Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Kedaman
So "That house is 30 metres high" is an analytic statement? How so? You cannot judge it's truth value from the meaning of it's terms alone. You must empirically observe which house I refer to and how high it you measure it to be to form judgement on the truth of that statement.Quote:
All Synthetic statements are inherently Analytic and thus logically verifiable. This is also derived from subjectivity. All phrases without meaning are not statements.
Sounds like you're getting a little annoyed?Quote:
Look, i've critisized Karl Popper too, we have agreed that reality isn't sufficient explanation for everything, so stop dragging him in now. I'm defining the universe now and you listen to me, I have the answers to all the questions and as the fact that your "self-awareness" isn't an answer to a question, I wonder why you want to have it with you.
I only mentioned Popper again to make a point. And I've agreed that consiousness is outside of a physical reality but that does not mean that there is not objective reality. And as I've already stated, "Self-Awareness" is not something that I have any choice about.
Without giving this question as much thought as it probably deserves, the following definition springs to mind: "A problem is a question without an answer."Quote:
Ok let me hear your definition of a problem.
My perception is my tool of observation but self-awareness entails perception of my own perception. I am aware of the fact that I am aware. So are you.Quote:
No i'm not. Consciousness is awareness. Awareness is the ability to observe. Thats what we are, observers. You argue that we also are "knowers" and even thought it has no practical meaning, or any meaning at all you argue that "you just know it" what difference does it make if you know it or not?
It's practical advantages are plain to see. It gives us the ability to think about one's self in the third person. To postulate about what is not, but what might be. To hypothesise and speculate. Self-awareness gives us the possibility of predicting when a particular course of action might be a mistake or lead us into an undesireable situation.
You seem to be getting a little infuriated with me and I appologise; I'm not being deliberately stupid. I just can't quite grasp the point and the benefit of what you're proposing.
Wally
As I have said, I don't think we consciously decide which information to keep/discard. The incomming observations organise themselves according to what has gone before. Hence, a self-organising system. There is no central "I", no central controller.Quote:
Err ... that we are interpreters of observations and either use the end result or discard it.
This trial and error system has shaped our thinking, beliefs and society to a level we know today.
But in the end it's a (albeit very complicated) matter of feeding different data to our instruction set (both instincts and brain).[/
That we have a sensation of "I", that we observe and have conscious input into our own behaviour, is the mystery. I think it is a function of our brains. A belief that is true because we believe it.
Kedaman
It's funny you say that because this is a realist interpretation of our world. At least I've heard this theory advocated by David Deustch, a self-proclaimed realist (also heavilly influenced by Popper).Quote:
The brain is a computer, a turing machine, but so is everything else.
Our purpose is survival. Is and always has been. We are running self-preservation 'programmes'Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Could you elaborate this a bit more?
If you haven't had your instincts to act on, your brain to act as an OS would you still be thinking ?
On the other hand, you don't need to think for your body to function.
Wally
If you described thinking in this way, wouldn't thoughts be merely triggered responses to observations made? Isn't there more to thoughts than that.Quote:
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.
Sometimes, we just stop thinking about our observations and start digging up old thoughts and memories.
memories are observations too Simon :)
Wally
You sound like you're comming from the perspective of an Empiricist. Are all our knowledge and ideas gained soley from experience?Quote:
memories are observations too Simon
I'm just dabbling in new old ways simon. I'm trying to find an explanation for 'reality'. As I said this is only a 'work thesis' to explore other avenues.
Simon
A statement that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction, is a contigency, in this case something like "height(house)=10 metres" depending what house you apply it on it could be true or false, but you can't prove it false or true because of observations, that cannot be taken for arbitrary axioms. Proof has to be done trough deduction to arbitrary axioms. The question arises, "Who says something is a valid axiom?", and the instrumentalist holds the answer: You. You decide what you want to do. You needs define what is relevant information, logic just offers solution to your problems by giving you the relevant information.Quote:
So "That house is 30 metres high" is an analytic statement? How so? You cannot judge it's truth value from the meaning of it's terms alone. You must empirically observe which house I refer to and how high it you measure it to be to form judgement on the truth of that statement.
Sorry, I thuoght we were progressing somewhere and then you mention Popper, so I couldn't help it. I see now what you are saying though, and by that how do you define a metaphysical problem?Quote:
Sounds like you're getting a little annoyed?
I only mentioned Popper again to make a point. And I've agreed that consiousness is outside of a physical reality but that does not mean that there is not objective reality. And as I've already stated, "Self-Awareness" is not something that I have any choice about.
To me. If there is a statement X, that have no practical implications, then it doesn't make any difference if X was true or false, because I by definition don't give a **** about it.
What is a solution to a problem?Quote:
Without giving this question as much thought as it probably deserves, the following definition springs to mind: "A problem is a question without an answer."
If there's a clear defintion for P1(X)="I'm aware of X" then what is P2= "I'm aware" ? I assumed that you meant everything that you are aware of. So that you have basically "I'm aware that i'm aware of everything that i'm aware of." This is illogical to me, because that would be something you weren't aware of, Russel's paradox.Quote:
My perception is my tool of observation but self-awareness entails perception of my own perception. I am aware of the fact that I am aware. So are you.
Ah finally something :) Ok, you argue that you can think of yourself as a third person. I think this is the mere illusion of you seeing a "self", sort of looking into a mirror seeing someone else, in fact you can't know if what you are looking at is a mirror reflecting yourself, or just a motion picture. Lets define consciousness once again. Where does the line go between what is you and what is just your observations? Your body? Your memory? Your thoughts? They could all be thought of as part of your observations, the reason we have a notion consciousness at all because you observe. The thinking process, is just an observation, and the third person perspective on "yourself" is just a third person perspective on the thinking process you are in fact observing. To postulate illogical statements, hypothesise and speculate isn't your doings either, its just an observation you have of a thinking process. You're essentially watching a movie, you're an observer.Quote:
It's practical advantages are plain to see. It gives us the ability to think about one's self in the third person. To postulate about what is not, but what might be. To hypothesise and speculate. Self-awareness gives us the possibility of predicting when a particular course of action might be a mistake or lead us into an undesireable situation.
Point is whether you think you are not, makes no difference, I'm not selfaware, read the above explanation, its better because its logically consistent.
Well maybe we agree on something then, but my brain is definitely just part of my observations, and all my observations are just that, the results of a turing machine.Quote:
It's funny you say that because this is a realist interpretation of our world. At least I've heard this theory advocated by David Deustch, a self-proclaimed realist (also heavilly influenced by Popper).
btw look, Wally and I are agreeing again :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
memories are observations too Simon :)
Wally
so everything we do is just to preserve ourselves? Could we possibly be doing something else as well?Quote:
Our purpose is survival. Is and always has been. We are running self-preservation 'programmes'
if your memory is part of your observations, what about the operative system itself, is it static and unchangable?Quote:
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.
If you haven't had your instincts to act on, your brain to act as an OS would you still be thinking ?
On the other hand, you don't need to think for your body to function.
