On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

May we conclude that the term ‘magic’ applies to everything that we currently do not posses a definitive understanding of.

No.

As I've shown, tensordyne ascribes abilities to human intellect that are not logically possible, and supports this with a theory that is not physically possible.

Asserting an impossible cause for an impossible effect, on the basis of personal ignorance and incredulity, is a belief in magic.

Dennet may have his flaws but it was not for nothing that he describes consciousness as the last remaining mystery.

Dennett wrote Consciousness Explained^WP.

 

[Belz...]

The magic bean of logic is indeed a faulty one, Godel showed that rather rigorously. Logic was shown to be illogical, his quest for a complete theory of logic ended up with his incompleteness theorem. His quest for certainty also revealed uncertainty.

Logic is illogical ? What ?

 

[dlorde]

Ok this example is turning into a rapid fail...

It started as a fail. Why not just explain what you mean in plain English?

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". Albert Einstein

 

[dlorde]

The concept of a coastline is where waves of water meet solid land.

If you are asking precision as in a predefined unit of measurement to use, lets go for the same plank scale

There are no waves of water or solid land at the planck scale.

 

[dlorde]

Is it logically and mathematically possible for an entire "physical" universe to appear from absolutely nothing?

What, exactly, is 'absolutely nothing'? - is it different from non-absolutely nothing?

"Nothing will come of nothing..." King Lear

 

[Roboramma]

You sure about that?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein

Seriously:

One of the reasons why there are doubts about the concept of a nonexistent object is this: to be able to truly claim of an object that it doesn't exist, it seems that one has to presuppose that it exists, for doesn't a thing have to exist if we are to make a true claim about it?

Let me put it differently so that this sort of ridiculous argument can be seen for what it is: the things that exist in the world have particular combinations of properties. All of those things that exist have combinations of properties that are both mathematically and logically possible.

Thus, the set of mathematically and logically impossible things that exist is empty.

 

[Dancing David]

You sure about that?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein

Quoting philosophy in SMT?

 

[Dancing David]

Is it logically and mathematically possible for an entire "physical" universe to appear from absolutely nothing?

No, and the claim of quantum fluctuations has to have a ground field to begin with, so who made the claim the universe came from nothing?

 

[!Kaggen]

Quoting philosophy in SMT?

Sure words have a meaning and a history even those used in science.

 

[rocketdodger]

The magic bean of logic is indeed a faulty one, Godel showed that rather rigorously. Logic was shown to be illogical, his quest for a complete theory of logic ended up with his incompleteness theorem. His quest for certainty also revealed uncertainty.

So by your standards, I can't be sure of things like "1 + 1 == 1 + 1" ?

Cause hey, Godel and blah blah blah uncertainty.

 

[rocketdodger]

I see.... so you believe we can discuss the physically impossible as long as it is logical and mathematically possible but we cannot discuss the physically possible if it is logically or mathematically impossible.

Isn't that trivially obvious?

If something is logically and mathematically impossible, we won't be able to even imagine it, let alone discuss it.

I challenge you to name even a single thing that is logically and mathematically impossible without resorting to gibberish that causes a language breakdown.

For example, a square with five corners. Squares have four corners. So when you say "square with five corners" there is a language breakdown -- perhaps you are actually thinking of a pentagon, or whatever, but we have no way to know. Furthermore, we can be sure that what you are actually thinking of certainly isn't a square with five corners -- that is just gibberish that you created due to not finding a better description for the idea you have in your head.

Contrast that with something that is merely physically impossible, like me being able to just turn into a tiger when I snap my fingers. You can visualize that, no? We can discuss it and you know exactly what I mean, no?

 

[rocketdodger]

Thus, the set of mathematically and logically impossible things that exist is empty.

I don't think we can say this. That is one of the implications of incompleteness, as long as we are talking about Godel.

I think we can only say that things are mathematically and logically possible. We can't say anything else, because we don't have access to thought that is not grounded in mathematical and logical possibility.

We can't say there is nothing that is mathematically and logically impossible because we don't even know what that means.

