Kedaman & Simonm Reality Debate (and anyone else brave enough to enter)

[simonm]

Kedaman

Squirrel is the idea that everything consists of information, even if this is just a philosophical issue, then its enough to make the difference to alter our perception forever.

I am, as yet, to be convinced...

In practice experiencing unhappiness is rooted in our biological nature - which is just an idea.

What do you mean? THat "unhappiness" is just an idea or that "experiencing unhappiness is rooted in our biological nature" is just an idea?

The problem with consciousness, the information that cannot be observed, will be part of the subconscious of all individuals, and individuals are by definition not shared, reason why we experience subjectiveness. There is no intersubjectivity, no objectivity. In practice you could solve all problems.

I'm trying as hard as I can to makes sense of the above paragraph...Consiousness is part of our subconsiousness? I still have no idea what problems this solves.

[CornedBee]

The problem with consciousness, the information that cannot be observed, will be part of the subconscious of all individuals, and individuals are by definition not shared, reason why we experience subjectiveness. There is no intersubjectivity, no objectivity. In practice you could solve all problems.

I'm missing the link between the last sentence and the rest of the paragraph.

[kedaman]

CB
That was in reply to simon, I should have put the last sentence in a new paragraph.

Simon

I am, as yet, to be convinced...

So far, I have two things to convince people with, my programming langauge, and history of the evolution. They're both practical applications of my ideology.

What do you mean? THat "unhappiness" is just an idea or that "experiencing unhappiness is rooted in our biological nature" is just an idea?

everything is an idea, everything consists of information.

I'm trying as hard as I can to makes sense of the above paragraph...Consiousness is part of our subconsiousness? I still have no idea what problems this solves.

subconscious - as in subconscious information, information that you are not aware of.
What i'm trying to say is that you cannot be aware of awareness. An observer cannot observe another nor itself. Still its information, that defines what you are aware of.
There is no satisfactory explanation with the notion of a reality.

[Q_Me]

Are we gonna start a cult or something? Can't you just follow the most basic theory of existence?

"I think, therefor I am"

[Wally Pipp]

There's a flaw in there right away : a lamppost doesn't think but it still is

[Q_Me]

That's not what the quote means. You think, therefor anything you and everything you see apears to exist but you think therefor you must exists.

[CornedBee]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
There's a flaw in there right away : a lamppost doesn't think but it still is

Are you sure it is?

[Wally Pipp]

there's a smiley ... tumtidudidum ...

[simonm]

Kedaman

So far, I have two things to convince people with, my programming langauge, and history of the evolution. They're both practical applications of my ideology.

These are not things I mean when I talk about practical application. I am trying to understand how your viewpoint affects the way you go about thinking about things on a day to day basis.

subconscious - as in subconscious information, information that you are not aware of.
What i'm trying to say is that you cannot be aware of awareness. An observer cannot observe another nor itself. Still its information, that defines what you are aware of.
There is no satisfactory explanation with the notion of a reality.

Well this, I'm afraid, I cannot agree with. Whilst I will conceeed that consiousness is not objectively observable, we are capable of subjectively being aware of our own consiousness. Indeed, I know I am. If the rules of your language "Squiral" forbid this, then it demonstrates where your language falls short of what you believe it should be capable of.

In other words, don't assume humans have the same limits as your Squiral language.

[Wally Pipp]

I think we're aware of our own instruction set and have the means to expand, alter and/or limit it. It's a question of feeding the right data into it.

[simonm]

Do we have an "Instruction Set"? Are we not self-instructing?

[Wally Pipp]

Instincts are the "instruction set", the guidelines set by genes. The rest is all derived from it through evolution. The better you can refine it, the more useful it is. Right up to a point that data not only comes from perceptions and instincts but also from social conditioning (the coveted memes). Thus allowing more data to be run through the accumulated set of "rules".
We're not at our pinnacle, we're still underway but wars, diseases and extinction may prevent us from going all the way.
Anyway ...
Does that imply an underlying reality ? Not sure but the data received by our perceptions may be a reflection of it, the whole of it or just a tiny part. What we do with it is more important to the whole matter than what we perceive because it has to be run through your "set of rules" which can be different for many people in many circumstances, hence the many different views on life, the world and reality.
A + B = C but C changes as A and B (or combination) change. I think that's how it works.

