Regarding Franko...

[Guest]

Pixy :

Erk.

That noise usually accompanies my cat being sick.

Does Wolfram actually say that the network of cellular automata self-exisists?

Not in so many words - that would be a philosophical statement and this is a book about the future of science.

You say that this is an "unspoken subtext". Is there any reason to believe that it self-exists the way mathematics does?

If you accept the self-existence of the integers then it follows that mathematical structures dependent only on those integers (or similar basic logic applied to them) also self-exist, in precisely the same way. They are all just 'eternal' and unchanging information structures.

The whole book is dedicated to showing how these information structures can be responsible for all the complexity we see in the physical world.

It is for the reader to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, we do neither.

You still need to explain how this network of cellular automata arose - or why we can reasonably assume it self-exists, and how its computations give rise to consciousness. You've simply moved the questions, not answered them.

It did not need to 'arise'. It is self-exists dependent only on applying logic to zero (or the empty set). 'arise' implies a time dimension - you have to have a 'before arising' and an 'after arising'. Mathematical structures are not time-dependent.

"how its computations give rise to consciousness."

I am not saying that the computations give rise to consciousness. I am saying the exact reverse. I am saying that consciousness + computations give rise to the experience of a physical world. The computations merely provide the complexity - the entire content of the physical Universe but not the experience of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How?

If you are accustomed to thinking that *what exists* is primarily matter, and that consciousness is just a rather hard-to-explain side-effect then a whole bunch of commonly held non-scientific beliefs are necesarily pure bunk because there is no conceivable mechanism for direct consciousness-consciousness communication. Under the system I have outlined no such certainty exists - things like telepathy are suddenly theoretically possible. Unfortunately this often leads materialists to leap to the conclusion that in positing this explanation for existence I have been motivated by a desire to justify telepathy (or 'some wierd religious dogma'), when in actual fact my motivation was to find a scientifically valid theory-of-everything and to deflect the challenge of creationists and proponents of 'intelligent design' (including cosmic design). When I arrived at these conclusions I was the science and skepticism moderator at www.infidels.org

Logic must be fettered by fact or it will lead everywhere and nowhere - and you will be unable to tell which is which.

Perhaps Everywhere and Nowhere are ultimately the same place. But that is another story.

But materialism also gives a single source of all consciousness and doesn't require these bizarre leaps of faith.

Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter, regardless of the fact that materialism is no closer to providing a substantial answer to that question than it was 400 years ago, and regardless of the fact that it has been under continual attack for this failure ever since Descartes.

By contrast, where specifically is my leap of faith?

I followed the part about mathematics self-existing. Good stuff. Then you listed two hard problems, and then you claimed that if you assume something - unspecified - that the two problems cancelled out.

Hammegk specified the 'assumption'. The 'assumption', as he put it, was that "*consciousness* *IS* *what exists*". And as far as direct evidence is concerned, this isn't an assumption at all. What you have experienced since you arrived in this world *is* *consciousness*. This is pure Kantianism. Ontology really stopped after Kant pointed out the difference between "The world as it is - the thing in itself" and "The world as we percieve it". All we can ever know is "the world as we percieve it" i.e. consciousness. "The world as it really is" we cannot know. All I am saying is that we might just as well consider "The world as it really is" to be a self-existing mathematical structure, and Stephen Wolfram appears to have written an entire book declaring that this very assumption is the future of science!

Has that made clearer how the problems cancel out?

 

[PixyMisa]

That noise usually accompanies my cat being sick.

Yep. Pixies do this too when we choke on a philoshophical viewpoint.

Not in so many words - that would be a philosophical statement and this is a book about the future of science.

OK. Just wanted to clarify this.

If you accept the self-existence of the integers then it follows that mathematical structures dependent only on those integers (or similar basic logic applied to them) also self-exist, in precisely the same way. They are all just 'eternal' and unchanging information structures.

Yes. I agree with this.

The whole book is dedicated to showing how these information structures can be responsible for all the complexity we see in the physical world.

It is for the reader to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

OK. It looks like I need to read the book. But in the meantime, I will note that integers do not do anything. They are, but they do not do. What you are suggesting is fundamentally different.

