-all-translators.html
LinearCry 5 months ago
@Metzenger Undeniable, self-evident, synthetic a priori, truism. Pick your term.
robertetaylor 5 months ago
@praxgirl Perhaps it'd be less confusing if they were called (or further qualified as) non-volitional.... (?) They all do serve a function, or "purpose." At least, that's a misconstruction I would anticipate. Only just found this channel. Looking good, so far. : ) I'll keep watching.
JaceJohanson 2 months ago
So the statement "Human action is purposeful" is reduced to the statement human action exist which not meaningful.
Is all human action purposeful in reality. No. FMRI brain scans show empirically the rational parts of the Brains fire after the decision action is already taken. Physical science has proven that action proceeds rational process which create the idea of purpose.
One cannot say non-purpose doesn't exist in human action because then the idea of purpose versus non-purpose is
Septeus7 5 months ago
The statement "Human action is purposeful is either false or trivial" as per Gödel incompleteness.
If I observe a human action then I must put that motion classify that motion as either purposeful, non-purposeful, or neither. If I define the motion under purpose as "human action" then I have given a definition what definition can be given for non purposeful action? ....(continued on next post)
Septeus7 5 months ago
1. Liked
2. Favorited
3. Ejaculated... logically consistently, duh!
CleverDjembe 6 months ago
In regards to all human action being purposive, I would agree in the sense that all human action relies upon a constitutive eternal existence (identity) and the use of their volitional consciousness (identification) within the temporal-spatio realm of said existence.
However, if you are you implying that human beings always act with a known purpose or external aim, I cannot agree, for I have found many people "act" blindly, groping in the darkness, aimlessly reaching for a unknown "something"
GroovePatriot 6 months ago
do not try to deduce axioms, thats nonsense. then learn how to deduce universial quantifiers by contradiction bc, as many pointed out, your way is just wrong and silly. of course, don't tell everybody deductive logic is the only method to use when you just put up an axiom, thats silly too. and don't believe hayek-mises, its bs and 'contradicted by evidence' (friedman).
but i like parrots too, so there's some hope.
realCevra 6 months ago
I feel like she is just reading a teleprompter.
makzmakz 6 months ago
lol you lost me quick too, but i feel better after reading the top comment, i thought it was because im HiiGGhhH
WhoDaresWins1189 6 months ago
AND WHAT If you do not try to deny that human action is purposeful?? then you are not acting purposefully yourself, because you do not care, thus human action is not always purposeful, so if praxeology is deduced from this undeniable fact which is only undeniable if someone tries to deny it, then praxeology has limits. Ergo if a hot chick READS a text from above the camera, and acts smart by nodding then now and then She may still be a dumb b*tch, payed by someone to amuse the masses. Thank you
just1believer 6 months ago
@just1believer wrong. Not acting is also a choice, a course of action. You choose not to act in the present because you don't value the possible outcomes, or you anticipate more desirable outcomes in the future by waiting for different circumstances to arise. The only way to deny the purposeful nature of human action is to claim that human beings act randomly with no direction from their minds. It should be clear that such an assertion is nonsense.
gergenheimer 6 months ago
Ha ha well played cbroberts.
joshificationable 7 months ago
I agree with sex, race, and color ... but not creed.
Never creed.
TreyGre7 7 months ago
You sure lost me quick.
It is an undeniable fact that all human action is purposeful because if I argue against that assertion I'm doing something purposeful? That's silly.
By the same logic, all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion. Because if I disagree with the assertion that all conversation is an attempt to disprove an assertion, then I'm attempting to disprove an assertion. Therefore all conversation is an attempt to disprove an assertion.
Pure nonsense.
cbroberts88 7 months ago 2
@cbroberts88 exactly what i was thinking. just because i have to refute the claim that all human action is purposeful on purpose doesn't mean i'm always acting purposefully. her axiom only proves that disproving an assertion is a purposeful action.
her proof is like someone saying to me "You're always speaking, and because you have to speak to tell me you're not speaking then it proves that you're always speaking."