Keda:
Then why are you discussing whether there is an objective reality? Does it have any practical implications?Quote:
To me. If there is a statement X, that have no practical implications, then it doesn't make any difference if X was true or false, because I by definition don't give a **** about it.
it doesn't, but explain that to simon.Quote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
Keda:
Then why are you discussing whether there is an objective reality? Does it have any practical implications?
Kedaman
The bit that I have emboldened is the bit that I am having problems with. Gramatically, it does not make sense. Could you rephrase it please?Quote:
A statement that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction, is a contigency, in this case something like "height(house)=10 metres" depending what house you apply it on it could be true or false, but you can't prove it false or true because of observations, that cannot be taken for arbitrary axioms.
Is your only problem with the notion of an "objective reality" the fact that we cannot prove (or disprove) any statements we make about it beyond all doubt? Because we cannot be absolutely sure about it, we should reject it altogether?Quote:
Proof has to be done trough deduction to arbitrary axioms. The question arises, "Who says something is a valid axiom?", and the instrumentalist holds the answer: You. You decide what you want to do. You needs define what is relevant information, logic just offers solution to your problems by giving you the relevant information.
An answer to a question. Something which makes the question redundant. Or that renders it irrelevant.Quote:
What is a solution to a problem?
When you refer to Russel's paradox, you refer to the "set of all sets" that could not exist because it would have to contain itself?Quote:
If there's a clear defintion for P1(X)="I'm aware of X" then what is P2= "I'm aware" ? I assumed that you meant everything that you are aware of. So that you have basically "I'm aware that i'm aware of everything that i'm aware of." This is illogical to me, because that would be something you weren't aware of, Russel's paradox.
You reject that we can be self-aware (which would entail being aware of everything we are aware of, plus being aware of that, and that...and so on. It is infinitely recurrsive and you reject it because it is illogical but perhaps, just perhaps, that is what being self-aware is all about. Perhaps we are fundamentally illogical creatures cabable of bridging illogical gaps with intuitive leaps?
But perhaps the self is a self defined thing? We are what we see ourselves as. There is a self because we define it with out own beliefs. It becomes true because we believe it to be so.Quote:
Ah finally something Ok, you argue that you can think of yourself as a third person. I think this is the mere illusion of you seeing a "self", sort of looking into a mirror seeing someone else, in fact you can't know if what you are looking at is a mirror reflecting yourself, or just a motion picture.
Because you insist that we must be logical beings, I claim that it is you who are confining yourself to see things in a particular manner.Quote:
Point is whether you think you are not, makes no difference, I'm not selfaware, read the above explanation, its better because its logically consistent.
Simon
Right... I'm just going to wait here til you come to your senses, you're rejecting my theory by holding your contradiction as an axiom, how can I debate with someone that advocates incosistency?
Kedaman
It is not a contradiction. And I'm certainly not holding it as an axiom. I'm not claiming that it is the case, merely postulating that it might be so.Quote:
Right... I'm just going to wait here til you come to your senses, you're rejecting my theory by holding your contradiction as an axiom, how can I debate with someone that advocates incosistency?
Your "logic" leads you to a conclusion that is self-evidently false. Perhaps you should stop to consider whether your logic has failed you? If you weren't so convinced of your own belief, you might open yourself to that possibility.
This is going nowhere...
Its as exciting as a verbal, Intellectual and Philosophical version of a Boxing Match!
BTW, Fiver on Simonm!
;)
Switch the channel Marge ! :)
its a paradox, you said it yourself that youre "illogical", its not a question of selfevidence, its a question of consistency. How come something incosistent is possible?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
It is not a contradiction. And I'm certainly not holding it as an axiom. I'm not claiming that it is the case, merely postulating that it might be so.
Your "logic" leads you to a conclusion that is self-evidently false. Perhaps you should stop to consider whether your logic has failed you? If you weren't so convinced of your own belief, you might open yourself to that possibility.
...when the boxers are behind a curtain and you only see silhouettes.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Its as exciting as a verbal, Intellectual and Philosophical version of a Boxing Match!
;)
Kedaman
I did not claim that my reasoning is illogical, only that you cannot understand consciousness with logic. That the mechanisms in the brain that entail self-awareness are not logical in nature.Quote:
its a paradox, you said it yourself that youre "illogical", its not a question of selfevidence, its a question of consistency. How come something incosistent is possible?
Afterall, logic is something we have constructed, defined ourselves. Now we are trying to impose that logic on ourselves whether or not it is justified. All I am saying (and others like Roger Penrose) is that perhaps consciousness is not a turing machine...it is not computable and therefore illogical.
To be honest, I don't really know. Unlike you, I don't already know the answer. I am open to pursuasion either way and am, as yet, unconvinced by what you are trying to pursuade me of.
For someone who claims not to have any beliefs, you seem to make some claims (about the nature of reality and consiousness) with religous fervor.
Simon
Anything that has no practical implication is not understandable, whether its true or not doesn't affect anything. These concepts should be rejected first when applying Occam's razor because they are not answers to any questions.
If self-awareness has any practical implications then its understandable, because logical implications can be used as arbitrary axioms, these are also answers to questions.
The illogical in your reasoning is, that you use a statement that has no practical implications as an argument to reject my theory.
But something that has no practical implications is not related to any issue, neither in my theory or any other.
You say that logic is something we have constructed, I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
We can agree on that, because consciousness has no practical implications, its a mere set, a set is not a statement. However a set can be used in a statement, and this is is explained in my theory, while not explained in reality theory.Quote:
All I am saying (and others like Roger Penrose) is that perhaps consciousness is not a turing machine
Kedaman
I agree with this to an extent. But perhaps some problems are not practical in nature? Maybe the answer to these sort of problems have no practical implication?Quote:
Anything that has no practical implication is not understandable, whether its true or not doesn't affect anything. These concepts should be rejected first when applying Occam's razor because they are not answers to any questions.
Perhaps, but doesn't this line of reasoning rest on the presumption that everything is a turing machine? Maybe some things have practical implications that are not computable?Quote:
If self-awareness has any practical implications then its understandable, because logical implications can be used as arbitrary axioms, these are also answers to questions.
I do not reject your theory, I just don't yet understand it or it's alledged benefits.Quote:
The illogical in your reasoning is, that you use a statement that has no practical implications as an argument to reject my theory.
But something that has no practical implications is not related to any issue, neither in my theory or any other.
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. I don't think we can observe logic attall. It is a tool we use to bring order to our observations.Quote:
You say that logic is something we have constructed, I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
Please remind me how your theory explains consciousness.Quote:
We can agree on that, because consciousness has no practical implications, its a mere set, a set is not a statement. However a set can be used in a statement, and this is is explained in my theory, while not explained in reality theory.
Simon
A problem to me always has practical implications. Something that has no practical implications, can't cause any trouble. It can't cause anything at all. It has no meaning whatsoever.Quote:
I agree with this to an extent. But perhaps some problems are not practical in nature? Maybe the answer to these sort of problems have no practical implication?
