Has consciousness been fully explained?

[westprog]

What kind of a response is that?

Whether or not I can describe it, and regardless of whether you are capable of understanding it, has no relevance to whether or not it can in fact be described.

What is your position, Frank? Is your position that it is impossible for a human to understand a mathematical description of the philosophy of mathematics? Or is your position that no such description can possibly exist?

Oh, I see. It's an issue of faith.

 

[westprog]

It's annoying because it is stupid. The false distinction between a model and a simulation is also stupid.

There are plenty of bad models for things. Model airplanes don't necessarily fly. The drawing is just as much a model as it is a simulation, because the difference between the words is not exactly distinct; there's quite a bit of overlap.

All your doing is talking about how great rectangles are and how bad squares are...which doesn't make a lot of sense. Simulations ARE a type of model. You have have purely mechanic objects designed to simulate certain behavior as well. Further, in actuality engineers will simulate certain behavior in a computer system, and then attach that system to a machine or something else. Acting like simulations can't interact with the world or can't replace certain things is silly and untrue. It's a made-up definition arbitrarily chosen to give people a hard time in this particular thread using a distinction that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

So let's be clear - you don't see any difference in principle between reproducing a physical interaction, and in reproducing a mathematical relationship. You regard that as a distinction that doesn't actually exist in the real world?

Yes, a model aeroplane might not fly. But we can be quite certain that Microsoft Flight Simulator will never fly. But you don't see any distinction between them.

Incidentally, nobody has made a "models good, simulation bad" argument. That's in your mind.

 

[westprog]

There's no reason why, in theory, a simulation couldn't simulate all mathematical relationships in a system. Saying it can't doesn't make it so.

Even if it could, it still wouldn't be carrying out any of the physical relationships in a system.

 

[Drachasor]

Even if it could, it still wouldn't be carrying out any of the physical relationships in a system.

And by looking at the items interact in the simulation vs. the real world you could tell a difference...how?

So let's be clear - you don't see any difference in principle between reproducing a physical interaction, and in reproducing a mathematical relationship. You regard that as a distinction that doesn't actually exist in the real world?

Yes, a model aeroplane might not fly. But we can be quite certain that Microsoft Flight Simulator will never fly. But you don't see any distinction between them.

Incidentally, nobody has made a "models good, simulation bad" argument. That's in your mind.

I regard the word choice this thread has chosen to use horrible in particular. The term "model" is used all the time for a purely abstract description. The difference between the two is extremely fuzzy, and by attaching a couple inputs and outputs to a computer simulating a behavior you can reproduce the behavior of a different system. For instance, my computer can simulate a Super Nintendo. The distinction here seems arbitrary, especially given how these words are actually used.

 

[westprog]

Then have the Turing machine model the whole universe.

It's possible to conceive of a Turing machine modelling the whole universe - it's impossible to imagine it flicking a switch, because that isn't part of the specification.

 

[westprog]

And by looking at the items interact in the simulation vs. the real world you could tell a difference...how?

You're claiming that we can't tell the difference between a computer and a rock, and now you're saying we can't tell the difference between a computer simulation and the real world?

 

[Drachasor]

It's possible to conceive of a Turing machine modelling the whole universe - it's impossible to imagine it flicking a switch, because that isn't part of the specification.

It models the whole universe. In what manner are the people it is modeling not conscious?

 

[Drachasor]

You're claiming that we can't tell the difference between a computer and a rock, and now you're saying we can't tell the difference between a computer simulation and the real world?

I've never claimed we can't tell the difference between a computer and a rock. I've maintained the opposite.

And I was saying, looking at how two things interact in the real world vs. how they interact in a simulation that models all mathematical aspects, how could you tell the difference between the two?

Do you want some virtual reality interface for the purpose of observation only for this thought experiment?

 

[!Kaggen]

Because you consistently question whether the more spiritual and artistic pursuits of the human mind can be mathematically described.

If a thing can't be mathematically described, it is magic. Plain and simple.

If you mean to say that such spiritual and artistic pursuits would be incomprehensibly complex when described mathematically, you should say so. I think everyone here reads your posts and assumes you mean there is some essence to humanity that can't be conveyed via mathematical description alone.

The issue RD , happy birthday , is that talking about things which even though they are perfectly logical but are never going to happen except in your mind does not make them true either. It makes them ideas in your mind.

When we point this out to you we are accused of hidden agenda's as if we are threatening the perfectly logical world in your mind as if it is some type of ultimate truth.

The problem is that other people enjoy beauty we can actually experience with our senses outside the mind and therefore this is somehow magic to you. I am sorry that your perfectly logical ideal world that only exists in minds does not excite us nearly as much as it does you.

I suggest you get over this and discuss matters without accusations of hidden agenda's.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not aware of the scientific principle that states that anything that can't be mathematically described is magic. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

I'll grant that he's wrong in that something that can't be mathematically described is magic -- well, for purposes of this discussion. However, quantum mechanics can be handled purely with math, so from there on up you can describe the whole universe with math unless you think there is something else that gets tossed in somewhere...but there's zero evidence for anything like that.

So everything in this universe, as best we can tell, can be described by mathematics.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'll grant that he's wrong in that something that can't be mathematically described is magic -- well, for purposes of this discussion. However, quantum mechanics can be handled purely with math, so from there on up you can describe the whole universe with math unless you think there is something else that gets tossed in somewhere...but there's zero evidence for anything like that.