MtotheATTHEW 7 months ago 6
@MtotheATTHEW
But all actions are inherently purposeful. You may or may not INTENTIONALLY make it 'purposeful', but it stands that human action itself is purposeful. For example, take a very very simple action like BREATHING- ok? now humans breathe.
That is fact. ok so we have fact- human breathe. Wth can we deduce from this?
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
first we can deduce that the implicit values of that instance where you act must be purposeful. there is an inherent purpose, an inherent imbalance, dissatisfaction, etc.
Now, you can still claim whatever bullshit you want. you can say, 'I am trying to breathe", "i am trying not to breathe", etc- but all that is just BULLSHIT and irrelevant to the FACT that you breathed.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
If you breathe, you breathe- that is fact. and to deny it is to literally kill off yourself and any of your further arguments
all praxeology is lookin at is really that which underlies and can be universally deduced from the implications of such actions. that is all- hence why it is inherently sound. We aint denyin or claimin any opinions here- only dealin with facts, fundamental facts and implications
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
PURPOSE IS NOT THE SAME AS MENTAL INTENT/OPINION! Economists and praxeology can careless about such opinions or mental intentions. The only thing we really care about is what are the facts- namely, you act, and you have an opinion and inherent value/purpose/dissatisfaction, etc-
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
And another way to iterate this FUNDAMENTAL distinction is looking at her example of the 'do it yourself handyman'. He can MENTALLY CLAIM that he is "trying" to save money by fixin his own roof. and he can make up any amount of BULLSHIT he wants about it- he can claim he is "trying" to get some sun, etc etc- but its all bullshit and rather irrelevant to the fact of the action itself. namely- he attempted to fix his own roof- that is fact
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
The PURPOSE is not necessarily same as the purported mental intention/opinion. Its his opinion / mental intention that he is "trying" to save money, get more sun, etc. But the PURPOSE is really just the fact that there is an imbalance of dissatisfaction in him which he seeks to fill- that is all. very basic, fundamental and thus universal.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
We are really just sayin that 1 + 1 = 2 here. It don't matter whether you think 1+1= 10, 99, or 793521. it doesn't even matter if you think 1+1 = -384. That is irrelevant to the fact and implications of 1+1=2. You can try to say that 1+1=99, 44, etc but it doesn't mean that it really is.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
Likewise, you can purport whatever superficial "intention" for any action or "lack of intention", but it stands that there is some inherent purpose of the human action- some dissatisfaction. or else, no humans or living beings will ever act. This is really just a rule from physics that is carried over to the study of human action- Change can only occur in imbalance. If everythin is in equilibrium, there is no action. very simple.
swu880 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swu880 "This is really just a rule from physics that is carried over to the study of human action"
Funny thing is: physics work with empiricism, praxeology denies empiricism. Talk about logical inconsistency!
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@swu880 "We are really just sayin that 1 + 1 = 2 here."
Difference being:
1+1=2 is a convention as anyone can easily test: if all humans agreed to exchange "1" and "2" the equation would stay valid. Thus maths are a linguistic system and don´t even deal with reality, only with logical consistency.
Praxeology otoh tries to explain human actions. If it can´t give predictions and only explain looking back (facts) it´s a useless sophistic philosophy.
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens
wow- 1+1=2 is by no means just a convention. That is like sayin- oh "gravity" is just a "convention". it is a FACT. understand? its a logical deduction made by the facts and SOUND LOGIC. what is sound logic? logic that is based on fundamental axioms or that which is virtually indisputable.
you can only say that symbols and meaning are conventions- that is all. geez its obvious you have failed in logic, math and critical thinkin
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
MEANING and symbols are really arbitrary marginal opinions. but the fact remains that there is gravity. and 1 plus 1 equals 2 NOT 351 and DEFINITELY NOT -25
praxeology is merely lookin at the very very fundamental basis of human action and asking a very simple question: what the hell is universally implied by such action and behavior?
its a very simple question- but by no means is it useless.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
Its actually the very definition of logic.
consider the following:
Bob on this Tuesday at 3pm walks into Joe's shop and buys an apple for $1.