I'm just testing this new theory out

[simonm]

Wally

Instincts are the "instruction set", the guidelines set by genes.

I don't think that our instincts are our "instuction set" for thought. They are our instruction set for behaviour without thought.

In any case, when we talk about self-awareness, we are talking about whether or not we are aware of our own consiousness. DO you think that consiousness obeys an instinctive instruction set?

Does that imply an underlying reality ? Not sure but the data received by our perceptions may be a reflection of it, the whole of it or just a tiny part. What we do with it is more important to the whole matter than what we perceive because it has to be run through your "set of rules" which can be different for many people in many circumstances, hence the many different views on life, the world and reality.

Personally, I think our instruction set for thought is not instinctive, and not laid down by our genes. I subscribe to the idea that our brains (or at least the part that allows for consious thought) are self-organising systems that allow incomming sense data to organise itself.

[Wally Pipp]

I'm just testing it out but I think that, save a few new definitions, I'm on a good track here.
Correct me if I'm wrong

Right, the instinct part made me think again and you're partly right (I think) : right in the part that you are not always aware of it (because of your senses evaluating other data) but it is still regulated by the Os (our brain).
So conscious or unconscious, we're still thinking and reasoning by the rules set out in our brain and instincts.
We've evolved in thinking beyond our instincts that's true but somewhere on a deep level we're obeying it.

Example :
our instinct says "find food by means a to still our hunger and provide our body with necessary nutrients" and our brain picks up on that by figuring out the quickest, safest and most certain way of acquiring food (even if that means opening the fridge).
But in the end, on the bottom line you're still following your feeding instinct.

The only thing that I'm a bit stuck with is creativity but I think that it is an expression to enhance our status, to broaden our language and another means to get our message across.
Painters are often revered, writers have a certain status position in our society and all of them use their art to convey their message. It may all be a part of the mating instinct.

But I'm sure you will help me refine it/waylay it where it doesn't follow logic

But on the whole simon, isn't it an interesting thesis ?

[CornedBee]

I don't think that our instincts are our "instuction set" for thought. They are our instruction set for behaviour without thought.

I don't think you can seperate thought and behaviour in this way.

[simonm]

CornedBee

I don't think you can seperate thought and behaviour in this way.

Why not?

[CornedBee]

Because they are too closely linked. One depends on the other. There is only little behaviour without thought, and the behaviour will often directly or indirectly influence thought.

[simonm]

Kedaman

The turing machine is a generalised model for all computable problems. While I argue that all problems are by definition solvable, you argue that there are problems that cannot be solved.

Are you saying that all problems are computable? If something is not computable, it is not a problem?

In my eyes the perspective of you and everyone who thinks like you are shortsighted in fear because their lives are meaningless in longterm.

And what gives your life meaning, in the longterm?

The barrier between thinking as a realist and a instrumentalist is just that, fear. The realists will always struggle between the bounds of their viewpoints and this barrier, talking themselves into seeing possibilities instead of bounds.

I simply do not understand what point you are trying to make here.

Here's an example:

Whilst I will conceeed that consiousness is not objectively observable, we are capable of subjectively being aware of our own consiousness. Indeed, I know I am.

Listen to yourself. What does the scientific methodology say about this, its impossible to know if something, because, theories are either falsified and possibly true. As you're rejecting this I'm asking if you're not refuting reality as well?

I fail to see why you think this is some kind of fundamental contradiction. Science is about understanding the nature of an objective reality. Since we have both agreed that consciousness is not objectively observable, it does not fall under the scientific method. We cannot know anything about reality with absolute certainty but my awareness of my own consciousness does not fall under this category. It is directly revealed to me, not indirectly through my senses.

The notion of selfawareness is illogical, yet you cling onto this belief, so now its my turn to ask you what practical implications selfawareness has. What makes you believe that you are aware of your own consciousness?

I neither choose to believe or disbelieve it. It merely is. There is no room for doubt. Nothing to doubt. It's merely there. Whether or not there is any practical benefit to self-awareness is irrelevent. It is not just a belief that I can choose to discard because I don't see it's use.

You can rationalise yourself into self-denial all you like.

