Re: Trouble with concepts

[Victor]

Yes there is a school of thought (constructivism) that the "name of a thing" is essentially equivalent to the thing itself.  I do not hold this view.  A simple plastic coin sorter can "arrange into categories or classes" the coins that are inserted.  The fact that the coin sorter did not originally invent and name the categories does not change its ability to carry out the basic "arranging" of matter.  I say the categories and the ability for arrangement into categories can take place without words and verbal declaration.

 

Our brains are basically just coin sorters, with the addition of electrochemistry instead of just arranging things by gravity.  Words are just a trick to compress communication.  I can force you to think of an elephant without demonstrating one.  Nature must demonstrate the elephant.  There are still categories, which elephants are viable, what foods they can eat, even if no words are invented to describe such things.  Numbers are built into the periodic table, and no amount of saying "numbers do not exist" will allow lithium to behave like carbon even though the basic categorical difference is purely based on a numerical counting process.

 

Here's the thing man, our brain is not just a coin sorter.

 

We can create devises that perform intelligent tasks, meaning we can add intelligence into tools. And I'm sure in the future we'll create devises so intelligent that they will be able to identify and comprehend.

 

But in order to deal with concepts (conceptualize), the requirement is for the intelligent system to be able to identify and comprehend. Sorting is not categorization.

 

Conceptualization is a very advanced intelligent process that requires other fundamental layers of intelligence. The first layer is direct superficial identification of properties, and some sort of storage into memory. Then follows the setting of a representative environment for inter-comparison and modeling, or imagination and reasoning. Then a higher level of integration where the intelligent system extends universal and categorical markers, principles and properties of phenomena (objects, processes, etc.). This third one is the process of conceptualization.

[RestoringGuy]

Here's the thing man, our brain is not just a coin sorter.

 

We can create devises that perform intelligent tasks, meaning we can add intelligence into tools. And I'm sure in the future we'll create devises so intelligent that they will be able to identify and comprehend.

 

But in order to deal with concepts (conceptualize), the requirement is for the intelligent system to be able to identify and comprehend. Sorting is not categorization.

 

Conceptualization is a very advanced intelligent process that requires other fundamental layers of intelligence. The first layer is direct superficial identification of properties, and some sort of storage into memory. Then follows the setting of a representative environment for inter-comparison and modeling, or imagination and reasoning. Then a higher level of integration where the intelligent system extends universal and categorical markers, principles and properties of phenomena (objects, processes, etc.). This third one is the process of conceptualization.

You demand much of categorization.  By that thinking, I am in agreement with you.  Brains and coin sorters are in different leagues.  All I am saying here is that when you engage in human act of (what you call) categorization, you give things names.  The layers you speak of present these names or tokens of reality.  Even the highest level of conceptualization is merely a systematic compartmentalization of words that our neurons must sort though.  In that specific regard I agree that concepts, numbers, etc. do not exist.  "Three" does not exist as an absolute word with absolute reality.  But once all those convenient fictions are formalized -- once you decide precisely what those named categories mean, the class of external objects that meets that condition can be said to exist and it always has existed even before you gave it a name.

 

I am of the belief that helium had two protons and was an inert gas long before the word "two" was conceptualized.  In that way the number two exists.  It carries with it physical meaning and quantum mechanical consequences without regard for our mental concepts and words.  Is that a fair statement?

[2bits]

By your definition of exist, thoughts are certainly measurable and have an effect on our brains, so wouldn't saying concept/thoughts don't exist mean you'd need to redefine the word "exist" then?

Commenting from the matter/energy definition of "exist" here.The only ascribable existence is to the medium containing the thought. Analogous to any information in a medium, thoughts are measurable because they are reflected in the arrangement of brain chemistry. We can of course recall information stored in our own brains, and as neuro-technology advances it's theoretically possible one day to objectively recall information stored in the brains of others.This is evidence of the existence of synapses, neurons, and neural transmitters, but the thought of an elephant or the number 3 doesn't have existence itself. I believe this resolves the apparent contradiction, but please correct me if needed. Thanks.

Commenting from the matter/energy definition of "exist" here.

I would like to discuss one more criterion for the definition of "exist".I have a Physics background, so something like thermodynamics is an important tool to me. Specifically, the Conservation of Mass and Energy is relevant here.If the combined mass and energy of a system is not affected by the presence or absence of a thing, then it can be said to not exist. This sounds a lot like "it exists if it's made of matter or energy", but I wanted to tie it into a law of thermodynamics and science, and get away from a semblance of arbitrariness.We could also consider entropy. To take a "thought" as an example, it reflects some ordered structure in our brains (a meme), and any order or arrangement is small but real amount of entropic energy. This is still consistent with the conservation Laws for two reasons:1. Two conflicting thoughts can't both be simultaneously valid, yet they both have energy. We can conclude that entropic energy doesn't provide validity to a thought.2. The gain in entropic energy as a meme is formed is countered by a loss of chemical energy (synapses fire, ATP consumed, etc). Thus, even with the creation of a new thought, the system's energy state is unchanged/conserved.I use "thoughts" as an example, but I suspect it's broadly applicable.