That is the very fact of action. now then, what the hell is derivable and logically implied from the action? what the hect can we say about bob and joe? Can we answer any of the 6 basic critical questions which you seem to be unfamiliar with: Who, What, Where, When, How, Why? The why is by far the most intriguing
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
Its intriguing not in the same sense as psychologists or socialists i mean sociologists would find it intriguing. When praxeologists ask WHY a man acts, he asks about the LOGICALLY implications of the action- that which LEADS man to act and that which follows.
so hence why its logically deductible to say that Bob values at that exact moment of transaction the apple more than that dollar. and joe's values are vice versa. We don't make any absolute statements here- only marginal ones!!!
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
There is a difference.
see, in logic, you can make an absolute statement of all marginal statements- this is called an axiom. its somethin that is universally true across the board across all margins ( in most cases, the statements are the margins themselves). To prove them is almost itself a folly- (its like provin 1+1=2). its by no means a convention- its a fact/axiom/logical deduction hence its sound
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
however, if you just make an absolute statement, you have already lost the argument
Please watch praxgirl's videos on marginality, time, space, and purposeful action
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
ie.
if you claim given the facts of bob and joe's exchange, that all people value apple more than the dollar or vice versa, it is logically false. not only is it false but its foolish. A sound statement would be the one that i make above- see there is no way to deny the implications. go ahead you can try without violating at least half a dozen other sound axioms, laws and facts.
lol
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
praxeology aint about makin predictions- its about something called CRITICAL ANALYSIS- aka logic. thats all. but don't take critical analysis lightly. critical analysis is the means by which the chair you sit on is made- its the means by which the computer you use is constructed.
swu880 2 months ago
@swu880
predictions come from after careful analysis. they arent the focus- merely the effects.
for example, analyzing the actions of humans, we can make the above deductions. now, IF, IF bob TRULY did not value the apple more than the dollar he had in his hand at that very moment, then guess what, the transaction would not occur at that moment. That is the 'prediction' which praxeology derives!
lol
swu880 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens Oh, not this again. I'll say it again:
Just because human beings must utilize a subjective medium (language) to communicate mathematical truths does not mean that mathematics is strictly a linguistic system. Humans must agree on language conventions like what the definitions of one and two are but that has no bearing on the meaning that is expressed by the statements 1+1=2 in the traditional decimal system and the statement 2+2=1 in your hypothetical system.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
@HeyItzMeDawg Your insisting on an "objective reality" independent from the subjective description is an assumption; it might be true in some cases, but generalizing it is not backed by logic.
Your position is positivistic, I´m too sceptic for that...
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens I'm not insisting on an objective reality, just claiming that the subjectivity of language does not deny the existence of objectivity.
I'm claiming that you have yet to demonstrate that an objective reality cannot exist. You're free not to do so, but recognize that's a pretty significant assumption you're making.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "I'm claiming that you have yet to demonstrate that an objective reality cannot exist. You're free not to do so, but recognize that's a pretty significant assumption you're making."
My perspective is non-dualistic, meaning that "reality" is beyond "objectivity"/"subjectivity", it´s the sum of all phenomena.
The distinction obj./subj. to me appears to be part of our interpretation of "reality" and is (at least in parts) aquired.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg In moments of "flow", "happiness" or "play" humans can forget and transcend the distinction. So if there´s a different access to reality, why restrict the discussion to a narrow interpretation - unless the goal is scientific, empiric theory.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "Just because human beings must utilize a subjective medium (language) to communicate mathematical truths does not mean that mathematics is strictly a linguistic system."