So everything in this universe, as best we can tell, can be described by mathematics.

Sure the human imagination can do more than describe the universe.

or are you suggesting that mathematics was used to create the universe?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Describe mathematically the philosophy of mathematics then.

What kind of a response is that?

Whether or not I can describe it, and regardless of whether you are capable of understanding it, has no relevance to whether or not it can in fact be described.

What is your position, Frank? Is your position that it is impossible for a human to understand a mathematical description of the philosophy of mathematics? Or is your position that no such description can possibly exist?

Neither really.

You said that if a thing can't be mathematically described, it is magic. Pure and simple.

I was checking to see if you could back up your statement. So far you have proven yourself inadequate.

 

[rocketdodger]

Neither really.

You said that if a thing can't be mathematically described, it is magic. Pure and simple.

I was checking to see if you could back up your statement. So far you have proven yourself inadequate.

You know darn well that the phrase "cannot be mathematically described" means "there is no possible mathematical description."

Stop playing games -- are there things that cannot possibly be described using the language of mathematics, even by God himself, or not?

 

[rocketdodger]

The issue RD , happy birthday , is that talking about things which even though they are perfectly logical but are never going to happen except in your mind does not make them true either. It makes them ideas in your mind.

When we point this out to you we are accused of hidden agenda's as if we are threatening the perfectly logical world in your mind as if it is some type of ultimate truth.

The problem is that other people enjoy beauty we can actually experience with our senses outside the mind and therefore this is somehow magic to you. I am sorry that your perfectly logical ideal world that only exists in minds does not excite us nearly as much as it does you.

I suggest you get over this and discuss matters without accusations of hidden agenda's.

If the hidden agendas would stop poisoning the discussion, I would be glad to.

But, for instance, between you and Frank alone, we have two people who, just because they aren't well versed in mathematics and computer science AND have hidden spiritual agendas, happen to sincerely believe that things like human art and emotion are beyond the capability of mathematics to describe.

This is simply untrue -- your ability to understand, or even conceive of, such a description has no relevance to whether or not such a description can exist.

If you did not have your hidden spiritual agenda, you would be content to just say "I don't understand how mathematics could describe human art or love." But that isn't what you and Frank say, now is it? The phrase "I don't understand" never enters the picture when statements about mathematics are made by either of you.

Why is that?

EDIT and thanks for the bday wishes

 

[Frank Newgent]

Neither really.

You said that if a thing can't be mathematically described, it is magic. Pure and simple.

I was checking to see if you could back up your statement. So far you have proven yourself inadequate.

You know darn well that the phrase "cannot be mathematically described" means "there is no possible mathematical description."

Stop playing games -- are there things that cannot possibly be described using the language of mathematics, even by God himself, or not?

Hell if I know. Who's God?

Am I to conclude that you find the philosophy of mathematics to be magic?

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh, I see. It's an issue of faith.

Wait a second -- are you now claiming that mathematical induction is faith?

Are you claiming that just because, for instance, the behavior of particles can be described mathematically, it doesn't imply that the behavior of collections of particles can also be mathematically described?

I don't get it. Where does the magic start, westprog? How many particles are needed before mathematics breaks down and can't describe what is going on anymore? 2? 3? 4? 77? Some arbitrary number? Oh -- I know -- the number of particles in a conscious human brain?

 

[rocketdodger]

Hell if I know. Who's God?

Am I to conclude that you find the philosophy of mathematics to be magic?

No.

You are to conclude that since I can at least see that I might comprehend the mathematical description of the behaviors of individual particles and their interactions, and that since I believe the world's scientists when they tell me that -- as far as anyone can tell -- we are made of nothing but particles, that I can look at the principle of mathematical induction and deduce that even though I could never hope to understand what a mathematical description of the human philosophy of mathematics would be, mathematics itself tells me it must be possible.

Because you can't go from something being describable by mathematics to something indescribable by mathematics if the only increases in complexity can be described by mathematics.

Do you dispute that?

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not aware of the scientific principle that states that anything that can't be mathematically described is magic. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

Yeah that would be difficult, since by definition if something cannot be described by mathematics science has no access to it.

 

[AlBell]

Yeah that would be difficult, since by definition if something cannot be described by mathematics science has no access to it.

You mean concepts like justice, beauty, or your own consciousness?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Hell if I know. Who's God?

Am I to conclude that you find the philosophy of mathematics to be magic?

No.

You are to conclude that since I can at least see that I might comprehend the mathematical description of the behaviors of individual particles and their interactions, and that since I believe the world's scientists when they tell me that -- as far as anyone can tell -- we are made of nothing but particles, that I can look at the principle of mathematical induction and deduce that even though I could never hope to understand what a mathematical description of the human philosophy of mathematics would be, mathematics itself tells me it must be possible.

Because you can't go from something being describable by mathematics to something indescribable by mathematics if the only increases in complexity can be described by mathematics.

Do you dispute that?

I dispute nothing. But I certainly cannot concur, either, as you've totally failed at backing your assertion.

I had been hoping for a mathematical description of at least some of the extremely interesting themes recurrent in the philosophy of mathematics, such as "what are the sources of mathematical subject matter", "what's the role of hermeneutics in mathematics", "what's the source and nature of mathematical truth", or "what's the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe".