HasMat Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Ok Kevin, you had a lot of feedback. So I'm conflicted about trying to simplify as you requested or meet all your requested questions. The first thing I think would clear up some confusion would be to know if we are on same page about science. If we trust it, if we understand its claims. Science says the universe, at the smallest level, is like a boiling pot of water. That matter suddenly exists, stays a little while, and then vanishes. I have been refering to this in my posts as quantum randomness. These so-called 'virtual particles' could mean the difference between you falling off a cliff or balancing your weight and staying alive. (not to mean it would regularly change your mass by anything perceptible, just to show it does in fact exert change on the universe) My contention is that this quantum randomness is universal, meaning it applies everywhere. Do you believe any of this? Secondly, if this universe has this innate chaos, do 'selfs' have an ADDITIONAL quality of randomness? Like suddenly there is a solid average of 4 virtual particles inside your head, whereas there tended to only be 2 spontaneously occuring per second before you were a 'self'. So to recap, 2 questions to keep it simpler. As from above, do you believe in mainstream science's claims about the forces of the universe, including virtual particles? Do selfs have a property of chaos above and beyond this quantum randomness? -------------------------------------------------- some quick responses. i have been using natural law, physical law, universal synonymously. "You keep saying i'm violating metaphysics" I actually dont think thats accurate. When using the word violate it was physical law that was victimized. You say "Saying chaos is a law is like saying that contradiction is truth". Chaos is a known cause of reality. Accounting for everything that 'causes' means we admit its there. I can understand your reluctance to see it in this light, but if you want to fully measure and predict, you will need to account for it. In a scientists theory of everything, this has to be addressed. Its literally a part of reality. The existence of this property has no bearing on whether a selfs chaos is metaphysical. But i think we are having a hard time with this issue looming in the way. You said: "I don't understand the point you are making about self. Hopefully we can at least agree that selves exist since you are addressing me and I'm addressing you. You aren't responding to someone else, or responding to a glass of water, right?" Selfhood is the crux of my argument. I conceded defeat if you could prove it. Now you want to ignore and pretend? Im glad you brought this up. I'm actually a computer. Responding in this thread was my 'final exam'. A california judge ordered me to pass a 'Turing Test', and your acknowledgement of my selfhood means I will be granted a drivers license. We are one step closer to having driverless cars. Thank you. remember my 2 questions. I'm with Kevin at the kid's table on this one. Reading your posts is like looking at one of those posters made of dots that I'm supposed to cross my eyes to see the picture. I know there's probably something interesting there, but the effort it takes to make something out in the haze is just slightly more than I care to muster. Not that you should care. That being said, you say that any cohesive definition of self relies on magic. I find that quite cynical. Only lazy, religious types would be guilty of such a definition. The rest of us struggle to define self, because it's a hard thing to understand as a biological manifestation. The same can be said about life. There are some concepts that we haven't got a good grasp on yet. You're coming very close to saying that we know everything there is to know now, so if we can't define self, then we are delusional in believing that such a thing exists. That flies in the face of every human being's experience of self. I experience me, you experience you. There is a practical, tangible experience of humans called self. Maybe current science isn't providing you with a satisfactory definition, but to claim that there could never be a cohesive definition without injecting magic is tantamount to believing that human knowledge has reached it's capacity. Clearly, it has not. And so, opportunities remain (and always will) to shed light on blindspots and erase supernatural spaceholders. Since, I think, your argument regarding self being separate from the universe hinges on self requiring magic to exist, there's no reason for me to haggle over the details, since I don't agree that self requires magic. Self is a barely understood biological phenomenon that is fully part of the universe, and many rational people are interested in explaining it. You say its borders are 100% elusive. Really? I know I am not that lampshade across the room. I know I am not my dog. I know I am not you. I know I was that guy who broke his foot 2 years ago. I know other humans differentiate me from other human beings. There is at least a portion of a spectrum where I very clearly know that I am distinct from the rest of the universe. The ends of that spectrum may begin to blur, but then, much like quantum physics, they aren't likely to be relevant to my practical existence. Isn't that clear part of the spectrum evidence of some phenomenon regardless of how blurry the edges are? I see this post as playing the victim card. Its too hard to define self, its there trust me, we just havent gotten there yet. Won't you please believe me? I have no problem with you taking that intellectual opinion, but the emotionalism is repulsive. Would you be willing to put that much effort into defining self? Children develop a concept of self before 2 years. I think before 1 but im not sure. If the concept is so easy, why would it be so f'ing hard to define for an adult, for a centuries old society with tons of scientists? kiddies cracking a puzzle (that we all still easily use to know we arent lamps), but we cant put it into words? the occam razor reason why is it never existed to begin with. i would rather have intellectual proof, but the fact toddlers can understand the concept but adults cant define it implies to me its mythology. Do you have any explanation why this should be difficult? I suspect the key to disproving self lies with events (property of space-time) and their obedience to physical law. events like photosynthesis are not really laws. They are events where groups of matter obey known physical law. Thus there are no biological laws. Anything above the basic physical laws is a theoretical collection, like a forest. The laws 'governing' the orbit of a planet is not a real thing, its a simplification of natural operation of physical law acting on large quantities of matter over large distances and times. The same applies to life. Life is an event, a selfperpetuating event, where every process, every outcome is attributable to physical law WITHOUT describing it in terms of biological law. IOW these laws dont exist, they are just rewordings of the regular physical laws in simplified form. thus life is an illusion, for complex groupings of matter and chain reactions.
Ray H. Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 I see this post as playing the victim card. Its too hard to define self, its there trust me, we just havent gotten there yet. Won't you please believe me? I have no problem with you taking that intellectual opinion, but the emotionalism is repulsive. Would you be willing to put that much effort into defining self? Children develop a concept of self before 2 years. I think before 1 but im not sure. If the concept is so easy, why would it be so f'ing hard to define for an adult, for a centuries old society with tons of scientists? kiddies cracking a puzzle (that we all still easily use to know we arent lamps), but we cant put it into words? the occam razor reason why is it never existed to begin with. i would rather have intellectual proof, but the fact toddlers can understand the concept but adults cant define it implies to me its mythology. Do you have any explanation why this should be difficult? I suspect the key to disproving self lies with events (property of space-time) and their obedience to physical law. events like photosynthesis are not really laws. They are events where groups of matter obey known physical law. Thus there are no biological laws. Anything above the basic physical laws is a theoretical collection, like a forest. The laws 'governing' the orbit of a planet is not a real thing, its a simplification of natural operation of physical law acting on large quantities of matter over large distances and times. The same applies to life. Life is an event, a selfperpetuating event, where every process, every outcome is attributable to physical law WITHOUT describing it in terms of biological law. IOW these laws dont exist, they are just rewordings of the regular physical laws in simplified form. thus life is an illusion, for complex groupings of matter and chain reactions. You think manifestations of physical laws at a local level are accurately summed up as illusions? You're biased against localized phenomena for some reason. You're saying, "If it only occurs in a corner of the universe, then it's not real." I didn't argue for "biological laws". I don't care if you trust me about self. You're concerned about explaining everything in terms of physical laws. You state that self is an illusion. Please, explain the concept of illusion in terms of physical laws.
Kevin Beal Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 "Science" doesn't say anything. Science is a collection of principles and methodologies and not a series of conclusions. It's a convenient shorthand, but it can easily confuse the issue when you say that science says something, while only a few scientists have ever concluded it. (Global warming for example.) My understanding of the quantum phenomena you are describing is "indeterminacy", which is not the same thing as randomness, not even close. It's impossible to reduce it to a simpler processes that we could use to determine the existence and location of the next particle. That's not randomness. Most quantum phenomena cancel out long before they could be applied to something like you or me, especially this particular kind of indeterminacy you are referring to. We don't jump in and out of existence, exist in two locations simultaneously or any of that. I don't need it to justify free will. Consider it a red herring. To your second point, I don't yet fully understand how you are using your terms yet since you only really defined the 3 laws. But what I will say is that I understand that there is an irreducibility to consciousness. Consciousness being a state that the system (our brain) is in. When you try and reduce it to deterministic processes, you run into all sorts of logical problems like I mentioned before (and is explained in the John Searle video: please watch it). Also, you did not address my criticisms, so I'll repeat them: You cannot say anything meaningful about randomness or else you are saying that it's not random. It can have no discernable properties or characteristics to describe or else there is order, and thus is not random (randomness being defined as having no order). You cannot address me personally without acknowledging a self here to know who you are and what you are saying, and you don't argue with plants or rocks, I presume. Your actions necessarily imply you accept the existence of selves. So we don't understand how consciousness works. So what? We don't understand how gravity works either (at least in any way that could ever be verified / falsified). We have yet to find the part of the brain that is the thing that generates the observing ego. But as John Searles talks about, there is no need to do that for it still to be there, be a natural phenomena, have a science applied to it and describe something real. This idea that neuroscientists cannot find the observing ego is definitely not a consensus. There are certainly people who say that, and there is a whole lot of disagreement in neuroscience. It's a science that isn't very old and there is a lot more work to do.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Very interesting. Could you elaborate? The "laws" of nature only exist in the human mind. They are descriptions of the consistent behavior of matter/energy. Matter and energy behave in certain ways and there are some ways it cannot behave. Determinists tend to take the laws we derive from the behavior and then project those concepts back onto the universe. So they think these laws "govern" the behavior. To govern is to prescribe. govern ˈgʌv(ə)n/ verb [*] 1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority. "he was incapable of governing the country" synonyms: rule, preside over, be in power over, reign over, control, exercise control over, have control of, be in control of, be in charge of, command, hold sway over, lead, be the leader of, dominate, run, head, direct,administer, order, manage, regulate, guide, conduct, oversee,supervise, superintend, be at the helm of, steer, pilot; informalbe in the driving seat; literarysway So when a determinist says that our brains are governed by the laws of physics they're saying those laws prescribe how our brains should behave because that's the concept of how things should behave they have in their heads. They are making anything unusual that is observed fit the concept (law) rather than adjusting the concept to fit the empirical evidence.
