meta

New "components of reality" have been created as concepts in the human mind. Time, Matter, Energy, Space (usually referred as "dimensions" or "categories of nature" as I read)...But Time and Matter existed before we made the concept.That is my point. The information is there, regardless of us understanding it or not. Also on the contrary I think the present definition of exist is enough. To me they exist in reality, even if we can't touch them, like dreams or money, previously mentioned. I don't see it as semantic only. Definitely not magic.Once Time is in our head, as a concept, our manners communicating about the concept is semantics.But its scientific existence is something else. Any conscious intelligent organism that observes the universe will come to an understanding of Time close to ours.That's what i find fascinating. To me there has to be something before our minds, from a logical point of view. If you allow me, this is another quote from you:"The "mind" in this context is a subjective phenomena produced by the brain. It occupies no space and contains within it nothing at all, physically speaking."If I suppressed your head, I would suppress your mind. There is definitely a link between physical space and the mind. I don't believe in the soul, to me suppressing the space of the brain is suppressing the mind, therefore the mind is in the brain. Limiting existence to "physically speaking" is limiting existence to "what we can touch". Which is logically unsound to me.The English language exists, Time exists, your dreams exist: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.You can't touch Money, but it does exist.(I haven't watched your video link yet, planning on doing it soon)

Kalmia I agree with your statement: "But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it." But I have learn one thing through the years, I also found it in a preface of a book: Any explanation that is offered to someone as to resaonate with subjective experience to make sense. That it why I don't believe in advertising, slogans, catch phrases.. I have done my share of it. I don't believe in it anymore. People read those like they passively absorb tv ads. It's not efficient. It might work with a flavour of icecream, but I think the subject you are trying to tacle is far to deep and serisou to be treated in such a matter. Yet there is probably no bad publicity, so it is not useless. ---------------------------- "I will acknowledge that I am likely attacked for showing some level of fear around police. I try to suppress it. But I cannot act like i do around some non state person. They trigger lots of negative emotions in me. The only way to fully shut them off as far as I have figured out is to consume some type of drug, not something I want to do all the time just in case. I do when I have to go to court." Do you mean that the use of drugs (weed i guess) help you relax concernging the stress you have around police forces? If this is what you mean, and if this is the drug you are talking about, beware, because the paranoia that weed developps can also stress you out even more. But I understand. Having experience with a similar defensive use of drugs, we can talk about itn private if you want.

I use Cryptsy and Altex. I like Cryptsy, big volume, nice interface. ALtex was the only one i found for SPA and other alts not listed on Cryptsy.

Pain is a wonderfull example.I ll try to clarify again what i meant.Is pain stimulating intelligence to create the concept of pain (to understand it)?Because if it is, i think that makes my case.Pain (information) as to exist objectivly, and is only a stimuli that provoke the work of inteligence to create concept (to communicate pain).So the "concept" is actually a necessity of language, but rests on objective information.That might clarify the fact that information exists, i dont know about concept though. As I said, I consider Information to be a separated dimension (category of nature) that lies on top of the 4 (not 3) previous one : Time, Space, Matter and Energy. Those 5 categories are interconnected and interdependent. Reality is the result of those interdependeces.So I would say they can definitly affect each other, they are interdependent yet they mix. We can see them as the the basic ingredients of the recipe of Reality. They mix yet they are different.But Information is indeed the realm of intelligence, where we thrive. I would rather call it the realm of Information rather than the "conceptual realm".sweet dreams! This is the knot.The word "exist", means "have an existence in reality".But.Reality is today supposed to be compose of time, space , matter and energy.If we feel more accurate to say that something "exists in the mind" but "not in real"This means that there is something outside of known reality (matter space energy time) that is better fit to describe existence within the mind.To me that something is Information, which is a newly acknowkledged component of reality.From a logical point of view, this 5th dimension is a necessity because if we don't consider it, we are considering that something (concept) exist (in the mind) but doesnt exist ( in real). Which makes no sense to me what so ever because there is only one reality.I totaly agree with dsayers dogs example.