[simonm]

Test

[simonm]

CornedBee

One depends on the other. There is only little behaviour without thought, and the behaviour will often directly or indirectly influence thought.

But surely there's a distinction between instinctive and pre-medidated behaviour? I do not think it is the case that our instincts merely underly our thoughts.

I think that our emotional responses are instinctive and this, in turn, affects the way we think but I do not believe that our conscious thoughts are a mere extension of our hard wired, genetically established, neural pathways.

[Wally Pipp]

Look at it another way :

Internet explorer is a vastly different program (does different things and allows for a huge expansion of your 'computer realm') than its operating system but IE can't operate without its OS.

Thoughts (conscious or subconscious) can be different from instincts but not de-linked. They need each other to function.

[simonm]

Everyone has different ideas about what they think the subconscious is...Kedaman sees it as a kind of repository of information that we are not currently aware of. You see it as instinctive (and non conscious) thought processes.

I see it a third way however. To me, the subconsious is the medium from which conscious thought can arise from but it is not instinctive. Instinct bypasses all kinds of thought altogether.

To pursue your computer analogy (which is dangerous in a way because it is pushing us to think about the human brain like a computer which it is not), I would compare the what the computer does when it starts up, before the OS is loaded, to instinct. The operating system would be analogous to subconsious thought and a program run on the operating system analogous to conscious thought.

However, as I have said, I think that it is a very bad analogy.

[CornedBee]

I still believe Squirrel will need quite a lot of computing power to even solve simple problems.

[Wally Pipp]

It's actually a good analogy
But I think the brain is acting similar to a computer. After all our real computers are based on its working.
And what is so wrong with the idea of a thinking machine ?
Most people will say that for most other animals but not for humans. We are animals after all and even us must listen to our body.

[simonm]

Wally

But I think the brain is acting similar to a computer. After all our real computers are based on its working.
And what is so wrong with the idea of a thinking machine ?

Real computers were based on our idea of how our brains worked...which explains why computers have always fallen well short of being able to replicate human type behaviour.

Computers are logical machines and, quite frankly, we are not.

[Wally Pipp]

correction : not always

[simonm]

OK, not always, but in many of the crucial ways, they have.

[kedaman]

Simon

I am trying to understand how your viewpoint affects the way you go about thinking about things on a day to day basis.

Ok, my thought then.

The turing machine is a generalised model for all computable problems. While I argue that all problems are by definition solvable, you argue that there are problems that cannot be solved.

In my eyes the perspective of you and everyone who thinks like you are shortsighted in fear because their lives are meaningless in longterm. The barrier between thinking as a realist and a instrumentalist is just that, fear. The realists will always struggle between the bounds of their viewpoints and this barrier, talking themselves into seeing possibilities instead of bounds.

Here's an example:

Whilst I will conceeed that consiousness is not objectively observable, we are capable of subjectively being aware of our own consiousness. Indeed, I know I am.

Listen to yourself. What does the scientific methodology say about this, its impossible to know if something, because, theories are either falsified and possibly true. As you're rejecting this I'm asking if you're not refuting reality as well?

The notion of selfawareness is illogical, yet you cling onto this belief, so now its my turn to ask you what practical implications selfawareness has. What makes you believe that you are aware of your own consciousness?

Btw Squirrel, the language is just an application, its an experiment and it has lots of limits, even though with enough (finite) processor power it is capable of solving all problems.

[simonm]

Kedaman

The turing machine is a generalised model for all computable problems. While I argue that all problems are by definition solvable, you argue that there are problems that cannot be solved.

Are you saying that all problems are computable? If something is not computable, it is not a problem?

In my eyes the perspective of you and everyone who thinks like you are shortsighted in fear because their lives are meaningless in longterm.

And what gives your life meaning, in the longterm?

The barrier between thinking as a realist and a instrumentalist is just that, fear. The realists will always struggle between the bounds of their viewpoints and this barrier, talking themselves into seeing possibilities instead of bounds.

I simply do not understand what point you are trying to make here.

Here's an example:

Whilst I will conceeed that consiousness is not objectively observable, we are capable of subjectively being aware of our own consiousness. Indeed, I know I am.