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 You think manifestations of physical laws at a local level are accurately summed up as illusions? You're biased against localized phenomena for some reason. You're saying, "If it only occurs in a corner of the universe, then it's not real." I didn't argue for "biological laws". I don't care if you trust me about self. You're concerned about explaining everything in terms of physical laws. You state that self is an illusion. Please, explain the concept of illusion in terms of physical laws. I don't understand how you misinterpreted me to mean "physical law is illusion". I dont think I was unclear on this point. This is not what I was saying at all. I was saying that 'laws' (biology/astronomy) that aggregate the effects of 'real' laws (physical laws) are not real. This means life/biology, as a set of laws, isn't real, its just a complex aggregation of normal SOP of physical law. The distinction between causality in inanimate and living thus becomes one of coincidence in simplification/description, not generative cause. Causation for inanimate and causation for animate are both universally applied to each in just the same way. We just have some shorthand for 'living' things since they are arranged in ways that cancel out need for lower level calculations. Unique ownership of causation is the genesis of self (my definition). So if 'higher' functioning matter (life) is determined by the exact same rules as inanimate, then they have the exact same owner, and are in fact, part of the exact same 'self'. In a non-metaphysical universe all causality is subordinate to universal law. If causality is universal, "selfs" can have no claim on responsibility. Kevin said: "You cannot say anything meaningful about randomness or else you are saying that it's not random. It can have no discernable properties or characteristics to describe or else there is order, and thus is not random (randomness being defined as having no order)." Randomness necessarily has boundaries. You cannot define any random quality without giving it boundaries. Just try. in computer programming when you ask for a random number you give a range within which the response should come. Give me a number between 1 and 10. Your above quote is 100% false. According to your reasoning, if i ask you a question, and there are a limited number of responses, that means your answer cannot logically be random. total bs. enormously large random returns can also be truncated into sectors. Statistics is a field of study based on quantifying chaos. Its a science that has real world application and discovery. Since you got randomness wrong, maybe try to reanswer the question. Do you believe in science's grand unifying, all encompassing perception of causality (including indeterminacy)? It feels like you dont want to commit to something most atheists fanatical profess as fact. wtf? its not a trick question, its about setting a base-line for causality. It wouldnt matter to my argument if you had a newtonian view of the universe. I would take that view and dissect it from self, just like i would with current science. Without a base-line, what is the self logically distinct from? It needs a backgrouind to be contrasted against to exist. and then, contrast violates whatever 'science' you affirmed. whether the self is metaphysical is independent of the true nature of the universe's laws. Back to randomness, without a range it is ideologically identical to science's view of magic. inexplicable, impredictable, unreproducable. Kevin said "You cannot address me personally without acknowledging a self here to know who you are and what you are saying, and you don't argue with plants or rocks, I presume. Your actions necessarily imply you accept the existence of selves." This form of persuasion isnt working on me. I will state my defintion of self again. You can challenge it if you want. We tried to have you state a defintion and I would challenge it, but you declined. A self is: a thing that uniquely owns the means of its personal causality. As you just laid out [interaction] as an axiom of self... Interaction is not a proof of selfhood. ppl can interact with inanimate computers, rocks, twigs, etc. Thats a counterexample to disprove. Selfs must own their causation and have some property of independence from physical law. If not, they are just a reflection of physical law. Reflections arent accountable for its choices. selfs, by definition (the only one on the table atm is mine, which says self means to uniquely own personal causality), violate known science. It feels like some of you are trying to move the conversation away from certainty, just for the sake of obfuscation. Whether a law is 'real' doesn't apply to a discussion where its effect is being calculated. Its a philosophical question, at a time when its power to causation isn't disputed but is in fact the crux of the conversation. Who owns causation? The true nature of universal laws doesnt even matter to that question. Whether its right in human mind is beside the point. unique ownership of universal laws is possible for exactly one (1) self.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Who owns causation? What's causation?
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 self = unique ownership of personal causality physical law = universal causality the moment a self appears, its immediately tramples on physical law via whatever small causality is does have.
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 What's causation? I would call it integration with reality. The terms of that integration defining the effect. It doesnt matter if a fancy ghost is screaming bloody murder if you cant see, hear, touch, feel him. No ability at causation without integration on some level.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 I would call it integration with reality. The terms of that integration defining the effect. It doesnt matter if a fancy ghost is screaming bloody murder if you cant see, hear, touch, feel him. No ability at causation without integration on some level. What's integration with reality and what are "terms" of integration? Just tell me what "causality" is. You are using the term objectively and making direct claims that depend on it so you need to provide a definition that isn't circular and doesn't end up providing LESS information. What is causality?
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 What's integration with reality and what are "terms" of integration? Just tell me what "causality" is. You are using the term objectively and making direct claims that depend on it so you need to provide a definition that isn't circular and doesn't end up providing LESS information. What is causality? I honestly dont know what you are asking, or on what level. on an everday level i define causality as factors that produce an outcome. I punched that guy which caused his bloody nose. if i was talking about quantum level i would say universal law controls causality. The previous definition I gave is IMO the purest and most correct (integration with reality, or reframed as non-zero relationship with reality). What do you feel is not explained that should be? Online dictionary says relationship between cause and effect. If you are trying to lead me to an answer it might be easier to just posit the idea and explain why its useful to your reasoning. Your response was to repeat the question i answered, ask for definition of my answer, say "Just tell me" as if i am holding out on you, saying why i had a duty to provide a definition and not to use circular logic, and finally asking the original question once more. I just gave you 2 NEW definitions (factors->outcome, cause->effect) and 1 example: universal law. Maybe you can define the requirements you think i'm missing. As in what I'm leaving unexplained.
