meta

You just cut my sentence. You keep only referring to the causal side , and you omit the materialist side by cutting out the end of the sentence :"but it stills originates in physical interactions within a network".I never said it was causal only, i said it has both characteristics. Cutting my sentence in two will not make this more true.You considered that a deterministic perspective would be to say that it's not the concept that was causal, but rather electrical and chemical signals in my brain which caused me to have those expectations.I think that thoughts (expectations for example) are the result of physical interaction within a network. So by your standard I fit the determinist category?And the fact that I fit this category implies that there is no point discussing this?I think the determinism that is not allowed here is the one regarding origins of humans behaviour. Not the one talking about the physical origin of thoughts.This was still interesting, thanks for your input.

I never said that subjective experience is causal.I said that consciousness can be seen as a loop. It can have an influence on thought, but it stills originates in physical interactions within a network.And the fact that I consider the program as part arbitrarily imposed and part tweakable is not contradictory in the sense that i think it has both characteristics. I agree.

I don't see it. Can you give more details?

I think logic is an emergence of the practice of reasoning and communicating in intelligent animal, it is the only way to understand the program. That is why it came to existence.Language is the best example of how programmed we are, we think in a language, we use logic within it, there is no reasoning without a language. With language we literally shape the means of expression of our consciousness with arbitrary rules, like any program. Consciousness brings the ability to tweak the program, to question our perception of reality.It is not epiphenomenal if we can tweak it.

Isn't this is a fancy way of saying that you are a very intelligent ape, a very intelligent flesh robot? I agree that consciousness can be seen as a loop, stimulating brain activity, so I am more on a deterministic and materialistic side rather than on the side of epiphenomenalism. But the start of a loop is still the brain, the central nervous system, which evolution lead to the emergence of intelligence and consciousness, not the other way around, once intelligence is there, i totally agree that it can stimulate brain activity and growth.I said I fit in this materialistic approach because i consider any thought as the result of physical interactions in the brain. But I agree that the thought could lead to new physical interaction in the brain. Do you see a difference between an ape and a "flesh robot"? Because we are apes, very smart apes.I am programmed , I just see humans as the only "flesh robots" able to tweak the program. That is a bit reductionist, but we are animals.

Hi Asheli,I think the best to convince someone about the emergency of doing something about our world, is to be able to find things that will resonate with him. It might be a specific subject, something that will happen in his life.Personnaly I have tried to convince my family to stop voting, to stop believing in banking racket, a lot of stuff...I haven't found a way yet. This can be extremely frustrating.Maybe you have to speculate on the fact that he doesn't give a flying duck. Can you love him and build a life with someone with whom you don't share philophical views?Personnaly my girlfriend is interested about all this when I talk about it to her, but she never initiate philosophical discussion.Even if i think it is frustrating, I think there are other way that she completes me, so I don't really care.

When I look at the first lines of wikipedia definition of morality: Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[ I think this is where your friend has a point. The last sentence illustrate what your friend means i think. Like OtherOtie has said, this word might be too blurry for you to move forward in your discussion. Very interesting, I have a problem with the first statements though. Don't you think that disparities in the abilities of individuals for reasonning, conceptualizing and comparing makes the ideals not so universally understandable? In other words I don't think those abilities are equally distributed, therefore the degree with which we owe ourselves vary. 120+ IQ FDR listeners are definilty an elite. What we see as univerally preferable might not be for others. We cannot impose anything, so we got to spread the word and wait for people to make sense out of the freedom they own, i think this is very frustrating, this waiting process, i am losing patience as I see the abyss get closer. Does this conclusion make any sense to you?