[TheRobin]

could you explain to me then, in what broader category you place "thought" (and maybe provide a more exact definition?)? I assume we agree, that a thought is different from nothing, so by what criteria is it different from nothing? yet if they also don't exist, by what criteria are they similar to nothing?p.s. afaik every brain encodes information and thoughts differentely, so even theoretically we won't ever be able to read out information from a brain unless we beforehand have somehow figured out the exact code for each thought and concept.

[RestoringGuy]

If the combined mass and energy of a system is not affected by the presence or absence of a thing, then it can be said to not exist. This sounds a lot like "it exists if it's made of matter or energy", but I wanted to tie it into a law of thermodynamics and science, and get away from a semblance of arbitrariness.

We could also consider entropy. To take a "thought" as an example, it reflects some ordered structure in our brains (a meme), and any order or arrangement is small but real amount of entropic energy. This is still consistent with the conservation Laws for two reasons:1. Two conflicting thoughts can't both be simultaneously valid, yet they both have energy. We can conclude that entropic energy doesn't provide validity to a thought.2. The gain in entropic energy as a meme is formed is countered by a loss of chemical energy (synapses fire, ATP consumed, etc). Thus, even with the creation of a new thought, the system's energy state is unchanged/conserved.

Sounds good.  Physics makes the ultimate decision.  All patterns and abstractions that can be objectively tested by "logic" can be manifested physically, because physical objects must exist during the act of proof.  When two marbles are moved apart, their distance from one another increases in opposition to their gravitational pull toward one another.  So energy is added to the local system by another system.  Arrangements and patterns are just levels of energy in these tiny amounts, so they exist.  By that same thinking, all arrangements of matter, whether proofs on a chalkboard or thoughts in our minds, involve patterns expressed as energy levels. Entropy is increasing overall, but entropy can be moved around.  We can find that two conflicting thoughts offer a physical distinction.   One of the thoughts enables the correct physical predictions to be made.  The other thought will have more entropy because it will fail to make correct predictions and therefore take on a more disordered pattern of activity.

 

In that way, the concept exists.  It works and it's viable as far as its temporary value in predictively accounting for energy levels and transformations that physics allows.  But more than that, if a valid concept were totally destroyed in our minds and all human-created methods of recall (paper, computers, etc.), it can be later reproduced by independent research.   So there is a sense that "recall" of true concepts can be done without resorting to any "medium containing our thoughts".  Somebody would have discovered relativity, even if you build a time machine and go back and stop Einstein.  So physics ensures certain thought patterns are likely emerge ("recalled" if you wish), just as those thought patterns describe what matter/energy is likely to do.  The decreased entropy of "thought" is allowed at the expense of increased entropy of our other biological functions, and of course the total energy of a system with new thoughts created does not change.  But that is a little bit like saying oxygen does not exist, because if you built oxygen by nuclear fusion the energy just moves around and no new oxygen can be added.  A concept is not an addition to the universe.  Like oxygen, thoughts and concepts are only formation and/or discovery of a new pattern.

[2bits]

could you explain to me then, in what broader category you place "thought" (and maybe provide a more exact definition?)? I assume we agree, that a thought is different from nothing, so by what criteria is it different from nothing? yet if they also don't exist, by what criteria are they similar to nothing?p.s. afaik every brain encodes information and thoughts differentely, so even theoretically we won't ever be able to read out information from a brain unless we beforehand have somehow figured out the exact code for each thought and concept.

A thought is information. Information Theory can define information from there. I usually don't confine myself to the matter/energy definition of "exist", but that requires more tedious and precise definitions so we don't falsely attribute things like agency to things like concepts - "I think about god, thoughts exist, therefore god exists." EtcI wouldn't be averse to saying a thought exists, but someone else might misinterpret that, and the conversation goes off the rails.Yes, brains are different from person to person. I could imagine a calibration routine that would overcome this. Given an instrument of sufficient resolution, it's possible to map out a brain in such detail that we can identify memes. Unless we assume that neuroscience stops advancing at some point, I conjecture it's theoretically possible.

[2bits]

Sounds good. Physics makes the ultimate decision.

Nothing after this point is consistent with what I wrote. I'm not sure if your are misunderstanding me, intentionally distorting my idea, or just proposing a new one.

Arrangements and patterns are just levels of energy in these tiny amounts, so they exist.