Kevin Beal Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 What neuroscientists are actually doing with consciousness and how determinism is a non-answer considering it: Also, if you haven't watched the John Searle video, then you need to get your ass on that whether you are a determinist or a free-willer, or not. Like economics as a science, consciousness in neuroscience is also terribly misunderstood, by layman and professionals alike.
Ray H. Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 I don't understand how you misinterpreted me to mean "physical law is illusion". I dont think I was unclear on this point. That isn't what I said. You said self is an illusion. So you believe that there are, in the universe, illusions. So I asked you to explain how physical law allows for the illusion of self. Either the universe can explain self or the universe can explain the illusion of self. We're agreeing to leave out magic entirely, since it's irrational. So under your theory, that leaves us simply with the illusion of self. So my question is how do the laws of physics account for this illusion?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 I honestly dont know what you are asking, or on what level. on an everday level i define causality as factors that produce an outcome. I punched that guy which caused his bloody nose. if i was talking about quantum level i would say universal law controls causality. The previous definition I gave is IMO the purest and most correct (integration with reality, or reframed as non-zero relationship with reality). What do you feel is not explained that should be? Online dictionary says relationship between cause and effect. If you are trying to lead me to an answer it might be easier to just posit the idea and explain why its useful to your reasoning. Your response was to repeat the question i answered, ask for definition of my answer, say "Just tell me" as if i am holding out on you, saying why i had a duty to provide a definition and not to use circular logic, and finally asking the original question once more. I just gave you 2 NEW definitions (factors->outcome, cause->effect) and 1 example: universal law. Maybe you can define the requirements you think i'm missing. As in what I'm leaving unexplained. You don't explain what "integration with reality" means and now you've re-framed it as "non-zero relationship with reality". What does THAT mean? If every person on this board had to guess what you mean by those two phrases and their life depended on getting it right how many do you think would survive (if any)? "Factors that produce an outcome" is so broad it could include anything. A wizard made a square-circle. That's a factor that produced an outcome. What is not explained by you is what the objective definition of causation is. You are using it in an objective manner and basing some quite controversial conclusions on it. I can't give you an objective definition of causation; I only use the concept because I know other people have a general idea of what I'm referring because they perceive the world pretty much the way I do. Causation/causality/ cause and effect generally describe the relationships we perceive between events. It is a useful concept but you are not using it in that "everyday" way. I believe you only have a vague everyday notion of causality which you're transposing in your mind into some universal law but in actuality your usage of it is incoherent. The reason I'm asking you the question is because of that. The nature of causation (if it even exists an as objective thing) has been debated seriously. Bertrand Russel for example said "The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm" and "the word "cause" is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable." I'm not even sure Russell would make some of the claims YOU are making so I think it's entirely reasonable to ask you to define a concept upon which your entire argument rests. What is causation?
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 You don't explain what "integration with reality" means and now you've re-framed it as "non-zero relationship with reality". What does THAT mean? If every person on this board had to guess what you mean by those two phrases and their life depended on getting it right how many do you think would survive (if any)? "Factors that produce an outcome" is so broad it could include anything. A wizard made a square-circle. That's a factor that produced an outcome. What is not explained by you is what the objective definition of causation is. You are using it in an objective manner and basing some quite controversial conclusions on it. I can't give you an objective definition of causation; I only use the concept because I know other people have a general idea of what I'm referring because they perceive the world pretty much the way I do. Causation/causality/ cause and effect generally describe the relationships we perceive between events. It is a useful concept but you are not using it in that "everyday" way. I believe you only have a vague everyday notion of causality which you're transposing in your mind into some universal law but in actuality your usage of it is incoherent. The reason I'm asking you the question is because of that. The nature of causation (if it even exists an as objective thing) has been debated seriously. Bertrand Russel for example said "The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm" and "the word "cause" is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable." I'm not even sure Russell would make some of the claims YOU are making so I think it's entirely reasonable to ask you to define a concept upon which your entire argument rests. What is causation? Are you talking about causality, or the specific methods of causality in this universe? I think I have given more than adequate definition of causality. I am perplexed by your responses. the concept of causality means x causes y. CAUSE. this is not rocket science, and in my experience reasonable persons would not stumble here. causality in this universe is thought by science to include electroweak, strong, 'gravity', indeterminacy. so there you have it, definition and example. definitions are SUPPOSED to be vague so as to INCLUDE all possible examples!!! random fluctuations have no bearing on selfs, they are just environment, unless they are attributable to selfs. if random stuff happens, as a natural course, on all matter, living, inanimate, whatever, then you cant logically say its a property of life. its happening everywhere. Now on the other hand, if you are saying we cant create life, and that there is still a mystery therein, where new laws of causality might exist? wow that would be cool, huh? if so, they immediately get added to physical laws of universe, and ownership of cause is distributed across cosmos. the concept of self precludes freewill from being explicable of this universe. to have an explanation is to merge with physical law, and selfhood to wink out of existence.