Listen to yourself. What does the scientific methodology say about this, its impossible to know if something, because, theories are either falsified and possibly true. As you're rejecting this I'm asking if you're not refuting reality as well?

I fail to see why you think this is some kind of fundamental contradiction. Science is about understanding the nature of an objective reality. Since we have both agreed that consciousness is not objectively observable, it does not fall under the scientific method. We cannot know anything about reality with absolute certainty but my awareness of my own consciousness does not fall under this category. It is directly revealed to me, not indirectly through my senses.

The notion of selfawareness is illogical, yet you cling onto this belief, so now its my turn to ask you what practical implications selfawareness has. What makes you believe that you are aware of your own consciousness?

I neither choose to believe or disbelieve it. It merely is. There is no room for doubt. Nothing to doubt. It's merely there. Whether or not there is any practical benefit to self-awareness is irrelevent. It is not just a belief that I can choose to discard because I don't see it's use.

You can rationalise yourself into self-denial all you like.

[agent]

i haven't read the entire thread (too long) but i have an idea i'd like to through out there for you all.

some say that reality is how your brain interprets signals sent from your sensory organs (a dream might be considered reality)

others argue that it's what triggers these sensory organs in the frst place (i.e. atoms, electrons, ect)

i say that it is impossible to tell if what you are perciving to be reality is, in fact, reality if what you are percieving is consistant.

lets say that you reading this thread is actually a complex dream. you don't know it's a dream because it consistant. it follows the laws of physics (i.e. a stream of electrons are being manipulated with magnets onto a phosphorus coated screen to produce a pattern of light that is interpreted as letter, words, sentances and, in general, this thread). but, you don't know how all that works? how could this possibly be a dream? dreams are usually based on prior knowledge.

let's say this really is a dream. the physics model is consistant, the screen is consistant, everything is consistant.

now here's that part that might get you thinking: what if you are actually a super-intelligent being capable of subconsiously remembering an inumerable amount of consistancies? maybe the physics you know of doesn't coincide with the physics the you actually exist in? maybe phosphorus can not be eluminated with electrons... you're just dreaming it can.

sorry if i sound like a raving lunatic, as i once heared somebody say, describing the 4th dimension on a 2 dimensional piece of paper is damn near impossible...

i'm trying to describe reality in what may very well not be real... either my dream or somebody elses.



btw, before you ask, no i did not hit the bong before i wrote this

[simonm]

agent

i haven't read the entire thread (too long) but i have an idea i'd like to through out there for you all.

As you haven't read the entire thread, you couldn't have known that we have already acknowledged your point. That there is no way to know whether what we now take as reality is reality with any degree of certainty.

some say that reality is how your brain interprets signals sent from your sensory organs (a dream might be considered reality)

others argue that it's what triggers these sensory organs in the frst place (i.e. atoms, electrons, ect)

Do not both these scenarios imply the existance of an underlying, objective reality? No matter how accurate (or inaccurate) our perception of it is, it must exist in either scenario.

lets say that you reading this thread is actually a complex dream. you don't know it's a dream because it consistant. it follows the laws of physics (i.e. a stream of electrons are being manipulated with magnets onto a phosphorus coated screen to produce a pattern of light that is interpreted as letter, words, sentances and, in general, this thread). but, you don't know how all that works? how could this possibly be a dream? dreams are usually based on prior knowledge.

And that's the point. If this is all a big dream, we must have, at some point, been awake. I cannot remember experiencing any other reality or ever being more "awake" than I am now but if I have all this information circulating in my mind, it must have come from somewhere, right?

[kedaman]

Simon

Are you saying that all problems are computable? If something is not computable, it is not a problem?

Yes, and this is also derived from the fact that you are inherently subjective.

And what gives your life meaning, in the longterm?

The list is long, but to make it short, its ironically consistency.

I fail to see why you think this is some kind of fundamental contradiction. Science is about understanding the nature of an objective reality. Since we have both agreed that consciousness is not objectively observable, it does not fall under the scientific method. We cannot know anything about reality with absolute certainty but my awareness of my own consciousness does not fall under this category. It is directly revealed to me, not indirectly through my senses.