Well presumably if you have something that is not a turing machine, then there is definitely no way to measure it, and thus whether it existed or not it wouldn't change a thing.Quote:
Perhaps, but doesn't this line of reasoning rest on the presumption that everything is a turing machine?
Isn't consistency a benefit?Quote:
I do not reject your theory, I just don't yet understand it or it's alledged benefits.
Logic is observable as much as cats and gravity, they're all concepts. Simple way you can observe a non-contradiction is whenever you do an observation, you ask if not also the opposite happens, and voila, you have observed non-contradiction.Quote:
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. I don't think we can observe logic attall. It is a tool we use to bring order to our observations.
Consciousness is an observer, and cannot be observed. However the information defining what you are being aware of is part of your subconscious, simply because its not being observed. This information does not exist in a reality, but it does exist in my theory.Quote:
Please remind me how your theory explains consciousness.
Kedaman
I'm not sure of your logic here. I mean, the behaviour of a quantum parical is not computable by a Turing machine and yet we can make observations.Quote:
Well presumably if you have something that is not a turing machine, then there is definitely no way to measure it, and thus whether it existed or not it wouldn't change a thing.
We do not observe gravity. We might observe an object falling to the floor but that is not an observation of an invisible force causing the object to move. Nor is it an observation of space/time curvature. Gravity is a generalised theory that we use to explain and predict the motion of objects. It is a rule or law that we have constructed in order to simplify the nature of our observations. The same goes for logic.Quote:
Logic is observable as much as cats and gravity, they're all concepts. Simple way you can observe a non-contradiction is whenever you do an observation, you ask if not also the opposite happens, and voila, you have observed non-contradiction.
Is it not possible that there is a reality and that we have a subconscious? They're not mutually exclusive are they?Quote:
Consciousness is an observer, and cannot be observed. However the information defining what you are being aware of is part of your subconscious, simply because its not being observed. This information does not exist in a reality, but it does exist in my theory.
Simon
The behavour of a quantum particle is not defined, only the probability of the result, which is surprisingly a turing machine. I don't think information can appear from nothing as much as you don't think energy can appear from nothing, but this is because it would break information flow, not because of a belief. I'm motivated to think everything is consistent.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I'm not sure of your logic here. I mean, the behaviour of a quantum parical is not computable by a Turing machine and yet we can make observations.
I suppose you could say that for the cat as well, the cat is generalised as several instances would fall into the category, you mentioned floor, how can you observe a floor when you just observe the photons reflected from a surface? Isn't there a theory behind it describing the behavour of photons? If all your senses transmit information to your brain by electric impulses, wouldn't you have to define a theory regarding the behavour of your nerve and neurotic systems first? I have to ask you if there is anything that you could possibly call observation, if it wasn't theoretical? To be more specific, if something wasn't theoretical could you be able to understand it?Quote:
We do not observe gravity. We might observe an object falling to the floor but that is not an observation of an invisible force causing the object to move. Nor is it an observation of space/time curvature. Gravity is a generalised theory that we use to explain and predict the motion of objects. It is a rule or law that we have constructed in order to simplify the nature of our observations. The same goes for logic.
not based on our observations. You could argue to be a solipsist though.Quote:
Is it not possible that there is a reality and that we have a subconscious? They're not mutually exclusive are they?
you've lost me now ...
Wally
want me to explain something?
btw, I asked you a while ago, if we were operative systems, our program would be static, correct?
Kedaman
OK, the probability of the results may be computable but there's no getting away from the fact that the results themselves are not computable.Quote:
The behavour of a quantum particle is not defined, only the probability of the result, which is surprisingly a turing machine. I don't think information can appear from nothing as much as you don't think energy can appear from nothing, but this is because it would break information flow, not because of a belief. I'm motivated to think everything is consistent.
Well, I can make observations without having a theory at how I can make observations.Quote:
I suppose you could say that for the cat as well, the cat is generalised as several instances would fall into the category, you mentioned floor, how can you observe a floor when you just observe the photons reflected from a surface? Isn't there a theory behind it describing the behavour of photons? If all your senses transmit information to your brain by electric impulses, wouldn't you have to define a theory regarding the behavour of your nerve and neurotic systems first? I have to ask you if there is anything that you could possibly call observation, if it wasn't theoretical? To be more specific, if something wasn't theoretical could you be able to understand it?
You're point about the cat being a generalised concept is valid but there is still a difference between the concept of cat and the concept of gravity. I can observe an object which I catogorise as a "cat" but I cannot observe an object which is categorised as "gravity". In other words, I can observe a singular instance of a cat but not gravity.
So, yes, all concepts are unobservable but some concepts are more abstract than others. The concept of "cat" is a definition by which I can identify particular objects. The concept of "gravity" is a definition of rules by which I can use to explain observed behaviour.
Simon
There's no, there's no getting away, you said it yourself that QM is just a theory, it doesn't answer all questions, just some.Quote:
OK, the probability of the results may be computable but there's no getting away from the fact that the results themselves are not computable.
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)Quote:
Well, I can make observations without having a theory at how I can make observations.
Well maybe the analogy wasn't correct. But you do observe that objects accelerate correct? This you could call gravitational acceleration, because it fits into the category describing gravity, the same way an animal fits the category of a cat, My question was, as you can use this analogy and trace everything backwards, you will strip out all information that was observed and be left emptyhanded, what do you actually observe?Quote:
You're point about the cat being a generalised concept is valid but there is still a difference between the concept of cat and the concept of gravity. I can observe an object which I catogorise as a "cat" but I cannot observe an object which is categorised as "gravity". In other words, I can observe a singular instance of a cat but not gravity.
This reminds me of inheritance in java, if you backtrack to the superclass of them all you end up with Object, but this has no data nor functions whatsoever (this is also what i mean with no practical implications), what is the point in saying you observe an object rather than saying you observe a cat?
Is 'expandable' 'static' in your opinion ?Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Wally
want me to explain something?
btw, I asked you a while ago, if we were operative systems, our program would be static, correct?
Kedaman
Whether or not I can explain how I make observations is neither here nor there with regards to the fact that I do.Quote:
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)
A baby makes observations but cannot explain anything. It doesn't mean that it doesn't.
It may be an interesting question, to consider the nature of observations themselves, but it doesn't change the fact that I make observations. I am conscious and yet cannot explain consciousness.
I sincerely believe that you are trapping yourself to think within the confines of formal logic. WE ARE NOT MACHINES. You are not constrained in that way.
Simon
The question was what, not how. If you don't know what you're doing then how do you know you're doing it?Quote:
Whether or not I can explain how I make observations is neither here nor there with regards to the fact that I do.
I didn't say we're machines, I'm only saying that your observations are, conforming to logic, otherways you wouldn't be able to observe it in the first place.Quote:
I sincerely believe that you are trapping yourself to think within the confines of formal logic. WE ARE NOT MACHINES. You are not constrained in that way.
Kedaman
It is axiomatic? What more do you want me to say about it? I cannot define observation in terms of anything else, nor would it be meaningful if I did.Quote:
The question was what, not how. If you don't know what you're doing then how do you know you're doing it?
Well, as I have said, I don't think we observe logic. Logic is a way of thinking about things, not a thing that you observe.Quote:
I didn't say we're machines, I'm only saying that your observations are, conforming to logic, otherways you wouldn't be able to observe it in the first place.
Previously you said:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Simon
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)
.... what is the point in saying you observe an object rather than saying you observe a cat?
Therefore, you recognize in yourself the capability and occurance of making observations, and yet it seems like you question Simonm's capability of himself makeing observations, at least its implied by your request to have Siminm explain to you what he means when he says "make observations"Quote:
I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
This seems to be inconsistant.
If you recognize Simonm's existence to be as valid as your own, and if you recognize the validity of your capability to make observations, to be consistent, shouldn't you also recognize the validity of Simonm's own capability of making observations?
-Just wondering
-Lou
:)
Simon
No, true statements are either axiomatic or proved theorems, I didn't ask if we observe or not, I asked what observation is. Clearly you can't use that word without a proper definition.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
It is axiomatic? What more do you want me to say about it? I cannot define observation in terms of anything else, nor would it be meaningful if I did.
Thoughts are observations, in fact there's no way to distinguish thoughts from anything else(the solipsists solid argument), so we'll just call them all observations.Quote:
Well, as I have said, I don't think we observe logic. Logic is a way of thinking about things, not a thing that you observe. [/B]
NotLKH
Perhaps You as a third party observer could define what an observation is for us?Quote:
Therefore, you recognize in yourself the capability and occurance of making observations, and yet it seems like you question Simonm's capability of himself makeing observations, at least its implied by your request to have Siminm explain to you what he means when he says "make observations"
This seems to be inconsistant.
To me observation is the perception of information. To Simon it is still unclear, but he still insists that he is getting them. My attempt was to make it clear to him that we wont get anywhere without clear definitions.
Kedaman
Notice I inserted the word "analytical" into the above sentence to make it valid. However, not all statements are analytical in nature.Quote:
No, true analytical statements are either axiomatic or proved theorems...
That you substitute one undefined word for another does not leave us with a "clear definition".Quote:
I didn't ask if we observe or not, I asked what observation is. Clearly you can't use that word without a proper definition.
No, To me, an observation is data sensed from a source external to our own perception.Quote:
Thoughts are observations, in fact there's no way to distinguish thoughts from anything else(the solipsists solid argument), so we'll just call them all observations.
The extent to which our perception is influenced by external data (if attall) has always been a long standing philosophical problem.
That our perception is indeed an internally created picture of (our) reality, I would not argue with. That our thoughts are snapshots of our internal world, I would not argue with either.
However, some thoughts are more lucid than others. Some come upon us at will and others are thrust upon us whether we like it or not. It is those most lucid thoughts, those that demand our attention that I attibute to being of reality.
Simon
A definition assigns meaning to a word, this is done by declaring its practical implications.Quote:
That you substitute one undefined word for another does not leave us with a "clear definition".
If a statement wasn't analytical, you can't derive meaning from it, and thus the statement is meaningless, you don't call these statements, you call them phrases. Phrases that have meaning are called statements though.Quote:
Notice I inserted the word "analytical" into the above sentence to make it valid. However, not all statements are analytical in nature.
What do you mean by external to our own perception? I'm not sure where we are in disagreement now, Thoughts are percepted, otherways we wouldn't be aware of them, correct?Quote:
No, To me, an observation is data sensed from a source external to our own perception.
What is this internal versus external business? How do you distinguish internal from external reality?Quote:
That our perception is indeed an internally created picture of (our) reality, I would not argue with. That our thoughts are snapshots of our internal world, I would not argue with either.
Your will is an observation, I think if there's anything you'd probably confuse for self-awareness then it must be will, however it could be argued that you just sense that will, and think of it as your own, when in fact its just something you observe.Quote:
Some come upon us at will and others are thrust upon us whether we like it or not.
Kedaman
Substituting one word or phrase with another does not explore it's practical implications.Quote:
A definition assigns meaning to a word, this is done by declaring its practical implications.
Some would argue that you explore the meaning of a word by looking at how it is used rather than by providing a generalised definition. Look at examples in which it is used to glean an understanding of it's meaning.
Since you make no distinction between observations gained from the external world and observations gained from the internal world, you would naturally be incapable of grasping the distinction between analytical and synthetic statements.Quote:
If a statement wasn't analytical, you can't derive meaning from it, and thus the statement is meaningless, you don't call these statements, you call them phrases. Phrases that have meaning are called statements though.
Since you are operating on the Solipsist premise, you believe that we are not qualified to speak about anything other than our own perception, it is no suprise that you dismiss all other kinds of statements as meaningless.
Thoughts are snapshots of our perception, yes, but they are observations when they are fueled by sensual data.Quote:
What do you mean by external to our own perception? I'm not sure where we are in disagreement now, Thoughts are percepted, otherways we wouldn't be aware of them, correct?
As I went on to explain, it is both the lucidity of our mental image and the control we have over it that is indicitive of an external "reality".Quote:
What is this internal versus external business? How do you distinguish internal from external reality?
You can argue that free-will is an illusion (and you may be right) but you cannot deny that there is (at the very least an illusion of) a distinction between thoughts that we control and those that we don't. Whether or not it is an illusion is not relevent to the point I am making.Quote:
Your will is an observation, I think if there's anything you'd probably confuse for self-awareness then it must be will, however it could be argued that you just sense that will, and think of it as your own, when in fact its just something you observe.
my turn now, as you can see you wont have meaning unless you put it there in the first place, and logic is a way to express meaning - practical implications.Quote:
Substituting one undefined word or phrase with another does not explore it's practical implications.
Those are practical implications, btw a generalised defintion is equal to all the examples - Axiom Extensionality.Quote:
Some would argue that you explore the meaning of a word by looking at how it is used rather than by providing a generalised definition. Look at examples in which it is used to glean an understanding of it's meaning.
My point exactly, reason why I asked you of an explicit observable distinction.Quote:
Since you make no distinction between observations gained from the external world and observations gained from the internal world, you would naturally be incapable of grasping the distinction between analytical and synthetic statements.
By sensual data you talk about your biological senses?Quote:
Thoughts are snapshots of our perception, yes, but they are observations when they are fueled by sensual data.
Btw what is Lucidity?
free-will is not an illusion, its an observation, whether its your own or not is not the question, its that you are aware of it. The only distinction I can see that has any practical difference is when things that i wasn't aware of become clear to me, even if only vaguely, there is information transmitted into your awareness, extending your consciousness, similarly when things slip back into your subconscious you lose the concept of it.Quote:
You can argue that free-will is an illusion (and you may be right) but you cannot deny that there is (at the very least an illusion of) a distinction between thoughts that we control and those that we don't. Whether or not it is an illusion is not relevent to the point I am making.
Kedaman
I understand what you're saying here. That a generalised concept is equal to all the infinite possible instances of it, however, that does not apply to language. No two words are exactly alike or always used in an identical fashion.Quote:
Those are practical implications, btw a generalised defintion is equal to all the examples - Axiom Extensionality.
The point I am making here is that it is more useful to uncover the meaning of a word to see examples of how it is used rather than attempt to substitute it with another word.
If you cannot assume I share your understanding of the word "observation", why should you assume that I share your understanding of the phrase "perceived information"?
Yes.Quote:
By sensual data you talk about your biological senses?
I mean vividity. My experiences in a dream are not as vivid as when I am awake. They are of a greater intensity.Quote:
Btw what is Lucidity?
It is critically important to the notion of free-will whether or not we are in control or merely passively observing (with the false impression that we are in control).Quote:
free-will is not an illusion, its an observation, whether its your own or not is not the question, its that you are aware of it.
Do you regard that as an entirely passive affair? Do you not make any distinction between that which is familiar to you and that which you have not seen before?Quote:
The only distinction I can see that has any practical difference is when things that i wasn't aware of become clear to me, even if only vaguely, there is information transmitted into your awareness, extending your consciousness, similarly when things slip back into your subconscious you lose the concept of it.
When I close my eyes, I can form vague images in my mind which I have complete control over. When I open my eyes, I have extremely vivid images that unfold before me and which I have no control over. I can interact with it, but not control it.
Isn't this a distinction that has practical implications?
simon
ok, I get your point. But as we are talking about languages, all languages are derived from lamda calculus. The word substitution doesn't describe the flow of information in natural languages quite well agreed, but thats not the point in lamda calculus either, the process of reduction is merely a computational tool, and in natural languages we seek for meaning which is largely dependent on the context in scope ranging from the current sentence to the whole discussion. The diversification of meaning using the same word is in programming languages called ad-hoc polymorphism, in mathematical languages its avoided at all costs, because ad-hoc polymorphism makes a language if not vague and ambigous then unnessesarily complex.Quote:
I understand what you're saying here. That a generalised concept is equal to all the infinite possible instances of it, however, that does not apply to language. No two words are exactly alike or always used in an identical fashion.
The point I am making here is that it is more useful to uncover the meaning of a word to see examples of how it is used rather than attempt to substitute it with another word.
Even though we'll get around this by just being descriptive enough, wont we?
How so? I don't feel any difference, assuming either is true. Both theories are equally explanative for the same phenomenon but being a pure observer is more mathematically correct (Occam's razor), which is why I adopt it. Your definition of relying on biological matter is restrictive, we both know that we're more than mere lifeforms.Quote:
It is critically important to the notion of free-will whether or not we are in control or merely passively observing (with the false impression that we are in control).
My memories, even though they are observations are naturally closer to me than most information, even though many of my memories are lost in my subconscious, because I don't need to keep track of them. However other than that they're information as much as anything else.Quote:
Do you not make any distinction between that which is familiar to you and that which you have not seen before?
Wheter or not we're merely watching a movie or not seems critical to you as an issue of restriction. Ask yourself what exactly is control? If it was essential to your consciousness, then what is it? The actions you take, the control you have over your thoughts, what is this power over information? You know your brain is a logical circuitry and you know your thoughts follow something you want to call your own intelligence, the more intelligent you are the more sense you can derive from your environment, and make intelligent decisions. This is the information, that is closest to you, that you are aware of most of the time, maybe less when you're sleeping but when you're awake these are the main information highways to your awareness empire, without these you'd have very limited vision and control (and control here is the ability to expand or withdraw your awareness.) By observing control (the circuitry that processes information) you naturally get the feeling of lucidity as these link most of your awareness empire together as well as guard your awareness perimeters from your subconscious.Quote:
Do you regard that as an entirely passive affair?
Your eyes are one of your biological senses, and biology is the gateway to a world in your subconscious where you lack control, but seek to expand, you can experience control even outside your bilogical senses, for instance social power and control over mechanisms like your car, your computer etc.. that expand your senses as well. But often the world seems out of your hands, things act their way not your way, and some things like gravity, are so deep in your subconscious that there is no way of digging them up without digging the rest of the world up from there.Quote:
When I close my eyes, I can form vague images in my mind which I have complete control over. When I open my eyes, I have extremely vivid images that unfold before me and which I have no control over. I can interact with it, but not control it.
Isn't this a distinction that has practical implications?
Kedaman
I don't agree with that. Natural language preceeded lamda calculus. I doubt that natural language is anywhere near as logical and structured as lamda calculus is either.Quote:
ok, I get your point. But as we are talking about languages, all languages are derived from lamda calculus.
This goes deep into the question of how we actually aquire knowledge. How do we come to understand concepts? I don't think that anybody really knows.Quote:
The word substitution doesn't describe the flow of information in natural languages quite well agreed, but thats not the point in lamda calculus either, the process of reduction is merely a computational tool, and in natural languages we seek for meaning which is largely dependent on the context in scope ranging from the current sentence to the whole discussion. The diversification of meaning using the same word is in programming languages called ad-hoc polymorphism, in mathematical languages its avoided at all costs, because ad-hoc polymorphism makes a language if not vague and ambigous then unnessesarily complex.
I guess we have no choice...Quote:
Even though we'll get around this by just being descriptive enough, wont we?
I disagree. By Occam's razor, we would eliminate the theory of illusion because there isn't any reason to believe that it is an illusion.Quote:
How so? I don't feel any difference, assuming either is true. Both theories are equally explanative for the same phenomenon but being a pure observer is more mathematically correct (Occam's razor), which is why I adopt it. Your definition of relying on biological matter is restrictive, we both know that we're more than mere lifeforms.Quote:
It is critically important to the notion of free-will whether or not we are in control or merely passively observing (with the false impression that we are in control).
Since you agree that the possibility of our free will being an illusion equally as explanatory as it not being an illusion, we would eliminate the theory that it is an illusion as that contains the additional complexity of why we have that illusion attall.
But what about new information? Information that you have never perceived before. When that enters your awareness, could that not to be said to come from an external source (i.e. an external reality)?Quote:
My memories, even though they are observations are naturally closer to me than most information, even though many of my memories are lost in my subconscious, because I don't need to keep track of them. However other than that they're information as much as anything else.
Ah, but it's more than that. It's the ability to determine how I interact with my perceived information.Quote:
...control here is the ability to expand or withdraw your awareness.
I don't understand why observing the control (information processing) centres in my mind should empower me with the sensation of being in control if I am not.Quote:
By observing control (the circuitry that processes information) you naturally get the feeling of lucidity as these link most of your awareness empire together as well as guard your awareness perimeters from your subconscious.
Besides, the vividity of my experiences and my sensation of being in control of my thoughts are two different entities and not to be confused.
Simon
What are you saying? Lamda calculus is a tool to represent any language, its not just a tool to verify grammar, but can be used to derive meaning and perform any computation, just like you do. Lamda calculus is agreed, not an observer, its a processor, its the ultimate tool for computation as well as expression of information, its proven that all natural languages are subsets of lamda calculus.Quote:
I don't agree with that. Natural language preceeded lamda calculus. I doubt that natural language is anywhere near as logical and structured as lamda calculus is either.
Is that of any importance? My theory of information explains at least what and why, the how part is just to extend control, the process of computation, which has only one function: to work. In any practical issue you end up with the question what anyway.Quote:
This goes deep into the question of how we actually aquire knowledge. How do we come to understand concepts? I don't think that anybody really knows.
I didn't say free-will is an illusion, in thats a word that doesn't exist in my theory, its a word only for realists. If you want to eliminate something because of illusions then eliminate the theory of reality.Quote:
I disagree. By Occam's razor, we would eliminate the theory of illusion because there isn't any reason to believe that it is an illusion.
Since you agree that the possibility of our free will being an illusion equally as explanatory as it not being an illusion, we would eliminate the theory that it is an illusion as that contains the additional complexity of why we have that illusion attall.
You argue that we should use our biological senses as physical limits to what is observable or not, I think this is way too restrictive, You do know that there are mechancial arms for patients that have lost them that transmit sensory information to your nerv system? I don't see how mechanical eyes would be impossible. The question should arise to you that where exactly could you cut the information stream and inhibit it with other data without making any difference to your conscious self. If you cannot answer this then your theory isn't explanatory enough, because mine does. My definition for observation is more generic and can be used in context that aren't dependent on biology.
Btw do you know why math is purely abstract? Yes, its to reduce complexity.
It is said to be from an external reality, it does however not make any difference, our subconscious is more generic and explanatory and if as you say that information can escape reality and enter your consciousness then that reality will naturally be a subset of your subconscious.Quote:
But what about new information? Information that you have never perceived before. When that enters your awareness, could that not to be said to come from an external source (i.e. an external reality)?
As said, all your interactions are mere observations. I've also explained why they are so close to you, they do determine how to handle information perceieved from for instance your biological senses.Quote:
Ah, but it's more than that. It's the ability to determine how I interact with my perceived information.
Being aware of the process, is experiencing control over it. Again this is the definition of consciousness, nobody could explain why you observe, just what you do.Quote:
I don't understand why observing the control (information processing) centres in my mind should empower me with the sensation of being in control if I am not.
I'm not confusing the vividity of your experiences with your sensations of being in control of your thought. Your experiences are mere sensory information, while your sense of control derives from processing that information, they're both very closely linked though as one trigger the other.Quote:
Besides, the vividity of my experiences and my sensation of being in control of my thoughts are two different entities and not to be confused.
Kedaman
Perhaps you could provide a link to more information on the subject because I'm not convinced. I need more than your say so that all natural languages are a subset of lamda calculus. As far as I was aware, all attempts to reduce natural language to formal logic had failed miserably.Quote:
What are you saying? Lamda calculus is a tool to represent any language, its not just a tool to verify grammar, but can be used to derive meaning and perform any computation, just like you do. Lamda calculus is agreed, not an observer, its a processor, its the ultimate tool for computation as well as expression of information, its proven that all natural languages are subsets of lamda calculus.
It is of importance to those who study epistimology. There is no logical basis to explain how we gain understanding of concepts. Somehow we do.Quote:
Is that of any importance? My theory of information explains at least what and why, the how part is just to extend control, the process of computation, which has only one function: to work. In any practical issue you end up with the question what anyway.
If we have the sensation of control and yet do not, it is an illusion. What else would you call it?Quote:
I didn't say free-will is an illusion, in thats a word that doesn't exist in my theory, its a word only for realists. If you want to eliminate something because of illusions then eliminate the theory of reality.
I wouldn't argue that attall. I cannot observe light at infrared wavelengths but I can build a machine (well, not me personally) to sense them so I know they exist. They are observable even though not by my own biological senses.Quote:
You argue that we should use our biological senses as physical limits to what is observable or not, I think this is way too restrictive...
Your theory encapsulates all without actually explaining anything, in my opinion.Quote:
The question should arise to you that where exactly could you cut the information stream and inhibit it with other data without making any difference to your conscious self. If you cannot answer this then your theory isn't explanatory enough, because mine does. My definition for observation is more generic and can be used in context that aren't dependent on biology.
No I cannot explain the mystery of consciousness but neither does your theory (as far as I can see).
I don't think information "escapes reality by entering our consciousness" attall. I think an external reality leaves impressions on our perception.Quote:
It is said to be from an external reality, it does however not make any difference, our subconscious is more generic and explanatory and if as you say that information can escape reality and enter your consciousness then that reality will naturally be a subset of your subconscious.
If you believe that conjuring up this mystical black box that you call our "subconsciousness" solves anything, then I fail to see why. Perhaps it's more generic, but it doesn't demystify anything.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced of this. I am aware of many different processes but I am not labouring under the impression that I am in control over it.Quote:
Being aware of the process, is experiencing control over it. Again this is the definition of consciousness, nobody could explain why you observe, just what you do.
Simon
I didn't say it has been done, but Its theoretically possible, in practice natural languages are way too complex and destandardised for this task to be easy. I will try to look up a reference saying that. If not I'll try to find one that says lamda calculus is capable of of everything a turing machine is.Quote:
Perhaps you could provide a link to more information on the subject because I'm not convinced. I need more than your say so that all natural languages are a subset of lamda calculus. As far as I was aware, all attempts to reduce natural language to formal logic had failed miserably.
I think the question is similar to why we observe at all, why are we conscious? There's no need to answer such question imo. I'm always willing to hear your reasoning.Quote:
It is of importance to those who study epistimology. There is no logical basis to explain how we gain understanding of concepts. Somehow we do.
Control, information processing, being conscious about it is to be in control, not an illusion of having it. You are contradicting yourself here.Quote:
If we have the sensation of control and yet do not, it is an illusion. What else would you call it?
Here's something else I don't understand. If I can encapsulate everything, then I can also explain everything.Quote:
Your theory encapsulates all without actually explaining anything, in my opinion.
Consciousness is a set of information that you are aware of. The answer to the question is that you can cut it everywhere, there is no internal "secure" area where information is guaranteed to be "known", if you know what i mean.Quote:
No I cannot explain the mystery of consciousness but neither does your theory (as far as I can see).
That sounds like the same thing to me, if reality leaves impression on your perception then surely the information is transmitted from reality to you?Quote:
I don't think information "escapes reality by entering our consciousness" attall. I think an external reality leaves impressions on our perception.
It definitely demystifies everything that at least I can think of is mystic.Quote:
If you believe that conjuring up this mystical black box that you call our "subconsciousness" solves anything, then I fail to see why. Perhaps it's more generic, but it doesn't demystify anything.
Mention any process you think you are aware of.Quote:
Sorry, but I'm not convinced of this. I am aware of many different processes but I am not labouring under the impression that I am in control over it.
You've entered ... the Twilight zone *tumdidumdidum*
Kedaman
The bit that is processing information is not the bit that is doing the observing, is it? If so, that is selfawareness.Quote:
Control, information processing, being conscious about it is to be in control, not an illusion of having it. You are contradicting yourself here.
In order to achieve a theory that is consistant with all your observations and free of any doubt, you have retracted as many assertions as possible. You only retain the assertions that you can hold with certainty but you are saying less.Quote:
Here's something else I don't understand. If I can encapsulate everything, then I can also explain everything.
If the "set of information" is empty, is it still consciousness? What is it that has become aware? The information itself? If not, what?Quote:
Consciousness is a set of information that you are aware of.
Information doesn't leave reality. It doesn't transmit anywhere.Quote:
That sounds like the same thing to me, if reality leaves impression on your perception then surely the information is transmitted from reality to you?
Anything you care to name. Every object that moves before my eyes is a process. I am aware of it but I do not feel in control.Quote:
Mention any process you think you are aware of.
Simon
Well here's misconception #1. I have said before objects obrain their movement vector til an external net force alter its course. This is an example of why you can't be aware of a process, you only observed its results, and believe that there is a mechanism behind it, in this example there was none. In any example it could be anything. A process that you are aware of is for instance thinking, or ordering pizza, or post in this thread, because in all those you sense control, you are aware of each step in the process, not just the result. Eating, walking and breathing are for processes that you can be both aware of and not, when you walk you're usually not concentrating on how exactly your leg muscles should be moved, this process is automated, in other word sent back into your subconscious, but whenever you feel like doing something else with your legs, you gain control over them again. Before you were just aware of the results: you were going forward. But now you can move your legs the way you want, you become conscious over the process. Say an object is moving before your eyes, you could stop it from doing that by putting your hand in the way, this is a conscious process. A reflex is not a conscious process, its done without your attention. You don't observe it before its done, say you touch something that burns, and move away your hand, still you observe the result. Your heartbeat is totally automated, you can't control your heart muscles, even though they're part of your biological self, this process is much deeper into your subcoscious.Quote:
Every object that moves before my eyes is a process.
That's true, yet I argue that this is all the answers you need. Let's compare my strategy with the realists. The realist push forward a line of theories that is possibly true and leave the falsified ones behind. Yet I have a an argument that falsfies all their theories. This strategy is meaningless. My strategy however concentrates on giving answers to the questions concerning your needs, in the end you wont ask for something you don't need.Quote:
In order to achieve a theory that is consistant with all your observations and free of any doubt, you have retracted as many assertions as possible. You only retain the assertions that you can hold with certainty but you are saying less.
In math you have the empty set, and its still a set. If you call it consciousness, then it must be conscious of nothing. When you become aware of something it enters your consciousness.Quote:
If the "set of information" is empty, is it still consciousness? What is it that has become aware? The information itself? If not, what?
What I meant is, is the source of information your reality?Quote:
Information doesn't leave reality. It doesn't transmit anywhere.
Kedaman
OK...I see what you're saying here but I'm not sure I'm convinced...Quote:
Well here's misconception #1. I have said before objects obrain their movement vector til an external net force alter its course. This is an example of why you can't be aware of a process, you only observed its results, and believe that there is a mechanism behind it, in this example there was none. In any example it could be anything. A process that you are aware of is for instance thinking, or ordering pizza, or post in this thread, because in all those you sense control, you are aware of each step in the process, not just the result.
Am I trully aware of "each step in the process" when I move my leg? I am not really aware of the nerve impulse travelling down my leg and my muscles contracting in just the right way. All I really do is observe the results. What makes me feel in control of the action is that I was aware of my intention to move my leg before it happened.
You don't falsify scientific theories with arguments. You falsify them with empirical evidence.Quote:
That's true, yet I argue that this is all the answers you need. Let's compare my strategy with the realists. The realist push forward a line of theories that is possibly true and leave the falsified ones behind. Yet I have a an argument that falsfies all their theories.
You speak as if realists advocate meaningless theories. Theories that do not meet our needs. This is just false.Quote:
This strategy is meaningless. My strategy however concentrates on giving answers to the questions concerning your needs, in the end you wont ask for something you don't need.
OK, that answers the first part of my question. What about the next part? What is the it that is doing the observing?Quote:
In math you have the empty set, and its still a set. If you call it consciousness, then it must be conscious of nothing. When you become aware of something it enters your consciousness.
Yes.Quote:
What I meant is, is the source of information your reality?
Simon
Here's a couple of references btw:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square...ounphrase.html
As you well know, the turing machine is a finite state machine that generates one output per input, while a finite state machine can be used to recognize languages, a turing machine can be used to process languages, for instance translating them into other languages or derive mathematical or any meaning out of them.
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/Courses97-98/...mbdaNotes.html
Lamda calculus is equivalent in computing power to a Turing machine - thus it is possible to represent all languages in Lamda calculus. This is the approach Squirrel is deriving.
Most of the information supporting the process is deep inside your subconscious, I shouldn't have said "each step in the process" the actual difference is that when you are aware of a process your intention initialize the process, and thus have control over it, while you observe the result of process you are not aware of, you cannot be sure which process is behind it, only have a range of possible theories, these remain in your subconscious. You know the process ordering a pizza, even if it fails, its still a process you are aware of, when it fails though, you're not aware of the process behind the failure, even though you've observed that you've been left without pizza. Its fully possible to be aware of the whole process including all details, for instance the turing machine, and the lamda calculus.Quote:
OK...I see what you're saying here but I'm not sure I'm convinced...
Am I trully aware of "each step in the process" when I move my leg? I am not really aware of the nerve impulse travelling down my leg and my muscles contracting in just the right way. All I really do is observe the results. What makes me feel in control of the action is that I was aware of my intention to move my leg before it happened.
fine then, call it empirical evidence.Quote:
You don't falsify scientific theories with arguments. You falsify them with empirical evidence.
Why?Quote:
You speak as if realists advocate meaningless theories. Theories that do not meet our needs. This is just false.
I think i've answered this too. You do.Quote:
What is the it that is doing the observing?
I don't think information "escapes reality by entering our consciousness" attall. I think an external reality leaves impressions on our perception.Quote:
It is said to be from an external reality, it does however not make any difference, our subconscious is more generic and explanatory and if as you say that information can escape reality and enter your consciousness then that reality will naturally be a subset of your subconscious.
[/quote]
That was what I meant, sorry for the confusion.
Kedaman
Thanks for providing links to Lamda Calculus.
Whilst I do accept that a Lamda calculus is equivillent to a Turing machine, I am not convinced about it's capacity to fully encasulate human language (and thought).
Indeed, those (Such as Roger Penrose) argue that human thought (and therefore language) are not computable by turing machines:
For a more detailed looked at how Penrose uses Godel's incompleteness theorems to dispute the Turing/Church conjecture, see here: http://www.turing.org.uk/philosophy/lecture1.htmlQuote:
Penrose seems to suggest that human thinking is non algorithmic, and that a machine is not capable of human thought. He bases this on the fact that a Turing machine cannot predict when it will halt, but by insight a human can because we are
outside of the system.
I'm not saying that Penrose has proven Turing wrong, but the jury is still out on the matter.
Simon
I get a bad gateway DNS lookup error following that link, is it just me?
I don't think truth exist outside Boolean calculus. Boolean calculus is the theory about consistency, and all "truth"'s human can think of are arbitrary, or as you want to call it "empirical". If Penrose thinks there is a practical implication that would differ human thought from turing machines, then i'm certain he is wrong.
Nope, its not just you.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Simon
I get a bad gateway DNS lookup error following that link, is it just me?
I get it too.
Oops I seem to have strayed into Dorksville !
:D ;)
Hmmm...I don't know why the link isn't working for you two...it's ok for me? :confused: There's too much text to reproduce here so I won't bother.
Kedaman
Fair enough. That is what you believe. As I have already stated, I believe boolean calculus is a human construct that we have created with the intention of encapsulating truth. Whether or not it is sufficient, I don't know.Quote:
I don't think truth exist outside Boolean calculus. Boolean calculus is the theory about consistency...
Please don't confuse arbitary "truths" with empirical ones...you may not make a distinction but I do. "Empirical" is more than just my word for "Arbitary".Quote:
...and all "truth"'s human can think of are arbitrary, or as you want to call it "empirical".
Well, you wouldn't be alone in that sentiment. He has not yhet convinced the mainstream of the scientific comunity of his ideas but I have read books by scientists/mathematicians who are not yet convinced of his ideas but are keeping their minds open to the possibility that he might be right.Quote:
If Penrose thinks there is a practical implication that would differ human thought from turing machines, then i'm certain he is wrong.
One extract that I will produce from the link:
It is also worth noting that Turing, for most of his career, was convinced that there must exist part of the brain which is non-mechanisable:Quote:
This Turing thesis marks the essential point on which Penrose parts company from Turing. To summarise Penrose's views: Gödel's theorem tells us that we can see the truth of statements which cannot be proved by the application of a formal system of rules. Using Turing machines, this argument can be put in the form of showing minds able to perform uncomputable operations. Gödel also took this view of the mind's power, but unlike Gödel, Penrose insists on a materialist or physicalist base for mental faculties and deduces that there must be uncomputable elements in physical law which the brain exploits when it performs the uncomputable work of seeing the truth. Penrose locates these elements in the as yet unknown laws governing the reduction of the wave-function in quantum mechanics. Hence Penrose explicitly contradicts 'Turing's Thesis' in the form he has given.
Quote:
Turing's 1938 Princeton Ph.D. thesis, work conducted in close cooperation with Church, was entitled Systems of logic defined by ordinals, and published as (Turing 1939). Predominantly the work consisted of highly technical developments within mathematical logic. However the driving force lay in the question: what is the consequence of supplementing a formal system with uncomputable deductive steps? In pursuit of this question, Turing introduced the definition of an 'oracle' which can supply on demand the answer to the halting problem for every Turing machine. Turing gave his subject-matter an interpretation which described the mathematician's 'intuition' in theorem-proving, and Newman (1955) effectively identified the uncomputable 'oracle' with intuition. This was perhaps going too far since the 'oracle' is capable of far more than any human being; nevertheless Newman had a unique status as Turing's collaborator at this period and must reflect the tenor of Turing's discussions. In any case, Turing makes it clear that the 'intuition' being discussed is related to the human act of seeing the truth of a formally unprovable Gödel statement. To summarise, it is notable that Turing's 1938 work focussed on the same issue as Penrose now raises: the interpretation of uncomputable deductions.
Simon
Everything is a human construct, I'm not saying that I believe in anything, I'm defining truth in terms of boolean calculus, after all the truth is not an element itself, it has practical implications of everything consistent (have a look at the link to see how you encode true as a function in lamda calculus)Quote:
Fair enough. That is what you believe. As I have already stated, I believe boolean calculus is a human construct that we have created with the intention of encapsulating truth. Whether or not it is sufficient, I don't know.
There's only truths that are axiomatic, and those that can be derived from those axioms, whether you want to call the axioms empiricall or not is your decision, but I don't see any practical difference.Quote:
Please don't confuse arbitary "truths" with empirical ones...you may not make a distinction but I do. "Empirical" is more than just my word for "Arbitary".
The brain is just a tool, remember the question I asked you about your biological senses, what determines the certain interface towards your observations? At what stage is it possible to replace your sensory information with generated information? The answer is at any stage. There's no way you can say for sure that any information isn't generated, making the internal/external theory redudant. Thus its possible to replace the brain with a turing machine. It doesn't change anything.Quote:
It is also worth noting that Turing, for most of his career, was convinced that there must exist part of the brain which is non-mechanisable
Btw in your quotation from the page, "human intuition" I think Isaac Asimov defined it as the ability to draw conclusions with insufficient data. This just doesn't make sense, there's a logical explanation for this too, and that is that intuition isn't a direct deduction, its a long process that could be taking into account probabilities, feelings or exactly anything that feels right. Its not logical, its just nonsense that might work.
Kedaman
OK, I see what you're saying here. There is no external truth. Truth is whatever we define it to be. I don't agree with you but I hear what you're saying.Quote:
Everything is a human construct, I'm not saying that I believe in anything, I'm defining truth in terms of boolean calculus, after all the truth is not an element itself, it has practical implications of everything consistent (have a look at the link to see how you encode true as a function in lamda calculus)
Aha! This is the crux of our disagreement and underlies our different opinions. This identifies you, pretty conclusively, as a solipsist.Quote:
At what stage is it possible to replace your sensory information with generated information? The answer is at any stage. There's no way you can say for sure that any information isn't generated, making the internal/external theory redudant.
You see, we both agree that there's no sure fire way to discriminate between sensory and generated information. Where we go from there is where we differ.
Because we cannot be absolutely certain which information is sensory and which is generated, you say that, rather than take the risk of occaisionally being wrong, we should reject the notion of any distinction whatsoever (and therefore the notion of an external reality). That way, we can never be wrong because we can only make statements about our own perception.
However, I say that, just because we can't be absolutely certain of a distinction, we can still be right most of the time. We can make statements about an external reality and, if we're careful, usually be correct. We can take steps to minimise that uncertainty.
Why do I think my approach is better? Because it allows us to assert more. I can make assertions beyond my own perception. The only danger is that I must forever hold onto the knowledge that I might be wrong. As long as I don't forget that, there's no real danger.
Perhaps, but it's undeniably useful. And it's what a Turing machine would need to resolve the "halting" problem. It's what enables us to see the truth of the Godel sentence even though we cannot proove it.Quote:
Btw in your quotation from the page, "human intuition" I think Isaac Asimov defined it as the ability to draw conclusions with insufficient data. This just doesn't make sense, there's a logical explanation for this too, and that is that intuition isn't a direct deduction, its a long process that could be taking into account probabilities, feelings or exactly anything that feels right. Its not logical, its just nonsense that might work.
Despite the fact that intuition can often be wrong, it is also a useful tool that a turing machine does not have.