Kevin Beal Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 definitions are SUPPOSED to be vague so as to INCLUDE all possible examples!!! But not so vague that they communicate nothing about the meaning of the word. If we define coke as "it" and then through an exhaustive analysis conclude that "it" is coke, then we have done nothing to explain the meaning of coke. The point of a definition is to offer meaning. If your description is meaningless, then it's not a definition at all. What passes for philosophy in academia these days is just a shifting of words from one configuration into another and pretending to have communicated something. I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but that is a concern worth having. It may be the case that you have it figured out and I am as yet just completely unable to comprehend it. I'd be willing to entertain that if the discussion weren't going in circles, going nowhere.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Are you talking about causality, or the specific methods of causality in this universe? I think I have given more than adequate definition of causality. I am perplexed by your responses. the concept of causality means x causes y. CAUSE. this is not rocket science, and in my experience reasonable persons would not stumble here. causality in this universe is thought by science to include electroweak, strong, 'gravity', indeterminacy. so there you have it, definition and example. definitions are SUPPOSED to be vague so as to INCLUDE all possible examples!!! random fluctuations have no bearing on selfs, they are just environment, unless they are attributable to selfs. if random stuff happens, as a natural course, on all matter, living, inanimate, whatever, then you cant logically say its a property of life. its happening everywhere. Now on the other hand, if you are saying we cant create life, and that there is still a mystery therein, where new laws of causality might exist? wow that would be cool, huh? if so, they immediately get added to physical laws of universe, and ownership of cause is distributed across cosmos. the concept of self precludes freewill from being explicable of this universe. to have an explanation is to merge with physical law, and selfhood to wink out of existence. Well I KNOW you have not given an adequate definition of causality and I responded to your previous three attempts at a definition. If you feel perplexed about my continuing to ask you then consider how perplexed I am when your definitions are intelligible only to yourself. Saying "the concept of causality means x causes y." is circular. It's just a restatement of causality using other words. X causes Y; So what? That's not a definition. It's an description of how you and most others perceive causality. Considering that philosophers and scientists have a very hard time defining causation, that such relationships between things and events in the universe may be beyond our mind's ability to even model and that you've used it in an objective way (as some sort of law which you seemingly fully understand) in order to support some extraordinary claims, why do you think "Causality mean X causes Y" is an "adequate" definition? Also I'm pretty damn sure definitions are NOT supposed to be vague. You made that up. Definitions can include all possible examples without being vague. If you believe definitions are supposed to be vague then it's no wonder you much of what you say appears to be confused nonsense. I would like a definition of causation that is not circular, vague or incoherent. Your arguments rest on it being an objective concept so again, what is causation?
HasMat Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 I stand by my definition. causality is integration with reality. rules as to how its applied is dependent on the system. the essential aspect of producing an outcome is mere nontrivial integration, methods of communication and relationality are also dependent on the system being integrated with. now is your big chance to knock it down. should be easy since its so vague. just show something that falls in my definition that ISNT causality and you are done (thats the easy way to break a vague definition). or show something that IS causality and doesnt fit. is this hard yet? the vaguer/more specific it is, the easier it breaks. you said its very vague so you will win quickly. atleast then i get good feedback to fix it, right? maybe i can learn from you. its well past time for you to stop asserting my definition is wrong, and just disprove it. And once disproving it I just know there is gonna be an earth shattering point to be made. There must have been a reason to belabor this point. (teabagger's definition was 'relationship between events') i claim a dog is a thing. you say its too vague. i say no its spot on. (dog is named spot btw) you say a cat is a thing. i compare the 2 ideas and agree. the definition is larger than what it was intended to represent. something falls inside my definition but outside the word. too hard? you can also use logic but that is harder cuz you have to actually back it up when you said my first definition is circular, or the many other times you said vague, or whatever new you may assert.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 I stand by my definition. causality is integration with reality. rules as to how its applied is dependent on the system. the essential aspect of producing an outcome is mere nontrivial integration, methods of communication and relationality are also dependent on the system being integrated with. now is your big chance to knock it down. should be easy since its so vague. just show something that falls in my definition that ISNT causality and you are done (thats the easy way to break a vague definition). or show something that IS causality and doesnt fit. is this hard yet? the vaguer/more specific it is, the easier it breaks. you said its very vague so you will win quickly. atleast then i get good feedback to fix it, right? maybe i can learn from you. its well past time for you to stop asserting my definition is wrong, and just disprove it. And once disproving it I just know there is gonna be an earth shattering point to be made. There must have been a reason to belabor this point. (teabagger's definition was 'relationship between events') i claim a dog is a thing. you say its too vague. i say no its spot on. (dog is named spot btw) you say a cat is a thing. i compare the 2 ideas and agree. the definition is larger than what it was intended to represent. something falls inside my definition but outside the word. too hard? you can also use logic but that is harder cuz you have to actually back it up when you said my first definition is circular, or the many other times you said vague, or whatever new you may assert. Oh that's easy to disprove. The semi-interealionality of of the sub-system is actually an income/outcome process which cannot logically be integrated with dependent communication. Obviously! Therefore your definition of causation is wrong. "i claim a dog is a thing. you say its too vague. i say no its spot on. (dog is named spot btw) you say a cat is a thing. i compare the 2 ideas and agree. the definition is larger than what it was intended to represent. something falls inside my definition but outside the word." In the interests of aiding understanding could you try to make this more vague? Thanks.
Kawlinz Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Oh that's easy to disprove. The semi-interealionality of of the sub-system is actually an income/outcome process which cannot logically be integrated with dependent communication. Obviously! Therefore your definition of causation is wrong. Shit, that was easy dawg!