Well if it was my wife , or my sister, someone that is still young and that I love, I would steal, especially if she is weakened by the illness. Even if she is dying from natural causes. I don't think I would consider UPB or universal ethics when faced with this kind of event. What is preferable on a large scale does not always make sense in particular events like these. I would assume the responsabilities of such action. But there is no way i am letting a loved one die, without doing as much as i can do. I would not go to the extent of direct violence. But stealing a medicine is not much compared to saving a life. The pharmacist has a robbery insurance, he will get reimbursed. But saving the life of a loved one is defenitly worth a few hundred or thousand dollars. months in jail as well. IMO

I believe in determinism, but also in free will. To me they are not contradictory.Intelligence and conscisousness are nothing more than ermegrgences of complex system made of physical stuff.I indeed see myself as nothing more than flesh. I think that inteligence is a miracle, an emergence that occurs so rarely in the organic world of Life that it makes it miraculous to me.If you imply that your free will and your consciousness are not rooted in natural realities (flesh, chemical and electrical fluctuations, evolution of the nervous system in Life, evolution of social beahvior as survival strategies), you are referring to the soul, or some kind of supernatural stuff. Aren't you? It sounds like it.What are you if not a flesh robot (when you say "flesh robot", i hear "animal", is there a difference in your mind?) "It's electrical and chemical activity in your brain that has caused you to advance your position."Of course it is. How could thoughts could possibly be other than the result of brain activity?

I also think that the Godel reference (even if it sounds interesting) is a bit too much. The mathematics analogy is too hard to grasp i think, and because it is toward the end, it hits like a hammer.I would take it off personnaly. I would also shorten the intro, and get faster in your first part.

@Kevin " P1. You told me I'm wrong about how I am addressing your challenge. P2. You told me that telling people that they are wrong is disrespectful to their perspective. C1. You are not respecting my own perspective about how to address your challenge. C2. You put forward a rule that I must follow, but you don't have to. If we can't hammer out something as simple as this, I can't imagine we could make any progress in a discussion about advanced metaphysics. " I never meant to say that you were wrong, i never put forward any rule.When I said " i think you should respect my perspective"all i meant was to say that i thought acknowledging my perspective would make more sense than categoricaly rejecting it.I cannot convince you that Searle's framework is wrong from my persepective if I don't get in at the root of the concept you use, into your framework. And you cannot convince me my framework is wrong by keeping using Searle's vocabulary and angles (status function, ontological subjecticvity) because they just don't fit in my view.Those framework are just too different.I guess I got frustrated because you kept using Searle's realm of concept, which still makes no sense to me., without adressing what was wrong with my framework.I never said it was wrong, i never made a moral judgement on your doings. I meant that it was not productive.And the thing that I found not productive was not the fact that you told me that I am wrong, but the fact that you categorically refuse my framework.Refuting the existence of a scientific framework on the matter of existence like you did makes no sense to me, but I never said it was wrong to do anything.Anyway, I didnt mean to discredit your opinion from a moral ground. All I meant is that i thought it was not productive.Of course you don't have to do anything. I apologise if I gave you this impression of judging your method, I might have poorly express myself. That is what i thought as well, my choice of title for the thread is actually reflecting my opinion on the question.Existence seems to be the epicenter of this matter.Existence can be discussed as linguistic construction. A formulation of reality based on consciousness.Or it can be discussed as a "natural state". Which doesn't need consciousness to exist.This is where Kevin's view and mine set apart. If you allow me (and if i am not being wrong this time):You earlier mentionned that when you got scared in the bushes from an imaginative tiger, the only thing that was objective and real were the chemical and eletrical signal in your brain. Am I right?So even though you cannot touch those signal, you can measure them, therefore they have objective existence.So your fear was real because its components are real (measurable brain stimulies). But the tiger was not real, because only in your head.Now if I say that a concept like a unicorn is present in your brain as electrical and chemical stimulies, where am i wrong in saying that those electrical and chemical stimulations (measurable and ontologically objective) are real?I think I totally fit in this category: "A materialist, determinist perspective would be to say that it's not the concept that was causal, but rather electrical and chemical signals in my brain which caused me to have those expectations. That the concept is just fluff on top in an epiphenomenal sense, and that neurological activity causes the conscious experience and never the other way 'round."When you say:" When I use the word "exist" I mean to say that it is causal. The way in which it is causal is either subjectively experienced or occurs in the world and is something we can measure (objective). And that's why I really like the distinctions John Searle makes between different senses of the words "objective" and "subjective". It's a much more accurate way of looking at these issues to avoid any potential equivocation. " That is exactly where we disagree.I think that existence can only be backed up by Nature.Since we all use Language to talk about anything, everything we talk about fits in ontological subjectivity (specifically as a collective intention as Searle says), I don't see the point of his categories. To take the previous example I took regarding the definition of Searle's categories:Can you explain where the difference between a "claim which conforms to reality" and "those things we can touch / measure"?Because your example are: a tree and a 26 years old human, so what is the difference between those two entities?How does the fact that you are 26 is not ontological objective? You are an entity that can be touched, your age can be measured.How does the fact that you named this entity "tree" is not Ontological subjectivity (Language,biological classification, collective intention like Searle says)?