I neither choose to believe or disbelieve it. It merely is. There is no room for doubt. Nothing to doubt. It's merely there. Whether or not there is any practical benefit to self-awareness is irrelevent. It is not just a belief that I can choose to discard because I don't see it's use.

You can rationalise yourself into self-denial all you like.

What you are saying to me is basically "I observe what cannot be observed" forming a contradiction. You can prove all statements including inconsistent ones that is, by using an inconsistency as an axiom, all statements are inherently both true and false. If you're saying this then you can't be a realist, I have a feeling that this is some sort of excuse realists have to explain consciousness, but then again you're losing perspective of everything.

[Wally Pipp]

Simon and Keddie, how do you rate my idea ? Workable or not ?

[simonm]

Kedaman

Are you saying that all problems are computable? If something is not computable, it is not a problem?

Yes, and this is also derived from the fact that you are inherently subjective.

Perhaps it is a problem, just a different kind of problem?

Logical positivists claimed that there are only two kinds of meaningful statements. Either Analytic (True/False by the meaning attached to the words used) or Synthetic (True if empirically verified). All other statements were judged to be meaningless.

However, Karl Popper critisised this school of thought in two ways: Firstly, by saying that no statements can be empirically verified (only falsified) and secondly, that metaphysical statements, although outside of science, were still valid in their own way. Metaphysical propositions were stil valid problems for consideration, just not by scientists.

The point of what I am saying is that the problem of understanding consiousness cannot be dismissed even if we agree that it is metaphysical. It is just a different kind of problem.

What you are saying to me is basically "I observe what cannot be observed" forming a contradiction. You can prove all statements including inconsistent ones that is, by using an inconsistency as an axiom, all statements are inherently both true and false. If you're saying this then you can't be a realist, I have a feeling that this is some sort of excuse realists have to explain consciousness, but then again you're losing perspective of everything.

No, you are incorrectly reducing my statement to a contradiction. I am saying that I can subjectively observe something which is not inter-subjectively (objectively) observable. Something doesn't have to be objectively observable by everyone to be observable to me. It is something internal to my own mindscape and there is no reason why it should be objectively visible to everyone else.

Thus, there is no contradiction.

[simonm]

Wally

Simon and Keddie, how do you rate my idea ? Workable or not ?

I've already commented haven't I? Or have I missed something?

[Wally Pipp]

Must've overlooked it then, sorry

[simonm]

Wally

Could you repeat it again as I'm unsure what exactly you're refering to?

[kedaman]

Simon

Perhaps it is a problem, just a different kind of problem?

Logical positivists claimed that there are only two kinds of meaningful statements. Either Analytic (True/False by the meaning attached to the words used) or Synthetic (True if empirically verified). All other statements were judged to be meaningless.

However, Karl Popper critisised this school of thought in two ways: Firstly, by saying that no statements can be empirically verified (only falsified) and secondly, that metaphysical statements, although outside of science, were still valid in their own way. Metaphysical propositions were stil valid problems for consideration, just not by scientists.

The point of what I am saying is that the problem of understanding consiousness cannot be dismissed even if we agree that it is metaphysical. It is just a different kind of problem.

All Synthetic statements are inherently Analytic and thus logically verifiable. This is also derived from subjectivity. All phrases without meaning are not statements.

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.

Ok let me hear your definition of a problem.

No, you are incorrectly reducing my statement to a contradiction. I am saying that I can subjectively observe something which is not inter-subjectively (objectively) observable. Something doesn't have to be objectively observable by everyone to be observable to me. It is something internal to my own mindscape and there is no reason why it should be objectively visible to everyone else.

Thus, there is no contradiction.

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?

[Wally Pipp]

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).

[kedaman]

Wally
Just thought i might give you some replies too, so you wont feel left out

But I think the brain is acting similar to a computer. After all our real computers are based on its working.
And what is so wrong with the idea of a thinking machine ?
Most people will say that for most other animals but not for humans. We are animals after all and even us must listen to our body.

The brain is a computer, a turing machine, but so is everything else.

Internet explorer is a vastly different program (does different things and allows for a huge expansion of your 'computer realm') than its operating system but IE can't operate without its OS.

Thoughts (conscious or subconscious) can be different from instincts but not de-linked. They need each other to function.

Could you elaborate this a bit more?