Kevin Beal Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Oh that's easy to disprove. The semi-interealionality of of the sub-system is actually an income/outcome process which cannot logically be integrated with dependent communication. Obviously! Therefore your definition of causation is wrong. Alright, Rudy the babblefish
HasMat Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 Oh that's easy to disprove. The semi-interealionality of of the sub-system is actually an income/outcome process which cannot logically be integrated with dependent communication. Obviously! Therefore your definition of causation is wrong. "i claim a dog is a thing. you say its too vague. i say no its spot on. (dog is named spot btw) you say a cat is a thing. i compare the 2 ideas and agree. the definition is larger than what it was intended to represent. something falls inside my definition but outside the word." In the interests of aiding understanding could you try to make this more vague? Thanks. Let's just say I wouldn't consider an intentionally nonsensical proof to be an act of good-faith. IOW I respectfully decline to interact with you further. Your quest for a definition you already had in your pocket was fruitless, and you succeeded in never having to make a point in spite of raising an issue. Much ado about nothing. That's 2 acts of bad-faith.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 Let's just say I wouldn't consider an intentionally nonsensical proof to be an act of good-faith. IOW I respectfully decline to interact with you further. Your quest for a definition you already had in your pocket was fruitless, and you succeeded in never having to make a point in spite of raising an issue. Much ado about nothing. Tha'ts 2 acts of bad-faith. If you would not consider an intentionally nonsensical proof to be an act of good-faith then you should not have made the previous comment. You just don't like being paid in your own currency because you know it's counterfeit. That's why you won't interact anymore. "Space-time (location) Energy-matter (massivity spread across a location)Law (causality)singularityPoint AMassivity level Auniversalcontrast (separate unique)Poin BMassivity level BselfEmergent property of contrasttimeinformationmoralityThe start of the big bang has 1 unique location, 1 unique mass, 1 unique law. When other unique points entire the equation its creates a contrast between them. This contrast creates a new property altogether, but without contrast, the emergent property simply cannot exist. Its not necessary the universe has multiple unique causalities, but without that contrast morality is an impossibility." Mind (Location) Energy / matter (constructivity) Law (descriptive consistency) Point A Thoughtiness level A Universal Point B Thoughtiness level B Self Sub-mergent property superimposition of Captain - We have whales. Therefore you're wrong. Also, Define causation. What is causation?
HasMat Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 I was unable to make a table with the UI, so I arranged it in place. Space/energy/law are columns; singularity, contrast, emergent are rows. Space-time (location) Energy-matter(massivity spread across a Law (causality) location(s)) singularity Point A Massivity level A universal (causality A) contrast (separate unique) Point B Massivity level B self (causality B) Emergent property of contrast time information morality The initial state of the big bang has 1 unique location, 1 unique mass, 1 unique aggregation of law. A split-second after, when other unique points enter the equation/become distinct its creates a contrast between them. This contrast creates a new property altogether, but without contrast, the emergent property simply cannot exist. In the dimension of law, lack of contrast = all states are simultaenously the same. causality is singular, universal, and permanent; and emergent property cannot arise. morality requires a causality contrast. you need distinct agents. unique standalone agents of causality. they WILL BE robbing/violating universal law at times. [explicability of universal law] and [distinction/uniqueness of agents] are logically mutually exclusive. Whatever boundary you set for 1 will destroy the other. you go trying to explain what happens inside a self, and it stops being a distinct self, then its just an extension of known law. And if you DONT try to explain it, you give up on exlicability. this is why ive said selfs are fantasy in a nonmetaphysical universe.
Ray H. Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 HasMat, That's an interesting diagram. But once again, you haven't addressed why the illusion of self is allowable vis a vis universal law. Either self exists or the illusion exists. Of course, once you've explained how the illusion is possible as a phenomenon, then we might as well just call it self. Here's the thing. What you are calling an illusion, is what I, and others, would call a concept. Concepts exist in brains. You have expressed many in your posts. You must agree with that or else you ultimately believe that there is only chaos and randomness, and your posts and mine and this forum and this website and the internet and the Earth and the universe itself are coincidences within the chaos. So I humbly offer a cursory definition of self to you. (Keep in mind I don't think about this shit all day. I have a job.) Self is the unique conceptualization of the universe held within the brain of an individual. It must be unique, since no two individuals can possibly have the same accumulation of experience. The laws of the universe do not apply to this conceptualization. This is why we can think about flying pigs, but it is also why science changes. From no physics to Newtonian physics to Maxwellian to Einsteinian to quantum physics; this progression is the realization of new concepts. Each step was incomplete, but was still a concept which was applicable in the abstract, and so towards the next step. No one holds the completeness of universal law in their head. There are only concepts. And each human being has a different conceptual universe in their brain. And so this can be applied to your diagram. Morality is the contrast between the actual, complete (and unknown) universal law and the conceptual universal law (self). In other words, the behavior of individuals contrasted to some ideal. Since we cannot escape conceptualization, we are forever guessing at this ideal. Science gives us the best shot at approaching the oneness (sorry). Bullshit like God and astrology and spirit are all concepts that humans have embraced due to ignorance, but will, hopefully, end up as trivia. This is where you've tripped yourself up, you've conflated these types of "magic" things with illusion, and then added self to the heap. Illusion is that which is perceived, but is not actually there. A mirage in a desert is an illusion; it's not magic. The heat waves that cause the mirage are not an illusion; they are real. So the concept of water that the brain comes up with is wrong, but it did exist in the brain as a concept until it was shown to be wrong by a mouthful of sand. The heat waves exist in reality. The universe isn't lying to the brain, the brain just comes up with the wrong concept. Applying this to your theory, self is the brain coming up with the wrong concept for some phenomenon that the universe actually is producing (you haven't explained what you think this is). But my definition states that self is this conceptualization. Since perfect knowledge of anything is impossible, we can only hold a concept of this conceptualization (i.e. a concept of self). You choose to call this an illusion. Fine, but that doesn't mean magic. It means incomplete knowledge, which I call a concept. So do you deny a conceptualized universe that is unique to each individual?