It did not need to 'arise'. It is self-exists dependent only on applying logic to zero (or the empty set). 'arise' implies a time dimension - you have to have a 'before arising' and an 'after arising'. Mathematical structures are not time-dependent.

Yes; what I do not see is how Wolfram's cellular automata can be said to self-exist the way mathematics does. It looks to me to be precisely the same nature of claim as the pre-existence of a creator.

"how its computations give rise to consciousness."

I am not saying that the computations give rise to consciousness. I am saying the exact reverse. I am saying that consciousness + computations give rise to the experience of a physical world. The computations merely provide the complexity - the entire content of the physical Universe but not the experience of it.

OK. That is very different. But now you are assuming the pre-existence of consciousness.

If you are accustomed to thinking that *what exists* is primarily matter, and that consciousness is just a rather hard-to-explain side-effect then a whole bunch of commonly held non-scientific beliefs are necesarily pure bunk because there is no conceivable mechanism for direct consciousness-consciousness communication.

Correct; but this is only part of the reason why we think that these beliefs are bunk.

Under the system I have outlined no such certainty exists - things like telepathy are suddenly theoretically possible.

Well, I'm not sure that there is anything that isn't possible in such a universe.

The other problem I see here, which is also the other reason scientists believe claims of such things as telepathy are pure bunk, is this:

These things do not happen.

Unfortunately this often leads materialists to leap to the conclusion that in positing this explanation for existence I have been motivated by a desire to justify telepathy (or 'some wierd religious dogma')

You seem to me to simply be trying to find a minimal philosophy that answers a specific set of questions.

when in actual fact my motivation was to find a scientifically valid

I'd still question the scientific validity of both your process and conclusion.

theory-of-everything and to deflect the challenge of creationists and proponents of 'intelligent design' (including cosmic design). When I arrived at these conclusions I was the science and skepticism moderator at www.infidels.org

Why bother?

Creationists are clearly wrong; science demonstrates this amply, and bringing philosophical waffle into the argument will hurt rather than help matters.

The ID people are demonstrably wrong when they disagree with science, right when they agree with it, and irrelevant otherwise.

Your philosophy is neither necessary nor useful in this debate.

Perhaps Everywhere and Nowhere are ultimately the same place. But that is another story.

Erk.

Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter

Well, the evidence that it does so is pretty conclusive. What we don't have yet is the good old OPC - operational theory of consciousness.

regardless of the fact that materialism is no closer to providing a substantial answer to that question than it was 400 years ago

No true at all. We are far closer now than we were then. Perhaps not your philosophers, who do nothing useful in any case, but science has made immense progress.

Four hundred years ago we had no idea how the brain is made up, much less how it perceives things or processes information. Now we do.

and regardless of the fact that it has been under continual attack for this failure ever since Descartes.

Philosphy has always attacked science for not answering philosophical questions. Science has always considered philosophy to be largely irrelevant. Science is demonstrably winning the game by a factor of several hundred points to one.

By contrast, where specifically is my leap of faith?

If I understand you correctly, the pre-existing consciousness is the key one.

What you have experienced since you arrived in this world *is* *consciousness*. [snip] All we can ever know is "the world as we percieve it" i.e. consciousness. "The world as it really is" we cannot know. All I am saying is that we might just as well consider "The world as it really is" to be a self-existing mathematical structure, and Stephen Wolfram appears to have written an entire book declaring that this very assumption is the future of science!

Ignoring Wolfram for the moment here, there remains the fact that the world behaves as though it does exist. This is the primary problem with non-materialist philopshies. The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct. When we study quantum mechanics, it turns out that the rules are odd, but rules there are, understandable by us, and they do not vary.

Has that made clearer how the problems cancel out?

A bit. Now I merely think you are assuming what you set out to answer.

 

[MRC_Hans]

PixyMisa:

The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct.

Gawd, I love you! (Dont get me wrong, I'm happily married and live on the other side of the planet)

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

Hans, I'll take that platonically

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.