Well this is very interesting!I think you make a lot of good points, and you are very clear, good writing!Personally , i find your article a bit long compared to the original article. But this is personal taste, as your thorough analysis can explain the length of your reply. This was a lot of fun to read, very interesting, that Gödel reference is intriguing!I might pick it up. I personally would balance for Holmes view, but only slightly, you definitely got me wondering. I would love to debate these matters with you.I am not sure "if there's enough interest in the topic to continue spending time on it." I can't estimate the audience for this kind of things, i liked it though. Is it not finished? almost looks like it.

I don't think it can be wrong if it is occasional.I think the stress of moving to a new place is a good reason for her to ask proximity.

I am respecting your perspective( from which angle you attack this subject), i am just taking a different one.I acknowledge your view (the linguistic and philosophical framework you establish), I don't agree with it, because i think it makes no sense, this is the point i am trying to make by analysing the terms you use.You decided to adopt Searle's view, i respect that. And I will attack this position with arguments (like the tree/you analogy to counter the epistemic and ontological objectivity difference).I made the thread, I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that you would de-constructed the scientific framework i mentioned (scientific)before invoking a new one (Searl's) that you know is true. Addressing each other framework is pretty much taking things from the beginning for me.

Mysticism has a very unstable definition. This reminds me of a movie I watched on Ayahuasca and DMT. Fascinating stuff.I think it could all be described as interaction or malfunction within the brain, but there is definitely some stuff going on beyond scientific understanding.The immersion in an alternative reality could be dangerous. But like dreams, some surely can be constructive or positive. Maybe, i dont know.

I am not familiar with this matter.Is this the whole of the article you are referring to?http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/natural-law/If yes I ll read both and try to give you a feedback.

I never said you have to respect me. I said you have to respect my perspective, my point of view for us to have an intelligible dialogue. Your view on existence is philosophic and linguistic. (mentioning of Stearl, ontological and epistemology differences...) My view on existence has been scientific from the beginning with many biology, and physics references (Dimensions, species, dna...) I totaly respect your perspective, and I am trying to understand it by asking more details about those epistemologic and ontological differences, and also by analysing your analogies. From this, i think the debate developped into legitimating our framework (scientific vs. linguistic, both philosophical in a way) though arguments. You know your framework is the right one. I also know that my framework is the right one. So back at it: Ontological objectivity: those things we can touch / measure (rocks, trees, etc). Ontological subjectivity: things like perceptions, consciousness itself, dreams, status functions we project onto objects which only serve that function insofar as we agree that it does, things like that (money, job titles, countries, governments, etc). Epistemic Objectivity: truth claims which conform to reality (I am 26 years old) Epistemic Subjectivity: personal preferences (vanilla is worse than chocolate) And tigers do absolutely exist in the same way as rocks and trees. The tiger I wrongly perceive because I mistook a stripe pattern in nature for a tiger does not exist. Otherwise illusions are not illusions. My perception of the tiger exists subjectively, that tiger itself doesn't exist in any sense at all. I think you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the tiger. I was simply talking about perceptions, not actual tigers. I still don't see the difference between epistemic and ontological objectivity. Can you explain where the difference between a "claim which conforms to reality" and "those things we can touch / measure"? Because your example are: a tree and a 26 years old human, so what is the difference between those two entities? How does the fact that you are 26 is not ontological objective? You are an entity that can be touched, your age can be measured. How does the fact that you named this entity "tree" is not Ontological subjectivity (Language,biological classification, collective intention like Searle says)? You resume very well Searle's categories, I would ask him the same questions. Doesn't make much sense (yet) to me. About your tiger, i have to admit I totally misunderstood. I thought there was a tiger, and that you consider your perception was a trick of the eye. My bad, now that you talk about strip patterns for a tiger that does not exists, it makes a bit more sense (huge facepalm ) . I am sorry. I was a bit mislead by the use of "perception" in your original analogy, there actually was no perception if there was no tiger. Anyway, sorry really. Where did I say you need to respond to me? I just asked, you are free to answer.