I am specificaly implying that Information might exist outside of consciousness. I don't agree with your statement.Also you have no possible way , even in theory, to prove or measure the uniformity of Time and Space through the entire universe.And yes, I can directly measure or observe concepts and their evolution through time, like the concept of communication or language. Either you have misread or I was not clear enough.When I say that concept exist, I am not saying that every imagineable concept is alive. I ll try to put it another way: We project sense to our "thinking experiences", to make concept.Either concepts exist uniquely in our brain as electrical and chemical stimulies. (what you seem to believe)Or Information outside of our brain is stimulating and creating this "thinking experience". And therefore concepts are more an external imposition than a internal creation. Which come, I guess , to a matter of which comes fisrt. I agree, It is very theoretical.Stefan mentionned it in a video (linked above), saying it was important . I agree with that. But I don't agree with him, I guess taking a stab at it and getting your opinions can help. But it is definitly so theoretical it becomes a bit weird, love it tho.

Welcome aboard Sam!

When I don't feel good, I take a step back. Blasting Mozart's Requiem in D minor Or Bach's Concerto for piano in D minor by Gould in the headphones at work our at home. This music makes me connect with humanity beyond the bullshit.It always makes me think humanity is beautifull. It gives me hope and strength. Nature helps me a lot as well.

@stigskog Beware of those people, if they troll your concerns with simplistic statements as you mentionned, I would reply with the same kind of simplistic statement, like i mentionned in my previous answer. Will it be my family or my friends, people have been throwing this kind of stuff to me for years.I don't respect those attitudes anymore, because they don't respect logic.And I realised that my constent effort to debate constructively was sometimes pointless.Don't waste your energy.I have been explaining my views for years to some people, who still reply with stupid stuff. I have grown to realise that you cannot convince some people, you can only initiate questionning within their views of the world. Hoping they will be intereted in understanding the world.Before I was always debating, now i just troll those people. There is no point giving arguments to someone who is emotionnal and doesn't use logic.