I'll just tackle one sentence. This point above is a misunderstanding of entropy. At least I gather that from 'energy in tiny amounts'. The pattern isn't energy itself. Rather it represent a small entropic energy of the system. If the thought was energy itself, the system's energy would drop a minuscule amount if we stopped thinking about elephants, for example. This is not the case, as it would require the destruction of energy which violates the Conservation law. Rather, with new thoughts, or losing thoughts, energy changes form and location in your brain between chemical, electrical, thermal, and entropic, but total system energy doesn't change.I bring us back to my definition of "exist": if the presence or absence of a thing does not affect the combined mass and energy of a system, it does not exist. Thoughts do not exist by this definition.

[RestoringGuy]

I bring us back to my definition of "exist": if the presence or absence of a thing does not affect the combined mass and energy of a system, it does not exist. Thoughts do not exist by this definition.

 

I suppose if you could simply stop thinking about elephants and at the same time not alter any energy flow of your body in any tiny amount, I totally agree that would be a violation of conservation laws.  Your definition is fine.  But then perhaps it seems very little in the world exists.  Just quarks and stuff.  Oxygen does not exist because it is only a named arrangement of particles and fields.  Entropy and spacetime do not exist because there is no guarantee mass/energy must change accordingly.  Here's the deal:  I guess I do not know exactly what you mean by even including "presence or absence" inside your definition of "exists"!  In your definition, what is "presence" if not equal to "existence"?   Sure I would define them separately, but I am allowing for such differences (eg. numbers, gravity, oxygen, dinosaurs all exist in some real way even when not present).  You seem not to permit this distinction, so you need to clarify, right?   Or are you saying as an experiment you can toggle the presence of absence of a thing (to test whether it affects matter/energy) even though that thing being added and removed during the course of the experiment totally does not exist? 

In any case I am not supposing you meant you can magically remove something without changing it into something else.  Does it not seem everything is transformation, and when anything is "created" it is simply transformed from other stuff?  So if you are going to talk about things being added or removed from a system, my feeling is that you would need to suggest exactly what kind of transformation is taking place inside your definition.

[2bits]

I suppose if you could simply stop thinking about elephants and at the same time not alter any energy flow of your body in any tiny amount, I totally agree that would be a violation of conservation laws.  Your definition is fine.  But then perhaps it seems very little in the world exists.  Just quarks and stuff.  Oxygen does not exist because it is only a named arrangement of particles and fields.  Entropy and spacetime do not exist because there is no guarantee mass/energy must change accordingly.  Here's the deal:  I guess I do not know exactly what you mean by even including "presence or absence" inside your definition of "exists"!  In your definition, what is "presence" if not equal to "existence"?   Sure I would define them separately, but I am allowing for such differences (eg. numbers, gravity, oxygen, dinosaurs all exist in some real way even when not present).  You seem not to permit this distinction, so you need to clarify, right?

I like a lot of your points. I should reiterate what I said to TheRobin. We can define "exist" anyway you like, but there are consequences to how we define the things that "exist". If I took your position and said that thoughts and information exist, we would need to be careful and consistent during a conversation about thoughts and information that we did not ascribe any physical or energetic traits to those things (thoughts exist, I think of god, god exists). It leaves a lot of opening for rhetorical slight-of-hand or logical slip, and I suspect that's why most people in FDR seem to prefer the mass/energy usage of "exist". It keeps a clear divide between the "real" and "abstract".

 

However, to say information doesn't exist is not the same as saying there is no information. We would need an existential word for things that need to be described, but which do not have mass or energy. I think that semantic gap is fueling this thread.

 

Your comments about oxygen and subatomic particles are good, but I can counter by saying "oxygen" is just a shorthand description for that particular arrangement of protons, neutron, and electrons in orbitals. Oxygen still represents matter and energy, even if we can reduce the definition of 'oxygen' to child components which have mass and energy themselves.

 

My usage of "presence" and "absence" goes to the point I made above about not having an existential word for abstractions like thoughts and information. Mass/energy and information can both be present or absent, so these terms are for things irrespective of whether they exist.

 

 

"Or are you saying as an experiment you can toggle the presence of absence of a thing (to test whether it affects matter/energy) even though that thing being added and removed during the course of the experiment totally does not exist?"

 

 

Yes, I'm invoking a thought experiment to add or remove a thing. If it can be added to a system without changing the mass or energy of the system, it's being created from nothing. That violates the Conservation laws, and I conclude it does not exist. The converse applies if the system mass/energy does change. It doesn't necessarily need to be a "magic" mechanic at all. For example, to test whether a chair exists, we can magically place a chair in a room (the room being the closed system). Or, a group of craftsman can bring in wood and tools, make the chair, and then leave. Either way, we have an empty room before, and a room with a chair after. Mass must have been added to the room for this to happen, and the chair exists.