cynicist Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 causality is singular, universal, and permanent; and emergent property cannot arise. I'm not even going to get into most of what this thread is about, but I am curious, do you see a difference between life/inanimate matter? Or do you see human beings as residual effects of the big bang in the same way as stars/planets? (in that we are effects only rather than have any ability to affect causality)
Kevin Beal Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Concerning causality Physical laws are descriptions of how matter and energy behave. They are not processes occurring outside of objects acting upon them, except as the features of other objects. They are a feature of that object, emergent properties that come about at different times under different conditions. It makes no sense to say that a water molecule feels wet or an atom has color since those emergent properties don't arise except when that object is in a particular state, such as in an aggregation and at a certain temperature (or access to light as the case may be). Some objects don't even have elemental magnetic and gravitational features. Causality doesn't happen to a rock, that is to say it isn't a separate process applied to a rock. When we are talking about causality concerning rocks rolling down hills, we are talking about the features of the rock, it's density, shape, position, trajectory etc. We aren't talking about a physics equation. The equation is an abstraction whose syntax has no meaning outside of human minds. Causality is a catch all term describing the features of an object, and applies to wetness just as much as it does to gravity (for example). Just as it equally describes consciousness as it is a feature of the brain in a particular state. I caused the rock to roll down the hill by nudging it. Moving my leg is a feature of my body, as the downward angle is a feature of the hill, as the downward pull of earth's gravity is a feature of the earth. P1. Causality describes the features of objects P2. Consciousness is a feature of the brain C1. Consciousness is causal P3. Physical laws describe the behavior objects, not processes applied to objectsP4. Physical laws are features of an objects and only describe those objects if the state of that object allows for it P5. Gravity and other physical "forces" apply to objects only in a particular state in exactly the same way consciousness only applies to objects in a particular state C2. Consciousness is causal in the exact same respect as gravity is C3. There is no logical requirement to put consciousness outside of "causality" or say that it violates "physical laws" Concerning self At a bare minimum we have to accept that a self is responsible for something that they caused as a result of their actions. You can assert that determinism is true and still you can accept this conclusion. If you don't accept it, then I don't understand any reason to continue a debate about it. If people did not hold the concept of self (personal identity) as true, then they would not reply to the same person who they are debating, nor would they even pick out any human being to counter argue to, nor would they acknowledge that an argument had been made, nor would they identify themselves as the one making the counter argument. All of these things necessarily assume the existence of selves in order to be performed. P1. A self is the personal identity of an agent who acts to produce some result P2. You are addressing particular people P3. Acknowledging that an agent is responsible for something they produced assumes the existence of selves C1. You absolutely, without a doubt, no matter how much you protest accept the existence of selves.
Kawlinz Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Professional Teabagger already nailed it outta the park so I don't know the conversation is continuing.
Kevin Beal Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Professional Teabagger already nailed it outta the park so I don't know the conversation is continuing. My tendency is to wonder if when people disagree with me about something I'm certain of, that I wasn't explicit enough, leaving too much up to interpretation. By putting forward syllogisms, I'm mostly trying to put that concern to rest. But perhaps it's futile and reason just doesn't convince people sometimes...
RestoringGuy Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Causality doesn't happen to a rock, that is to say it isn't a separate process applied to a rock. When we are talking about causality concerning rocks rolling down hills, we are talking about the features of the rock, it's density, shape, position, trajectory etc. We aren't talking about a physics equation. The equation is an abstraction whose syntax has no meaning outside of human minds. I am so glad you said causality and not determinism. Why do you isolate meaning to "human minds". Cannot a computer process equations? If a computer makes use of equations to carry out specific actions, does the syntax have no meaning?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 My tendency is to wonder if when people disagree with me about something I'm certain of, that I wasn't explicit enough, leaving too much up to interpretation. By putting forward syllogisms, I'm mostly trying to put that concern to rest. But perhaps it's futile and reason just doesn't convince people sometimes... Those syllogisms are brilliant. I have a hard time trying to express my views about this subject. Causality and laws of nature and their relationship to mind can be so slippery and confounding. I think those may be the best arguments of that kind I have ever read about this specific subject. Fantastic job.