More precisely, one could imagine that the only difference between the reality we perceive, and any of the other abstract possible realities that are logically self-consistent, is the fact that the person perceiving it happens to be a part of this particular logical framework, and not the others. Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy, since the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is practically built in. It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions. There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false. This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true. Sure, there may be plenty of illogical, but nevertheless compelling, reasons to believe it is true, such as intuition, aesthetics, and even wishful thinking, but no logical reason.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent. The hypothesis that personal experiences for which subjective bias has not been controlled, can yield reliable knowledge about reality, is easily falsified. The only way to accept such subjective evidence as valid, is to reject the hypothesis that you can draw logical conclusions from your observations, which is a premise of the very idea of there being such a thing as evidence.

It's a nifty idea to play around with, and an excellent model to think about in an attempt to teach yourself not to rely on intuitive notions about what is "real" and what is not. But that it is all it will ever be.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Pixy :

But in the meantime, I will note that integers do not do anything.
They are, but they do not do. What you are suggesting is fundamentally different.

Is it? I am not saying that the integers, or the automata are doing anything. Consciousness/Will is doing the doing. The precise nature of the doing depends on how you interpret QM. The simplest example being Everett-Wheeler MWI where all outcomes occur - the Universe then simply becomes all possibilities within the information structure and your life is one of a vast number of paths through it. This model removes all trace of Free Will, and I reject it, but it is a useful way of explaining what I mean.

what I do not see is how Wolfram's cellular automata can be said to self-exist the way mathematics does. It looks to me to be precisely the same nature of claim as the pre-existence of a creator.

Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?

But now you are assuming the pre-existence of consciousness.

Well, I haven't exactly assumed it. I have followed a logical precession of steps starting from the empty set (or literally nothing), and explained everything but the existence of consciousness itself. The content of consciousness has been explained - all that is missing is the thing which is common to all consciousness - the beingness - the experience itself. Materialism suffers exactly the same problem - it is this same beingness aspect of consciousness that Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' - but materialism additionally suffers from the problem of having very little hope of ever explaining how something comes from nothing.

Correct; but this is only part of the reason why we think that these beliefs are bunk.

It is a very big part. It is the founding part.

I am not sure that there is anything that isn't possible in such a universe.

Things which are internally illogical are not possible.

The other problem I see here, which is also the other reason scientists believe claims of such things as telepathy are pure bunk, is this:

These things do not happen.

They do not happen to you.

But I have no interest in pursuing this line of debate. You have already confirmed what I was trying to demonstrate : You are comitted to being absolutely certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Enough said.

You seem to me to simply be trying to find a minimal philosophy that answers a specific set of questions.

They are pretty important questions, and finding the minimal philosophy may well be the only logical route forward. After 400 years of scientific failure to find a solution to the mind-body problem perhaps the time has come to take a step back and review the philosophical assumptions that science operates within?

I'd still question the scientific validity of both your process and conclusion.

Questioning is good.

Why bother?

Creationists are clearly wrong

And they clearly haven't gone away either. The argument from cosmic design isn't so easy to dismiss. Who engineered the cosmos?

(rhetorical - I don't want to go there either).

Erk.

Rocket? You been eating my cacti again?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, the evidence that it does so is pretty conclusive.

Er...how shall I put this.....

Any time you feel like replying to that PM I'm interested in your answer.

No true at all. We are far closer now than we were then. Perhaps not your philosophers, who do nothing useful in any case, but science has made immense progress.

Science has explained all sorts of correlations between brain and mind. Regarding the actual existence of a subjective realm at all made no progress.

Science has always considered philosophy to be largely irrelevant.

True. The result is a large number of philosophically-backward scientists who don't even know who Emmanuel Kant was or what he proved with pure logic. The very idea of a scientist arguing about the relationship between brain and mind without even a basic understanding of what Kant demonstrated about the nature of reality is utterly absurd.

Ignoring Wolfram for the moment here, there remains the fact that the world behaves as though it does exist. This is the primary problem with non-materialist philopshies. The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct.
When we study quantum mechanics, it turns out that the rules are odd, but rules there are, understandable by us, and they do not vary.

Nothing I have said changes this. Mathematics does exist. Just because it does not exist physically does not mean that it does not exist. My philosophy does not devalue science in any way, shape or form. Why is it a problem? Science can go on assuming the physical world exists exactly the same way it did before. The only places where this has a bearing are in the parts of cosmology and quantum physics which border on philosophy anyway and the parts of cognitive science which border on philosophy anyway. All the bits in the middle are left untouched to get on with their business of examining the behaviour of the physical world. The fact that this physical world is actually a mathematical structure makes not the slightest bit of difference to anyone.

 

[Guest]

Stimpson :

You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.

More precisely, one could imagine that the only difference between the reality we perceive, and any of the other abstract possible realities that are logically self-consistent, is the fact that the person perceiving it happens to be a part of this particular logical framework, and not the others. Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy, since the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is practically built in. It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.

Well blow me down!

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions.

It's philosophy.

There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false. This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true.

Except for :

"It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim."

When everything impossible has been eliminated, then what is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent.

Well now we are heading out of philosophy and into the realms of religion. It is for individuals to choose to go there, not for science.

 

[Zombified]

UCE, this having originally been a thread about something else I have not been following it in detail. I apologize for jumping in in the middle of the conversation.

Unfortunately, I have not yet had an opportunity to read Wolfram's book, so please bear with me.

Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?

Hilbert spaces don't need a creator either; they are as mathematically true as integers or Mandelbrot sets. However, the statement that the state of the universe (or really some system of interest) is a vector from a Hilbert space is a statement of physics, not mathematics, and is established by experiment, not logic. (I'm talking about orthodox quantum mechanics here, if that wasn't clear.)

The "truth" of a mathematical statement is not the conclusion itself, but the implication that the conclusion holds under the conditions it applies to. Axioms are not self-evident, always applicable truths, they are the fundamental conditions that apply to all theorems of a particular field. For example, the theorem that say the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees is implicitly understood to mean "IF the geometry of interest is Euclidean and numbers and their sums satisfy the conditions of the real numbers (etc), THEN the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees". This statement is universally true, uncreated, as an implication, but the conclusion alone is not.

That any mathematical structure applies to the physical world is a matter of physics, and must be established by experiment.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is it? I am not saying that the integers, or the automata are doing anything. Consciousness/Will is doing the doing.

Oops. My mistake. Yes, that makes sense, then. I'm not saying that it is right, but now you have just the one assumption, and with this the cellular automata can be reasonably said to self-exist.

Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?

Because I failed to take note of your assumption, given which the whole thing makes sense. Mea culpa

Well, I haven't exactly assumed it. I have followed a logical precession of steps starting from the empty set (or literally nothing), and explained everything but the existence of consciousness itself.

Yep. Agreed.

The content of consciousness has been explained - all that is missing is the thing which is common to all consciousness - the beingness - the experience itself. Materialism suffers exactly the same problem - it is this same beingness aspect of consciousness that Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' - but materialism additionally suffers from the problem of having very little hope of ever explaining how something comes from nothing.

Well, clearly I disagree with this last statement about materialism's chances of explaining consciousness. But I'll tiptoe around that, since as I said, I have no such explanation to hand.

I do see a pothole in the road that you appear to have missed: Where did the rules we observe the Universe to follow come from? In your philosophy, this question has the same status as the origin of the Universe itself in materialism.

It is a very big part. It is the founding part.

Actually, it isn't. It grew alongside, sometimes before, sometimes after, the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence.

Things which are internally illogical are not possible.

Point.

They do not happen to you.

But I have no interest in pursuing this line of debate. You have already confirmed what I was trying to demonstrate : You are comitted to being absolutely certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Enough said.

Oh no you don't, Mister Elephant! You're not going to paint me with your conspiracy theories and wriggle away like an elephant in the grass!

These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.

They are pretty important questions, and finding the minimal philosophy may well be the only logical route forward. After 400 years of scientific failure to find a solution to the mind-body problem perhaps the time has come to take a step back and review the philosophical assumptions that science operates within?

Piffle. Science works. Examining assumptions is a good idea, but changing ones that have been shown to be correct is not.

Questioning is good.

Yeah.

And they clearly haven't gone away either. The argument from cosmic design isn't so easy to dismiss. Who engineered the cosmos?

(rhetorical - I don't want to go there either).

OK.

Rocket? You been eating my cacti again?

Crunchy goodness! Erk!!

Er...how shall I put this.....

Any time you feel like replying to that PM I'm interested in your answer.

Ockham's hammer. I hit you over the head with it. What happens?