-------------------------------------------- This thread of the forum is dedicated to continuing a discussion that started between JohnH. and myself in a topic by Wiltin about possible answers to the hypothetic question of a believer: "What if you are wrong (about God)?" JohnH initialy supported Pepin's argument (by quoting him) against God: "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist". This affirmation troubled me, not because i believe in god, but because it makes no sense to me. I then asked: "How could one prove that God cannot exist"? John's answered with a claim that truly started the discussion: "If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist." I then replied that entities with contradictory properties do exist, therefore his argument against God might prove that God is illogical, but proving that God is illogical is different from proving it cannot exist. My example was: I propose to you an entity with contradictory properties that exists: "Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity" (The entity Humanity is doing both at the same time) JohnH. replied that: "Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction." He also added this video of Stefan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVi6PJO3rIk&feature=player_embedded -------------------------------------------- I believe that John's last argument, added to the points of Stefan and similar opinions that were expressed in the chat, kind of bring up the very focus point of our disagreement and take the discussion to another (fascinating) level: Stefan says in the video at 3:18 that: "Concepts do no exist in the reel world." John is implying the same thing (correct me if I am wonrg) by saying that: " an abstraction is incapable of doing anything (in the reel world)". Similar arguments was presented to me in the chat yesterday: "you cannot touch your thoughts" (ie. it doesn’t exist in the "reel world") I am just trying to clarify our disagrement, I think that those three arguments sums up the first side of the debate. I will now try to explain my side of it. What Stefan and other people understand by “real world” is the key of the problem. I think that the “real world”, the physical world, based on the known elemental dimensions of space, time matter and energy is only an hypothesis. A strong axiom on which every modern science is based on. But I speculate that there might be more to reality than those dimensions. And that the dimensions axiom could be incomplete. I am not talking here about metaphysical or some esoteric believe. I am talking about Information as a independent dimension. The traditional Information theory is today being shattered from a scientific point of view. Scientists in biology, genetics and quantum physics are also mentioning this theory that Information might be a separated dimension. When the conversation started I had no idea this was a scientific theory. (I would recommended anyone interested to search for “biology + information” , “science + information”, you will find great stuff. I could link papers but most of them are in French, because I searched in French.) But it is a theory, a very interesting one, coming from the most modern sciences (biology and quantum physics). What I have been doing in this debate is presenting a case for that theory, not from a scientific point of view, but from a logical , philosophical point of view. To me concepts exist. Most of my opponents have made a distinction within “existence”. By saying that a concept might exist there (in your brain, your thoughts) but not here (in reality, physical “real” world). To me here and there are parts of the same reality (which is composed of the dimensions previously mentioned). Saying that a concept exists somewhere (in thought processes) but is not “real” implies that something might exists outside of reality, it sounds very illogical and impossible to me. What I mean is that thoughts are reality, Information is reality. I believe I made a strong case with my Humanity example. Humanity is humankind, it is not an abstraction, it is a biological entity called a specie. Its actions are real. A specie is an entity. And is capable of doing things, that can be described: "Humankind developed tools" Yet you (@JohnH.) claim that humankind is an abstraction incapable of doing anything. The fact that "humankind" implies actions of individual doesn't mean in any way that "humankind" doesn't exist as a whole. A body is more than the sum of individual piled up cells. An ocean is more than individual drops of water. A brain is more than a sum of neurons. I would agree to say that an intelligence is needed to give life to the concept of ocean (for example) or to the concept of biological entities. But at this point, intelligence is simply structuring, interpreting, analyzing something that is outside of our thoughts, that is Information outside of Intelligence. So basically I believe concepts are real because information is real. I have a lot to say about this but I will stop for now and let other people talk ^^ This topic being quite complex, I hope I am being clear. ------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: Resources: Here is an english article which mentiones the scientific theory I speak about, the first half of the second page explicitly mentions information as a fifth category of nature. The (Steane 1998) reference in the article is a mention of "Quantum computing" By Steane. http://www.normalesup.org/~adanchin/PDF_files/articles_09/biogerontology09.pdf about this author who I have been reading since last night: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Danchin

@JohnH. You were being clear in what you believe, like Stefan is in the video, concepts don't exist in "the real world" to both of you. A similar point was made by several people in the chat yesterday. To me this reasoning process is wrong because you limit the definition of existence to a physical state. I understood that, I simply think that the reference to “the real world” is fallacious. I am taking this conversation to a new topic entitled "do concepts exist?", because I just typed a whole page continuing my arguments. This text doesn't have its place in here because it deviates too much from the original topic. Yet the subject being very interesting I would like to keep on going. So if you don't mind JohnH. I ll create a new topic summarizing our debate. >moved https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40166-do-concepts-exist/

All human beings collectively form a whole. That whole exists and its behaviours and actions can be described, observed. A specie is an entity. The fact that it is composed of smaller parts doesn't mean it s just an abstraction incapable of anything. It exists. I really do not understand.This might not be the best place to have such a debate anyway.Though we should make a topic about this, I had a nice talk on this matter with other members on the chat

Ok, the action of hitting and non hitting simultaneously is impossible and cannot exists. I was wrong with this example. I ll get back to my first example on Humanity. "Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction." Humanity: noun, plural hu·man·i·ties. 1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. 2. the quality or condition of being human; human nature. 3. the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence. 4. the humanities. Are you saying that humankind is an abstraction that is incapable of doing anything? I really don't get it, can you develop? ------ Also your "contradiction" definition was blurry, you used Aristotle's Law of Logic of noncontradiction while you never used this word and simply mentioned "contradictory properties" in your post. Sorry but Aristotle's law is not the classical use of the adjective contradictory to me.