I agree.Stef often says that the average IQ of his listeners is around 120.I think that is a low estimate.I believe our intelligence is what brings us together, circumstances of childhood as well but i think it is secondary.What amazes me , in Stef's history or others people s' on the forum, is the intellectual abilities to analyse rationally. IQ being influenced by a good and stable education. Low ACE scores show be in most numbers (they don't appear to be).But there is a weird genetic factor that makes it impossible to consider the environment as the only factor (also stress could be seen a an "improvement necessity" that stimulates in a good way in some occasions).Truly, I am still blown away by Stef history (that reflects stories from a lot of people on the forum).The ability to be so cold, tempered in logic and reason with this much stress is so different from what I have known in my life.I didn't think it was possible.The only explanation I find to explain the gathering of remarkable intelligences besides f*** up childhoods is the emerge of intelligence despite huge stress, it is a miracle almost. I scored 0 on ACE

I have been frustrated in the same way.The more serious my feed became, the less comment I had. Now they are non existent.I use FB as a fast messaging platform, and a news feed.I add friends now and then, but not much. I have not defriend any one, with a few exceptions.I can't remenber exactly what, but a lot of stuff has come to my knowledge thanks to this site's news feed system.So I have been very frustrated in my experience of wanting serious talks, but I still see a lot of positive things as well. A FDR FB group doesn't makes sense to me, this site does it better.

In my previous answer: In blue I underlined how you claim that this all has to be a philosophical approach and not a scientific one, I don't agree because I think there are different approaches possible, and that we should respect each other's perspective rather than claiming that another approach is wrong. I think it is better to give arguments to whivh approach is best rather than saying ""is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one." ". No claim there. In purple I respond to your "trick of the eye" about the tiger. I illustrate how the tiger existes outside of your consciousness with the gazelle example. No claim there. In red i quote wiki, where there is a DNA example close to mine that shows the possibility of the existence of information outside consiousness. You said I was incorretct using the reference because it refers to patterns. It also specificaly refers to consciousness and information. No claim there. In black i show that the "job" of pumping exists outside of the observer's consiousness. I don't make any claim. I give arguments on how the function of an entity is independant of an observer to name the function. It was the pumping function that made the heart what it is, you naming the function doesnt mean that the function only exists in your mind. No claim there. can you point to the "claims" that my response is supposed to be full of? --------------------- I am watching Searl's vid, at last. I don't understand one thing. Can you explain the difference between ontological objectivity and epistemologicobjectivity? The example he gives at the begining are: -epistemologic objectivity " Rembrant is born in 1606" -ontological objectivity " Mountains , mollecules, and tectonics" -epistemologic subjectivity :" Rembrandt is better painter than Vermer" -ontological subjectivity: "tickles, pains" I think we should make a new thread on this because we are going to go very deep. His definition of ontological subjectivty is @2mn40s : What can only be perceived by humans (by intelligence or consiousness i guess, not very clear). I really don't understand. Epistemology is the study of knowldege,and ontology is the study of existence within philosophy. So I guess that an element that need to be acknowledged by an intelligence would link to knowledge and therefore would be in the epistemologic domain. And an element that doens't need acknowledgment of intelligence would fit in the ontological domain. Would you agree on those domain categorization? Because I don't see the difference between a mountain, a mollecule and Rembradnt concerning existence. They all fit in the same category to me. But he doesn' fit them in the same. And it is those categories you use for your tiger example: The stimuly inside your brains you say are ontologically objective. So you fit cerebral stimulies in Searle's category of the mountain and the mollecule. But you also say: "And I assume that you mean it exists in the same objective manner that rocks exist. And as I've already said, no it doesn't." Can you explain to me how you fit the cerebral stimulies in "ontological objective" (mountains, mollecules), but also say that a tiger doen't exists as a rock does. I am sorry, but I really don't get it, it seems so illogical: The Mountian is an emerging entity of tectonic activity. The Tiger is an emerging entity of Life. The brain stimuly is an emerging entity (phenomenon) of a nervous system. (those are not claims or assumptions, but scientific facts) How could they possibly not be in the same categories as you claim?