Science has explained all sorts of correlations between brain and mind. Regarding the actual existence of a subjective realm at all made no progress.

Since the subjective realm is that which hasn't been shown objectively, this is true by definition.

It's the same with artificial intelligence: AI is whatever hasn't been done yet.

True. The result is a large number of philosophically-backward scientists who don't even know who Emmanuel Kant was or what he proved with pure logic. The very idea of a scientist arguing about the relationship between brain and mind without even a basic understanding of what Kant demonstrated about the nature of reality is utterly absurd.

Kant - like all philosophers - waffles endlessly to produce one or two or no good points. We'll take the occasional point and leave you the vast fibrous waffly bulk, thank you very much.

You will find that scientists may not know of Kant, but do indeed know of and use his few successful ideas. These have been absorbed by science, and his interminable waffling discarded.

Nothing I have said changes this. Mathematics does exist. Just because it does not exist physically does not mean that it does not exist. My philosophy does not devalue science in any way, shape or form. Why is it a problem? Science can go on assuming the physical world exists exactly the same way it did before. The only places where this has a bearing are in the parts of cosmology and quantum physics which border on philosophy anyway and the parts of cognitive science which border on philosophy anyway. All the bits in the middle are left untouched to get on with their business of examining the behaviour of the physical world. The fact that this physical world is actually a mathematical structure makes not the slightest bit of difference to anyone.

If it makes different predictions to naturalism, then it is of fundamental interest. If not, then it is unfalsifiable, and more philosophical waffle for the compost heap of history.

 

[Guest]

Pixy :

I am sensing we are reaching the end of what we can usefully discuss.

These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.

If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".

Whether or not the Universe actually operates like that is another question entirely, and one that you will only find the answer to by experimenting with your own belief system.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am sensing we are reaching the end of what we can usefully discuss.

This is because you are holding a position that is intrinsically irrational.

If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".

And if in addition to that I observe that these things do not happen, I would be correct to say so.

Whether or not the Universe actually operates like that is another question entirely, and one that you will only find the answer to by experimenting with your own belief system.

More piffle. When held to proper procedure, believers have failed to demonstrate these phenomena just as thoroughly as skeptics.

There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. I would need evidence first. But I can experiment with the Universe, and I do, and I find that it acts in a consistent manner, and that paranormal events do not happen.

 

[Soubrette]

...snipped...There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. ....snipped

Because I can't resist.....

Except that science will provide the answer to HPC and that that answer will be based in Materialism

Sou

 

[Guest]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And if in addition to that I observe that these things do not happen, I would be correct to say so.

You observe they do not happen in the reality which manifests to you. You cannot speak of what happens in the subjective reality experienced by others. You cannot know that nobody else has ever actually seen an alien. You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.

More piffle. When held to proper procedure, believers have failed to demonstrate these phenomena just as thoroughly as skeptics.

Such experiments always occured in the presence of skeptics. Your position is based upon an assumption that the temporary presence of the skeptic in the reality of the believer did not affect the outcome of the experiment.

Follow the logic. You may hate my position, but you cannot prove it is wrong.

There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. I would need evidence first.

No pixies for you then.

But I can experiment with the Universe, and I do, and I find that it acts in a consistent manner, and that paranormal events do not happen.

You experiment with that portion of the Universe which manifests in your consciousness. Unless you also experiment with your belief system you have no way of knowing whether beliefs can influence manifested reality. You can tell yourself you are as sure as you like that my position is wrong, but you cannot ever know it is wrong. However, you could know that it is right, if you chose to experiment with your own belief system and experienced different things as a result.

Isn't philosophy fun?

Follow the white rabbit.


edited to add....

When I came back here I stated that I have no fixed belief system. I meant it. It was not always so. My beliefs have changed dramatically over the past 18 months. So has my perceived reality. I am left with NO BELIEFS. I like it that way.

 

[Q-Source]

Hello Mr. Camaleon

You observe they do not happen in the reality which manifests to you. You cannot speak of what happens in the subjective reality experienced by others. You cannot know that nobody else has ever actually seen an alien. You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.

So, if I say that I have a pink dragon in my garage, does it mean that it is true in my subjective reality?

This is how you pretend to prove the reality of paranormal events?.