Note that this is a moot point since it just implies that in any discussion any two humans ever have for the rest of time, it will be about stuff that is mathematically and logically possible. And any computers we build will suffer from the same issues. Any two intelligent agents that function according to the laws we have discovered, and have yet to be discovered, will suffer from the same issues.

 

[PixyMisa]

Isn't that trivially obvious?

If something is logically and mathematically impossible, we won't be able to even imagine it, let alone discuss it.

I challenge you to name even a single thing that is logically and mathematically impossible without resorting to gibberish that causes a language breakdown.

For example, a square with five corners. Squares have four corners. So when you say "square with five corners" there is a language breakdown -- perhaps you are actually thinking of a pentagon, or whatever, but we have no way to know. Furthermore, we can be sure that what you are actually thinking of certainly isn't a square with five corners -- that is just gibberish that you created due to not finding a better description for the idea you have in your head.

Contrast that with something that is merely physically impossible, like me being able to just turn into a tiger when I snap my fingers. You can visualize that, no? We can discuss it and you know exactly what I mean, no?

This.

 

[!Kaggen]

Isn't that trivially obvious?

If something is logically and mathematically impossible, we won't be able to even imagine it, let alone discuss it.

I challenge you to name even a single thing that is logically and mathematically impossible without resorting to gibberish that causes a language breakdown.

For example, a square with five corners. Squares have four corners. So when you say "square with five corners" there is a language breakdown -- perhaps you are actually thinking of a pentagon, or whatever, but we have no way to know. Furthermore, we can be sure that what you are actually thinking of certainly isn't a square with five corners -- that is just gibberish that you created due to not finding a better description for the idea you have in your head.

Contrast that with something that is merely physically impossible, like me being able to just turn into a tiger when I snap my fingers. You can visualize that, no? We can discuss it and you know exactly what I mean, no?

What are you talking about?

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't think we can say this. That is one of the implications of incompleteness, as long as we are talking about Godel.

I think we can only say that things are mathematically and logically possible. We can't say anything else, because we don't have access to thought that is not grounded in mathematical and logical possibility.

We can't say there is nothing that is mathematically and logically impossible because we don't even know what that means.

Note that this is a moot point since it just implies that in any discussion any two humans ever have for the rest of time, it will be about stuff that is mathematically and logically possible. And any computers we build will suffer from the same issues. Any two intelligent agents that function according to the laws we have discovered, and have yet to be discovered, will suffer from the same issues.

Tiger Tiger. burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye.
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat.
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp.
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile His work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger Tiger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

The Tiger
William Blake

 

[Zeuzzz]

We think we know so much, but we know so little.

Nature is awesome, and science is how we explain it. Maths is the code of nature, but not a constituent of it.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. - William Shakespeare

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

"To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour."
- William Blake.

[/QUOTE]


Such a great intelligent mind, with such little arrogance, so much humanity. There's a massive difference between a humble wise person (einstein) and an intelligent fool.

PS: Nice post Kaggen, not heard that one before.

 

[rocketdodger]

What are you talking about?

You made a sarcastic comment about Pixy's position that it is only OK to speak of the physicall impossible if it is mathematically and logically possible.

I'm pointing out that it isn't merely Pixy's position, it is fact.

There is no such thing as the physically + mathematically + logically impossible. Only the physically impossible.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Good luck with that question.

You are right, almost one page later.

 

[PixyMisa]

We think we know so much, but we know so little.

No, that's just you.

 

[Clive]

There is no such thing as the physically + mathematically + logically impossible. Only the physically impossible.

Do you claim that is it strictly "physically impossible" for any human brain to do any kind of "computations" or "cognitive tasks" that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing Complete computing system?

How about the same question but substituting "logically impossible" or "mathematically impossible"?

Note that I've use the words "strictly" and "impossible" to be as clear as I can that a positive response from you will not actually mean that you think it's just "unlikely", or "very unlikely", or "impossible according to current knowledge", or some such similar variation, but in fact absolutely, completely, "I'll-bet-my-life-on-it" impossible, now and for always.