Maths are possibly the case of a perfectly intersubjective language, the subjective part is non-existant. Does that make maths "objective"?
Imo it doesn´t.
What else than a linguistic system could maths be? I´m waiting for proposals...
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens So, you claim that math is not a subjective method of communication, but it's also not an objective method of communication. Can you explain this further?
I never claimed that mathematics is not in some part a linguistic system; I did point out that mathematics implies objective facts because of the meaning behind the definitions/symbols used.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeyItzMeDawg "So, you claim that math is not a subjective method of communication, but it's also not an objective method of communication. Can you explain this further?"
Maths aren´t dealing with objects, they´re dealing with axiomatic definitions and conclusions. Maths in practical use are a descriptive tool, but pure maths don´t describe anything but their own logical consistency. Is "logic" an "object"?
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "I did point out that mathematics implies objective facts because of the meaning behind the definitions/symbols used."
No, it doesn´t. The "meaning" is part of the subjective interpretation, how else could you explain that many don´t understand maths?
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens In the end, both imply verifiable empirical facts: that when you take one object and stick it next to another object, you have two objects sitting in front of you. Just because I can say that sentence in a different language or make up my own language to say it in does not mean that the meaning expressed by it is merely convention made up and used by people or that objectivity does not exist.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
@HeyItzMeDawg Short:
"truth" in linguistic systems like maths doesn´t equal "truth" in attempts to describe "reality". The map (useful and accurate as it may be) is not the territory.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens To the extent to which a map is modeled accurately, it is indeed true that truth on the map is truth in reality. "The map is not the territory", yes, but if we can agree on common definitions (a particular point indicates the center of a particular geographical metropolis, and an inch on the map equals a particular distance in the territory), then we can, to the extent that the map is accurate, obtain the distance between the centers of two cities in reality.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "To the extent to which a map is modeled accurately, it is indeed true that truth on the map is truth in reality."
Sorry, but that only makes me smile. Again as with maths the interpretation of a map is something learned.
Besides, can you go swimming in a map or lay in the sun?
Accurate models is the best humans can achieve, imho only people with agendas use the word "truth" in connection with their theories.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens And aren't those induction models based on axioms? Karl Popper and others made this point.Can you show me economic models that are solely based on induction that have been accurate long-term predictors?
Man can't be reduced to mathematical equations because we have subjective valuations.
It's telling that the schools that solely employ induction and are overly reliant on mathematical models have such poor predictive ability--especially long-term predictions.
joepeeler34 1 month ago
@joepeeler34 "And aren't those induction models based on axioms?"
What models? Physics?
And yes, they are based on axioms.
"Can you show me economic models that are solely based on induction that have been accurate long-term predictors?"
No, I can´t and frankly I consider economics to be far from scientific.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joepeeler34 "Man can't be reduced to mathematical equations because we have subjective valuations."
I think humans have much more than subjective "valuations" imo...
"It's telling that the schools that solely employ induction and are overly reliant on mathematical models have such poor predictive ability" - true, just because a theory uses maths doesn´t make it scientific or accurate.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@joepeeler34 I think that historically the success of physics and chemistry that fueled the industrial age has lead to the emphasis of empiricism even in contexts, where quantification is inappropiately normative (e.g. psychology and social "sciences") and creates an illusion of accuracy. Now we have statistics backing all theories, even mutually exclusive ones and noone seems to care about integrating these theories.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@joepeeler34 Otoh I think a purely deductive system like praxeology has its own dangers: it claims desribing reality, while it´s merely a logically consistent theory, again based on definitions which can´t be tested.
Basically that´s he same way scholars were taught philosophy in the middle ages: the church knows what´s true and the pupils can only do their best to understand the "flawless" logic of the teachings.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@cbroberts88 but you don't really mean that.
praxgirl 7 months ago
@praxgirl My arm twitches and it strikes yours, causing your drink to spill. I deny my action was purposeful and in that denial I am acting purposefully, but that does not change the fact that my original action was unintentional and without purpose.
There are a variety of habits and instincts we have whose purpose is no longer consciously considered, if it ever was (it may be inherited). Free will is a magnificent place to start, but all human action is not necessarily purposeful, is it?
LinearCry 5 months ago
@praxgirl yikes, I just noticed Episode 3. I feel like I'm going to have to go through all 10 before I comment! :)
But perhaps phrasing the axiom as "some human actions are purposeful" or "conscious human decisions are purposeful" or even "humans have free will" may have headed off a lot of these comments.
LinearCry 5 months ago
@praxgirl Mises doesn't claim that "all human action is purposeful". He rather -defines- action as purposeful behavior.
yaakovda 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@praxgirl Does it matter what he means? His logic is valid. Isn't that all that should matter?
You can't prove that all X is Y by showing one example in which a particular X is Y. That just proves that some X is Y.
Your statement "human action is purposeful behavior" doesn't specifically say "all", but surely you don't mean "some" - that's a pretty weak claim to use as an axiom.
WhiteHenny 2 months ago
@cbroberts88 I believe you misunderstood her position. First you stated something that is only an example and not an axiom,then you go on to try and apply the example to another situation. The axiom(or a priori statement) is that All human action is purposeful and whether you confirm or deny this statement you prove it to be true,but in your second scenario if someone were to agree with the first part of your statement it would nullify the rest. Just my two cents,though im not a praxeoligist.
dirtbagstatus 7 months ago
@cbroberts88 It all goes hand in hand with marginalism. If you argue against something it is probably because you feel the need to express your views. Maybe you were just trying to better understand it. But whatever the reason, the fact is that you found enough utility in arguing against the axiom to do it. If you didn't care enough, you wouldn't have done it. You wouldn't have because you didn't see any purpose in doing so. When discussing "purposeful action" you must see it subjectively.
KingLeon1daz 7 months ago
@cbroberts88 How is it silly? If you were to argue that human action was not purposeful, you would be diving head-first into a self-contradiction. What is meant by "purposeful" behavior is simply the fact that all human action is directed towards ends. Arguing against the assertion that human action is purposeful is clearly in and of itself purposeful. It is a universal law.
Your example, which claims to follow the same logic, is actually a non sequitur. Check your premises.
Aetherius218 6 months ago
@cbroberts88 It does not follow that all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion just because you pointed out a particular conversation where the assertion holds true. In the same manner, one could attempt to "prove" the human action axiom by identifying a particular action as being purposeful (e.g., Joe buys ice cream). However, we can see almost right away how silly this would be.
Aetherius218 6 months ago
@cbroberts88 By using the same logic we used in our assertion about human action, we can see just how silly the assertion that all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion really is. One would only need to agree with the assertion to disprove it. By saying, "Yes, all conversations are an attempt to disprove an assertion.", I have discovered a conversation which does not follow this rule while also walking into a self-contradiction.
Aetherius218 6 months ago
@cbroberts88 Axiom.. look it up.
D34thSetX 6 months ago
@cbroberts88 There is a purpose for having the conversion. You have a purpose for trying to deny this fact, you disagree with it.
utubeistehsux 4 months ago
@cbroberts88 By arguing against praxeology, you are taking action to disprove purposeful behavior, therefore proving the praxeological point that you too are acting in a purposeful manner and making your entire statement null and proving praxeology, once again, correct.
Paulintheoh8 3 months ago
@Paulintheoh8 You´re like a christian priest claiming that all people must be converted to christianity; all who oppose that of course do so, because of devilish deceptions that those people need to be freed from.
Go on sucking ideological Rothschild cum.
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
agreed... Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Raico, Salerno, Hoppe would be proud.
infoseekrs 7 months ago
@djuxo Atoms do make decisions. Check out wave function collapse in quantum theory. The problem is that their decisions don't amount to much unless you have a delicate mechanism (like a brain) to magnify them. So I'm not really challenging your question, but recommending that you rephrase it: At what point does the magnification of wave-function collapse ("butterfly effect") become "decision-making" rather than the random behavior of non-sentient matter? But that has an assumption too :-(.
dscotesegmail 7 months ago
I want to understand this, but it's not making sense to me. Praxgirl, what I'm getting is that human behavior is too complex to measure en masse and that we can logically deduce how people will react - with certain purposes. What then of market research? The behavior of millions of consumers is predicted (accurately) via surveying a statistically valid subset. Big companies spend big $ for analysis; should they instead just sit around and think of what consumers will do?
akjones498 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheWo0w0o 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheWo0w0o 7 months ago
@akjones498 That market research may predict if a certain percentage of consumers will have interest in a particular product, but can't tell for certain if any particular individual will have interest, or if those interested will actually buy the product in the market if/when it's produced.
rsimpson69 7 months ago
@akjones498 The prediction of praxeology are apodictic and qualitative ,. A lower price will give you more sales than a higher price other things being equal. And gives you insights into funcamental market mechanisms. Market research tries to give you insight about consumer preference, however you can't actual be sure until the transactions take place. Plus the research data is usually interpreted in light of some sort of explicit of implicit pareological theory.
WorBlux 6 months ago
A friend sent me this, and I am thankful. Question: If atoms do not make decisions, at what point does the collection of atoms (humans) make decisions. Conversely at what point does the loss of atoms from the collection of atoms turn people from decision-making atomic collection to a action/reaction collection of atoms. Silly, for sure. Continuing on to Video 3.
djuxo 7 months ago
@djuxo Maybe it just seems like they do, but unless we can explain action by reference to molecular motion, then praxeology will have to do.
WorBlux 6 months ago
Meh, I like it better when old bald men are explaining it.
diurdi 8 months ago
I do take issue with the strawman presented at GCS though. A scientist would not say that "oh, it's just people walking aimlessly." To say that they're walking aimlessly would be to impose a purpose on the physical actions that you're trying to claim they're not doing. Furthermore, it's not even correct to say that all a scientist would say is "this is a bunch of people walking," because it's perfectly reasonable (and scientific) to take into account the why.
Blazhei 8 months ago
@Blazhei Well, that's what I said. The scientist in this case would have to be a Praxeologist though.
praxgirl 8 months ago
@praxgirl My concerns arose from your use of the phrase "a truly scientific behaviorist" followed by "people walking back and forth AIMLESSLY." That's where the strawman arises, because:
1. A behaviorist would be unscientific to claim the walking is aimless (which I believe you note), but
2. You're making the assumption that an empirical studier would actually make the claim for its aimlessness
...I also grant that this may be a smaller issue than I could be making of it.....
Blazhei 8 months ago
@Blazhei I'm not assuming that a scientific behaviorist would do such a thing. Most don't. Only true, consistent empiricists would have to admit that all they see is aimless movement. This only lends to my argument that behaviorists aren't even consistent because of their lack in a solid epistemological background (which I didn't get too deeply into but I might in the future).
praxgirl 8 months ago 7
@praxgirl Hm, I'm still not seeing why the behaviorist would have to draw the conclusion that it is /aimless/ movement... I'm not sure why he would have to draw any conclusions as to purpose at all. Not drawing a conclusion isn't the same thing as drawing a conclusion of "aimless."
I think a video about the epistemology would be a good choice, though!
Blazhei 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blazhei Do you like your dick?
NNoPsych 7 months ago 12
@NNoPsych i am 12 and wat is this
Blazhei 7 months ago
@praxgirl, In other words, people acting with intention cannot be treated like mindless particles?
gwss76 7 months ago
@praxgirl Say I'm a scientist studying people at GCS. If I see one person enter the building, walk to the ticket area, buy a ticket, and then go to a boarding platform, wait 5 minutes for a train to arrive, then get on the train, how would I come to the conclusion that this was "aimless"?