@JohnH. You said: "If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist." I propose to you an entity with contradictory properties that exists: "Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity" (The entity Humanity is doing both at the same time) You then skip off to define the word contradiction and take a new example, no offence but I see sophism there. Can you explain how my example is wrong? I would still reply to your new example, but I think it is important you reply to mine also. You say: "I can punch you in the face or not punch you in the face, but I cannot simultaneously both punch and not punch you in the face." You can't, but let's take the following scenario: A bully grabs a smaller child's hand and start hitting the child's face with his own hand, like bully love doing: "I am not hitting you! why are you hitting yourself?" So he is hitting , claiming not to be. I believe that would be contradictory properties (doing something , pretending not to do it). Yet the bully is very real. Aristotle's Law of non-contradiction you mentionned is a law of formal logic. Not a standard dictionary definition of the adjective contradictory. Basically if something doesn't fit the Law, It is illogical, and I agree with the idea that God is illogical. But you then imply that the fact that it is illogical means that it doesn't exists. I don't agree with that, because illogical things exist. So to me it is not a really good argument.

I can find a lot of example of contradictory things that exist.I ll just take one:Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity. Yet we exist.

I live in France, the level of ridiculous statism and collectivism is comparable to yours i think. First I would recommend you to avoid facebook if you want to have serious talks.It is a fun platform but you will be flooded with troll and idiots typing fatser than you, because they often don't argument.You will probably find (I noticed it) that a lot of people have an emotional point of view, and are just too formatted to be constructive and rational. Beware of those people (they might be your friends, your family) because they will suck the living juice out of you, the juice of reason.Because those who are emotional with politics cannot let you make sense rationally.I believe that those people cannot be convinced, all we can do is try to initiate an internal questioning that will lead to interest and constructive behaviours. Which is a demanding endeavour.From this point there is two strategies i believe: -cut the link, by interrupting interactions on this type of platforms.-understand that another type of interaction probably fits better those platform. I find that trolling is the best weapon against aggressive people (trolls).The "trolling defence" consist of no constructive argumentation with a statist troll who is so convinced of being right that he won't listen to logic, because it would question his/her very existence.I just throw sentences, sometimes an analogy, a metaphor, but that is it. Concerning voting.I deal with those people by telling that: "if they want to delegate moral responsibility it is their choice, but don't pretend to be free when you choose your masters. " "believing in the fact that a bunch of people know what is good for millions is ridiculous"

I don't understand how you can proove God cannot exist. I think prooving that monotheism (therefore God) is a creation is far more easier than prooving it doesn't exists.

This article seems a bit rubish to me.it titles "Why Online Games Turn Players Into Psychopaths"Why not all video games? What is specific of online games that makes them turn more players into psychopaths? Why caps at the start of every word? I play and have played video games for a long time. There is no doubt to me that online Massive Multiplayer Online games are more interesting than traditionnal games. Video games simply exagerate an inclination that was present before. The parents who buy hardcore games to their kids are idiots, because it says right on the box what age limites are recommended.Because that is the number one problem, violent games and 12 years old kids playing for hours. But they are not suppose to play them. It is written on the box, in the same way that on a bottle of wine you ll find a label discouraging pregnant woman to drink. People still do it... Online games have more interaction with other people. Those interaction can be good or bad, cooperation or fight.Co-operation is non existant in traditional games. Also even if artificial intelligence is getting better, there is nothing more stimulating than competing with another human.Helping a human in a game is more rewarding, fooling one is more exilirating, I presume. "Studying" the effects of online video games wachting 2 guys playing day-z for a couple hours is ridiculous.

I would take you up on a debate on the metric system.Because it makes tremendous sense.No offence but America hanging to that middle age "feet, inch, yard, gallons,onces" is just pathological and scientifically ridiculous. It was not a data management problem. Alstom just followed international and european regulations.The problem is actually that the railway station is too narrow, because too old.France having a huge railway network, and international standards being frequently unified and modified, this kind of problems happens often. in country where their actually are railways ( jk)This is a non-problem, that somehow found it's way here, sensationalist main stream bs... (I have friends working at Alstom and I did a bit of research before making fun of them, that is how i found out the railway was the problem)