 

 

In any case I am not supposing you meant you can magically remove something without changing it into something else.  Does it not seem everything is transformation, and when anything is "created" it is simply transformed from other stuff?  So if you are going to talk about things being added or removed from a system, my feeling is that you would need to suggest exactly what kind of transformation is taking place inside your definition.

 

 

Only things that exist can transform. Things that do not exist merely appear and disappear. I'm going to move away from a thought as an example of information, since the wet chemistry of a brain leaves the closed system difficult to define. Are a collection of wooden blocks, made into the shape of the word "thought", acceptable? If so, imagine them in a room. We can move the blocks around to make different words, or even no words, and the energy and mass of the room before/after will have not changed. The only thing that's changed is the information encoded by the blocks. Or we can destroy the word "thought" and create the word "elephant". This is not a transformation since the latter is not a requirement of the former.

 

All the while, the room/system energy is unchanged, and the words themselves do not exist in matter/energy. Only the blocks do.

[RestoringGuy]

I like a lot of your points. I should reiterate what I said to TheRobin. We can define "exist" anyway you like, but there are consequences to how we define the things that "exist". If I took your position and said that thoughts and information exist, we would need to be careful and consistent during a conversation about thoughts and information that we did not ascribe any physical or energetic traits to those things (thoughts exist, I think of god, god exists). It leaves a lot of opening for rhetorical slight-of-hand or logical slip, and I suspect that's why most people in FDR seem to prefer the mass/energy usage of "exist". It keeps a clear divide between the "real" and "abstract".

Yes I agree the consequences are critical because it is easy to generate paradoxes.  But I am believing true thoughts or information always ascribe physical and energetic traits by necessity.  By my thinking existence is what's manifested physically, much as you say.  But I am allowing for manifestations to be demonstrated temporarily or sporadically, so long as they can be relied upon.  The things represented by words can be said to "exist" when they make reliable predictions about behavior of physical matter and energy.  Information and thoughts are sometimes matter/energy, it's just not their full-time job.  This is mostly based on the indispensability argument.  If you need certain information to carry out a task in the physical world, as if the universe demands you discover and use such recallable entities, the information must exist and it's just as real as the objects the information describes  The key point being that data can be independently reproduced, and that is good enough to justify the word "exists".  Of course, that's only so long as we don't forget that notations and symbols needed to get to that point are all made up on a fictional basis (they are just optional shortcuts we take to make our brains work faster).If we go out in the world and say truths "do not exist" yet observe we have the power to reproduce exactly the same results over and over (eg. "2+2=4" minus the social/symbolic overhead needed to say all that), where are these truths being stored exactly?  The answer must be nowhere if we by definition deny them existence.  Just take an example:  If you measure the speed of light by experimentation, would you believe the photons consult a local physics textbook to decide what speed they should use?  And if they can't find the textbook, they are suddenly free to travel at any speed?  No, I suspect you believe they are bound to some predetermined speed, textbook or not.  It is a speed that seems to be "information" we humans can recall at any time by experimentation, even if our physical artifacts (books, etc) were all wiped out.  If we do not give information "existence" as a defined characteristic, we humans have the power to reliably access non-existent information.  My gut feeling is "access" makes it clear something exists, and instead of saying their existence is "nowhere" I will just say "everywhere" because the experiments can be done in any place we choose to do them.  If you say truth information is "nowhere", then I am not sure how to interpret that.  Information being nowhere just says the experiment is not being done right here and now, but does say much whether it could be done here and now.  And if the results match previous attempts, I am sort of left wondering how that happened.I see what you mean about "words themselves do not exist" because you seem to be talking about words as more abstract and interchangeable.  I think more about dots of ink being a "word".   When I read that word, there is also now a word inside my brain.  All of which might exist by your definition, correct?  These are transformations, from "brain" to "brain+word", just as your carpenters build a chair in a room.  To me it seems impossible to talk about adding or removing things without saying how it is done, even words.  I don't know if wooden blocks spelling "thought" consititute a thought.  Certainly not what I would call a "valid" thought, because that system in isolation probably does not make superior predictions about matter/energy compared a similar system of randomly situated blocks.  Although when you move the blocks around I think you change their energy, even if in tiny amounts. 

[2bits]

Yes I agree the consequences are critical because it is easy to generate paradoxes. <snip>

I was going to reply to your post point-by-point, but I need to stop. Suffice to say, except for the sentence above, the rest sounds a little too irrational and fuzzy for my taste.

[RestoringGuy]

I was going to reply to your post point-by-point, but I need to stop. Suffice to say, except for the sentence above, the rest sounds a little too irrational and fuzzy for my taste.

That is good.  Whether you're comfortable with my ideas, there is no obligation to overanalyze.  Too much tit-for-tat on the board anyway.