Such experiments always occured in the presence of skeptics. Your position is based upon an assumption that the temporary presence of the skeptic in the reality of the believer did not affect the outcome of the experiment.

So Geoff, you still hold the position that in the presence of skeptics it is not possible to prove any paranormal event.

I still think that you are a fascinating individual, even though sometimes you come with this nonsense.

Isn't philosophy fun?

Absolutely !

 

[c4ts]

If only someone could give Franko his own forum and ban him from all the others. I suppose that would be too much to ask.

 

[Guest]

Pixy (and anyone),

RE : No beliefs.

Ever heard of E-Prime?

Well, here is a site dedicated to freethought and the damage caused by limiting belief systems which are sometimes mistaken for the truth.

http://www.nobeliefs.com
http://www.nobeliefs.com/problemswithbeliefs.htm

Especially Confusing the Map for the Territory

http://www.nobeliefs.com/MapandTerritory.htm

But what I am really concerned with is a version of English known as E-prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." [snip] Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.

It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.
The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Now my point is this : How about we continue this discussion in E-prime?

E-prime is very good at showing up who is depending on a belief system and who is not. I am willing to bet that I am able to defend my own position with the utmost ease in E-Prime and that you will find your position impossible to defend in E-Prime.

Do you want to give it a try?

 

[Q-Source]

If only someone could give Franko his own forum and ban him from all the others. I suppose that would be too much to ask.

It would make YOU happy, wouldn´t it?

Unfortunately for you, this forum is full of many different people.

Q-S

 

[Guest]

Q-Source,

So, if I say that I have a pink dragon in my garage, does it mean that it is true in my subjective reality?

Only if you go to your garage and find one there.

This is how you pretend to prove the reality of paranormal events?.

I have not the slightest intention of proving the reality of paranormal events to anyone. I am defending their theoretical possibility.

So Geoff, you still hold the position that in the presence of skeptics it is not possible to prove any paranormal event.

I am certainly claiming that such things cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

I still think that you are a fascinating individual, even though sometimes you come with this nonsense.

Thanks. And I think you're cute.....

 

[hammegk]

These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.

Although the correct statement -- at 100% reliability -- is that human Science has so far been unable to reliably, repeatably demonstrate these phenomena.

Take the simple example of a glass object exposed to sunlight (especially at high altitudes) that over decades changes from colorless to a purpulish hue. Could a repeatable experiment be designed to explain the phenomena, or even measure it? Note theoretically we know what changes & why at the atomic level; but can you measure it?

Finally, consider the number of data points -- none *exactly* replicable -- needed to statistically verify QM level events. We have 10^(very large power) of individual "events" to measure, and we manage to observe very large numbers of them.

For psi-like phenomena, we have relatvely few measured points to use in our analyses, and as already mentioned if "non-believers" can also effect results, these effects would be even more difficult to measure & document.

As an aside, I believe that 99.99% of psi-like claims I heard of are fraud.


general question
Re Wolfram: I've only seen exerpts, but at what "level" of perceived materiality does he first propose the existence of cellular automata? Atomic? Sub-Atomic? Field Energetic?

Because I can't resist.....

Except that science will provide the answer to HPC and that that answer will be based in Materialism

How do materialists continue to overlook their personal need for "Faith"?

 

[scribble]

Chris - you are claiming that you have already "investigated" mysticism. If this is true, then you should already know the answer to the most central question it addresses. If it wasn't to your liking, then what makes you think it would be any more to your liking if I repeated it to you here?

My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.

Soyou sitll believe reality is what you make it. That consciousness makes matter.

You're still a nutter with no answers.

And I'd like to paraphrase our conversation to illustrate it:

"What is consciousness is a REALLY hard question." - you
"Not for me. What's your answer?" - me
"It comes from a single source." - you
"Well, that's not really what it IS, you've just told me it comes from a single source, not what it is or anything." - me
"Well, if you study, you'll understand what it is." -you
"I did study, and I learned what it was. I was interested in learing what you've found. Apparently you've found Nothing."
"No, no, it COMES FROM A SINGLE SOURCE!" - you
"I DON'T CARE! WHAT IS IT?" -me
"I won't tell you." -you

Fine.

I've played this game with you before, UcE. Not getting into it again.

-Chris