I aslo like to avoid labels.Nowadays my angle of attack is money. But my strategy often changes.Talking about general stuff, taxes, war, unemployement, i drift slowly into the importance of economics, and money as blood of the society.From there I talk about the fallacy of traditionnal banking and the debt (because "the debt" is becoming something people hear about but don't understand, even seeing it as necessary). And then implying that open-source, free individual initiatives is better than centralised (taking an exemple of Bitcoin such as can be seen in 'Bitcoin in Uganda' on yt) I guess it depends of how receptive is the person. Being subtle and subversive can work with some people, reasonning will work with other people. And others are so agressive that I need to be agressive to.It is a bit like boxing for me, adaptating to the opponent style.gentle and technical, or blitz mode, and everything in between.

My answer would be:"I know that I am right." I have recently came across a french author, theologist Jean Soler, who's work leaves not doubt in me. His arguments on the development of monotheism are very interesting and sealed my certitude. I ll summarize those arguments in a thread probably.

I guess it is an exercise of free will. And we have to let them do whatever they want.But critisizing is definitely constructive. And is an exercise of free will as well. So it would go:"-Don't Tell Me How to Raise My Kids.-Don't tell me what to say or not to say. Because if you are free to raise your kid, I am free in criticizing your method"But starting a sentence by "Don't tell me [....]" shows lack of interest in dialogue and discussion. There might be no point criticizing since this kind of person is definitly not open to reasonning or constructive dialogue.

That looks good!Omega3 ,I don't know what you need exactly, but the cryptocat plug-in allows encryption chat.If you only need privacy from time to time to exchange special information , that could be enough, and it is free, it is not an e-mail service. But I use in complement of gmail.I guess a vpn service would make everything you do (mailing, downloading and browsing) private, depndeing on the vpn provider. But it doesnt encrypt mails.

AustinJames you have a brilliant way of putting things.And I agree with you on that post and other on this thread.But this logical causality principle leads me to question Stef's opinion on another matter.He often critises, rightfully, that the argument of "they did best with what they knew" concerning parenting is a fallacy and must not be accepted as an excuse for bad child treatment. And I agree with him.But to me we are now facing a contradiction: What is the accountability of a violent parent who is so stupid that moral is out of his/her control?From a moralist point of view, he/she is still guilty of mistreating a child.But from a causality perspective, he/she might not have had control. I am not implying that a violent father cannot be held responsible because his addiction might be impossible to control.I'll take the following exemple:An Individual suffers alcohol and heroin addiction because of his/her mother's habits during pregnancy,The individual grows up completly screwed , addict, maybe with violent tendancies that drug addiction developped. And that person has kids. Kids that are being mistreated.what is that individual's responsibilty to bad upbringing?From a moralist point of view, I guess he/she would be guilty, and should be held responsible?But from causal logic, he might have been so screwed up that self-questionning and responsibility might have been unreachable. I wonder.

What appears to you to be be proof of economic growth?USA and EU are mostly in recession states, with rising unemployement.China is probably tweeking the numbers as well. Claiming to have 8% growth while their consumption of electricity seems to not grow that much. Growth seems to be much lower than claimed by many (governements and experts).But I am not expert, I am just repeating what I heard from amalysts.You seem to agree that there would be deflation if their is growth, but what would happen with a gold standard and null growth?

I agree with Wesley's first answer.Consciousness is definitely an emergence of Intelligence, which to me is an emergence of Life. Life being emergence of matter and energy. Both emergences of space and time.I see it as a chain reaction. Emergence through more complexity. (This emergence system leading to concept such as Truth and Good in our psyche, it is an outstanding process, hands down to the big guy ^^ ) I can't explain NDE or stuff like that, but i prefer to tell myself that we don't really know how it works, rather than considering another "metaphysical layer".But we can be sure that we don't grasp much of the wiring behind the phenomenon. It is surely incredibly powerfull. It is the higher complexity of intelligence we know. I don't care about astral trips (no offence), conscious abstract rational reasoning is already too much for me.