Kevin Beal Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Meaning: noun "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action" adj "intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed" I am so glad you said causality and not determinism. Why do you isolate meaning to "human minds". Cannot a computer process equations? If a computer makes use of equations to carry out specific actions, does the syntax have no meaning? A computer processes an equation, and carries out tasks, for sure. But the computer doesn't understand what it is doing. All of the abstractions we talk about computers doing this or that are reduced by the computer into a more basic form, ultimately (if not immediately) into bits, or on / off. The computer doesn't see the equation "2 + 2 = 4", but rather the bits that represent the character encoding, the plus and equal operators etc. When we see "2 + 2 = 4", it actually means something to us in both subjective and objective terms. It may remind us of the book 1984 or our elementary school classes (but I repeat myself ). A book can be a computer in that it's features can be thought of in terms of an objective (internally consistent) syntax. When we drop it on the floor, that could be like the computer bit's "on" state and that operation was reduced by the computer using the input "dropping" to mean whatever we want that "on" state to represent. These electronic boxes in front of us are just spectacularly good at performing billions of operations and easily programmable so that those operations can express something meaningful to us. Here is John Searle's "chinese room" argument: Those syllogisms are brilliant. I have a hard time trying to express my views about this subject. Causality and laws of nature and their relationship to mind can be so slippery and confounding. I think those may be the best arguments of that kind I have ever read about this specific subject. Fantastic job. Thanks! And I definitely can relate to what you are saying.
RestoringGuy Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 It does not prove the computer is incapable of understanding. What is demonstrated so far is only that we tend to select humans as the definition of understanding. The chinese room is an old cop-out argument, and very uncompelling because you can always select what is inside and what is outside the room and place a claim of "nongenuine" on whatever consciousness-like behavior the room exhibits. The only way I know that a thing exists is from behaviors exhibited. This seems to be how scientific definitions work, by describing behavior and not metaphysical rooms and linguistic slight of hand. I think this is the fundamental flaw of those who doubt the reality of abstracts. Science involves correspondence between abstract models and concrete experiments, correct? But in order to measure the error, or to weigh how extreme is the failure of the model, we must use mathematics. We can use standard deviation, for example, as a metric. But the reliability of the metric itself is founded on abstraction. In order to sum up the errors and know how bad the model is, that act necessarily involves mathematics, so there is yet another abstract to rely upon. If a human and computer program are both engaged in solving equations, in some cases using memorized deductive methods, some of which were accepted without proof in order to accomplish a task at hand, what is the objective basis for saying one is engaged in understanding the equation and the other is not?
Kevin Beal Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 It does not prove the computer is incapable of understanding. What is demonstrated so far is only that we tend to select humans as the definition of understanding. The chinese room is an old cop-out argument, and very uncompelling because you can always select what is inside and what is outside the room and place a claim of "nongenuine" on whatever consciousness-like behavior the room exhibits. Great! Then demonstrate the principle here. Put up or shut up. The only way I know that a thing exists is from behaviors exhibited. This seems to be how scientific definitions work, by describing behavior and not metaphysical rooms and linguistic slight of hand. I think this is the fundamental flaw of those who doubt the reality of abstracts. Science involves correspondence between abstract models and concrete experiments, correct? But in order to measure the error, or to weigh how extreme is the failure of the model, we must use mathematics. We can use standard deviation, for example, as a metric. But the reliability of the metric itself is founded on abstraction. In order to sum up the errors and know how bad the model is, that act necessarily involves mathematics, so there is yet another abstract to rely upon. That's not the point. The point is not that this screen here is an abstraction from ones and zeros. The point is that there is no point in the computation where meaning or understanding can be said to belong to the computer. It only interacts with what is directly expressed. It's a book falling and hitting the floor. The book doesn't understand and neither does the computer. If a human and computer program are both engaged in solving equations, in some cases using memorized deductive methods, some of which were accepted without proof in order to accomplish a task at hand, what is the objective basis for saying one is engaged in understanding the equation and the other is not? Gathering information that is not directly expressed by the equation as per the definition of "meaning" I gave you. The person has all sorts of associations, subjective experience, an ideal measured against an objective standard etc. If the human gets the equation wrong, it's not a computation problem or a programming problem (At least not in the sense that we use these terms to describe computers).
RestoringGuy Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 Great! Then demonstrate the principle here. Put up or shut up. That's not the point. The point is not that this screen here is an abstraction from ones and zeros. The point is that there is no point in the computation where meaning or understanding can be said to belong to the computer. It only interacts with what is directly expressed. It's a book falling and hitting the floor. The book doesn't understand and neither does the computer. Gathering information that is not directly expressed by the equation as per the definition of "meaning" I gave you. The person has all sorts of associations, subjective experience, an ideal measured against an objective standard etc. If the human gets the equation wrong, it's not a computation problem or a programming problem (At least not in the sense that we use these terms to describe computers). But how do you know the falling book does not understand, and do you hold humans and computers to the same standard of judgement by dropping them to the floor? If there is some methodology to making your claims, I would like to hear about it. Otherwise all I know is you are making assertions and categorizations about what qualifies as understanding. The methodology I am using is behavior-based. If concrete or abstract things exist, I am judging that based on behaviors that are exhibited, behaviors I can witness and measure. If a human gets an equation wrong, you can say it's not a programming or computation problem, but only because those are words picked out to describe computers. If a human and computer get an equation wrong by being supplied with the wrong equation in the first place, or using a trial-and-error procedure, it seems you are only making a "computational" distinction that serves to prove a vocabulary definition that is already assumed. There is nothing new that is shown. By way of automated deduction, a computer can use logical connections to establish new equations, similar to an algebra student trying to solve an equation. While I can certainly accept this has nothing to do with free will, it seems to overlap with the kind of mathematical understanding people have. I am sure you can augment these computational associations with sensors to provide "subjective experience", but it sounds to me as if you've already decided nothing a computer can do will qualify as true understanding unless there is a human brain attached.
Recommended Posts