I think you should respect my scientific approach as I respect your philosophical approach. "is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one." This is a claim, not an argument. If you are unable to argument how I am wrong, please don't claim that I am wrong in using another approach. You can claim a hundred time that "dreams really really don't exist", it is not an argument, just a claim. My argument against yours is very clear. You claim the tiger is "a trick of you eyes" You say that the perception you have of the tiger doesn't reflect reality : "My perception of a tiger in the tall grass, while not actually representing reality (it was just a trick of the eyes), " This is so illogical to me. The tiger exists in reality, because it would eat the gazelle regardless of your perception. It is not a trick of your eyes, nor the gazelle's eyes. The cat lives, it is real. All you say is that the tiger doesn't exists as the rock does...because it doesnt ("no it doesn't"). No analogy, no example, no argument there, a simple empty claim. The first reference first lines say: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.[6][7] In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind." It says right there that no conscious mind is needed for information (pattern there, yes) to exist, this is what i have been saying, and is the opposite of your opinion. (Funny how they even take the same example that I used, DNA) Your heart example is wrong. The very nature of the heart is to pump, it's job made its shape evolve. The fact that you separate the heart's natural function (pumping) and the "job" that you perceive is highly illogical. You perceiving the pumping and seeing it as a "job" is you watching the heart doing what it exist for doing. the heart is real, the pumping is real, and the activity of pumping is real, because the evolution of this muscle to do nothing but it's job (pump) is real. And doesn't depend on you watching it. Its "job" made it what it is. Also saying that the Dna's function is subjective is ridiculous, sorry. DNA existed before subjective consciousness, saying that it's function is subjective is scientifically very wrong. All we do there is witness information, its existence is not subjective, but our perception of the phenomenon is.

I ll watch your link today, i promise ^^ Kevin Beal, on 04 Jun 2014 - 7:45 PM, said: To me the tiger exists. Regardless of your senses being pointed at it. When you say that it is only a trick of the eye, you are implying that your subjective existence (an intelligence starring at the tiger, its senses in particular) is necessary for the tiger to have an objective existence (the ontologicall objective phenomenon you speak about). The cat exists, it will crap pee and kill, whether you witness at it or not doing it. ---- Information is not subjective. The information in your DNA is not a creation of an intelligence it is Inforamtion intrinsically embedded in matter. The existence of that information does not depend on any subjective theory about how it works (human genetics sciences) or what it is, it will work and regardless. ---- I might have not been precise enough you are right. I went back to the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_an_influence_which_leads_to_a_transformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_a_property_in_physics I guess I have been looking at Information from a very scientific point of view. Where your view seems more focused on linguistics and philosophy (ontology). ----- thanks for you great input btw, i feel like moving forward with this debate! cheers

Your post makes me think of one of my favorite quote of Stefan,How much can they strech the bullshit.He was refering to a book about soccer analytics...That is fascinating indeed. Like you I participate yet it disgusts me. It's a socail meme i guess. Never participating would make us ermits. But to me the purpose is not avoiding morality.I think there is no purpose.I guess bullshit stretching is the pointless result of everyady logistics. The only way I see it as harmful is that it is a complete waste of time...

"Tony Gallippi, BitPay’s executive chairman, hailed the announcement by saying: “We are excited to see high profile independent artists use bitcoin and 50 Cent’s trail as an innovator is outstanding.”" http://www.coindesk.com/50-cent-bitcoin-payments-new-album-animal-ambition/ gotta luv the fidy

So you are saying that paper an ink exist because we can touch them physically, but dreams don't exist cause we can't? How do you address this previous point: "If you wake up sweaty from a nightmare, the nightmare provoked a reaction. Saying that the nightmare doesn't exist because it doesn't physically exists (can't touch it) is defying the basic principle of causality: A "not real" cause having "real effect" makes no sense whatsoever to me."