Please explain to me where observation turned into "oh, this must be aimless"?
ScannerBrightly 4 months ago
i can see you read a script
freshdopamine 8 months ago
Logic fail. (or at least - sloppy logic)
"If you try to deny that human action is purposeful, you'd be acting purposefully yourself"
Sure - but if the denier is only denying that ALL human action is purposeful - there is no conflict in performing a purposeful action to do so.
neuronstorm 8 months ago
@neuronstorm Ludwig von Mises, the "founder" of praxeology, does not say that all human behavior is purposeful, but that "action" can be defined as purposeful behavior and that it is something that humans have the capacity for. It's a particular jargon he chose to use, probably to keep his writing more concise.
CernelJoson 8 months ago
@neuronstorm In this case, it's a semantic issue only. "Human action" /is defined/ to be "purposeful." In this sense, the word "action" is taking on a far stricter definition than the colloquial definition of action. As another commenter stated, non-purposeful physical action is outside the scope of praxeology, which studies purposeful physical action, ie human action. The confusion occurs because the same word - action - is being used to describe both a broad and strict concept.
Blazhei 8 months ago
@Blazhei 'In this case, it's a semantic issue only. "Human action" /is defined/ to be "purposeful.'
She only reveals this narrow definition in episode 3.
It makes the attempt to logically prove the axiom here utterly ridiculous.
It boils down to: "human action, when defined as purposeful action - is purposeful action"
neuronstorm 8 months ago
Ludwig von Mises himself would have been proud.
Pimzzon 8 months ago 12
Comment removed
ctech42851 8 months ago
will you marry me?
ctech42851 8 months ago 2
@ctech42851 No!! Marry me instead! :D
IliescuTudor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctech42851 I want to speak your asshole.
NNoPsych 7 months ago 11
Does Praxgirl have a FB page???????
mikemat3307 8 months ago
@mikemat3307 facebook dot com/praxgirl
prashantpawar 8 months ago
Well done Praxgirl, I'm always happy to see someone generating interest in logical thinking.
Two questions though: how does praxeology account for people making choices that they know in advance will be detrimental to themselves, and how does it account for those who display willful ignorance? I have met people with no interest in expanding their understanding of their world, who actively shut down any attempt at thoughtful discourse.
jdoverholt 8 months ago
@jdoverholt Praxeologically speaking the action people take demonstrate that the choice they made made them better off than not performing that action. Non-praxeologically speaking you could say that the choice did not make them better, for example psychologically speaking you smoking did not help you deal with your real problem, pathologically speaking your health is worse off by smoking, ethically speaking you are being a bad role model. Even when you don't want either of those things.....
prashantpawar 8 months ago
@jdoverholt ...your action demonstrates that you thought you'd be better off by taking that smoke in the moment after you smoke, than the moment before you smoke. So praxeologically speaking. It could happen that the tobacco you smoked was fake, so you didn't even get the effect of nicotine, but it doesn't matter, you performed the action purposefully, whether that purpose was fulfilled after the fact, for study of human action, it doesn't matter.
prashantpawar 8 months ago
@jdoverholt "how does praxeology account for people making choices that they know in advance will be detrimental to themselves"
I'm going to take a stab at that one and say time preference. The value the benefit that the detrimental choice gives them in the present higher then the eventual cost paid in the future.
One of those benefits could be avoidance of pain or the pursuit of pleasure. People with addictions come to mind.
justintempler 8 months ago
@justintempler The value = They value
justintempler 8 months ago
@jdoverholt "and how does it account for those who display willful ignorance? "
I don't think people that are displaying willful ignorance are making choices. They have already made their choice. They have already placed their "bet" on another choice and believe their previous choice will eventually deliver the desired outcome. (Keynesians come to mind.)