The Most Critical Question!

[AnssiH]

This comment makes no sense to me.

 

I know, that is why I said you don't seem to have a good understanding of what Chalmer's was really saying with the "hard problem". I only rephrased his argument.

 

But don't you see, this comment is "your belief"...your belief concerning "things we cannot have explicit information of".

 

You don't probably understand this, but you are essentially saying that self-doubt towards one's own world view is not defendable.

 

So, in your philosophy, there is no difference between a scientific fact (i.e., that photons are a substantial thing) and what is claimed in the bible--correct ?

 

I am saying there is no fundamental difference. What you are thinking of is essentially their difference in the power of making accurate and meaningful predictions, and of course there is an important practical difference there. What I'm trying to get at though, is the arbitrariness of the chosen terminology. I.e. other equally valid terminologies don't necessarily contain the idea of "photons" at all. (validity of a terminology can only be judged by the validity of its predictions, remember)

 

I meant to make another comment about photons earlier, but I thought it would confuse you because it's not really the issue I'm getting at. But here we go; I find it interesting that you chose this example of "photons", when photons have very suspect identity in terms of modern physics. In quantum mechanical sense, and in relativistic sense, what they "really are" in themselves is quite undefined. Just think about how they "see time" (or don't) by themselves, and on the other hand, how different quantum interpretations conceptualize what actually goes on when we think we see "a photon here" and then after a while "that same photon there".

 

And without even getting to the subtleties of relativity and QM, even when just talking about the fact that the number of photons is not conserved, Feynman has used the analogy of words coming out from his mouth. The number of words is not a conserved quantity, his mouth just does something and a word comes out (or something interpreted as a word). The same way, an electron does something, and a photon comes out (or something seen as a photon). The identity of that electron is also a matter of seeing some information in some way (the idea of the existence of photons is an important part of their definition btw, so... think about that from the perspective of coming up with a world view, based on some information)

 

But don't think too much, because the modern physics definition of a photon is really not the issue. The issue is that some information stands behind the idea of "a photon", and our world view has generated the definition which makes us comprehend some situation in terms of "photons" (and other things).

 

ps, don't forget that we got here when I called into question the idea that Chalmers sees as an unavoidable problem; that because our subjective experience can only be defined as a "process" within our world view, it can't be seen as something that really "exists".

 

I.e. I'm essentially saying that it is not fair to say that only "substantial things exist", when we have decided all by ourselves what we even mean by "substantial things". If you wonder why do I bring all this up, think about what Chalmers is saying and what assumptions he is making in order to make his argument.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

I.e. I'm essentially saying that it is not fair to say that only "substantial things exist", when we have decided all by ourselves what we even mean by "substantial things".

AnssiH--my problem with your comment is that it requires that non-substantial things exist, but, you have not provided an example of such a thing. Recall from my last post, a "process" is a type of substantial thing as potential of a thing either coming to be or passing away. So, please provide a few examples of what is a non-substantial thing that exists, according to your worldview, without resort to use of "process", which would of course be inappropriate.

 

I appreciate your other comments. I disagree with Chalmers and his so-called unavoidable problem. There is no such problem because subjective experience as mental "process" can be viewed as something substantial that exists.

 

I see you did not reply to my "MOST CRITICAL QUESTION" concerning primacy of existence.

[Rade]

The actual issue is of course that there exists some definable behaviour (or information) that you interpret, according to your world view, as meaning "there is a solid object there".

AnssiH, you miss a very important aspect of the issue according to your world view. What "exists" (whatever you mean by using that word) is the "behavior or information" derived from SOMETHING (an OBJECT). What your mind comes to interpret is the pattern of information (which exists as potential) derived from AN OBJECT. Both are substantial substances (the information and the object). The only reason one forms a world view that "there is a solid object there" is because the pattern of information derived from that solid object interacts with perception to form a substantial electrochemical entity that can be transformed by consciousness into a mental concept. You do NOT form a world view ONLY of the object, you form a world view of veiled reality of object in superposition with perception.

 

You cannot have a behavior (pattern of information) prior to the thing (object) from which the information arises in an unknown and undefined way. Whether or not the object is solid or not, is defined or not, is known or not, is of no importance whatsoever. What is of importance is that there "is" some actual object that can give rise to some possibility of potential information.

[Rade]

Rade: So, in your philosophy, there is no difference between a scientific fact (i.e., that photons are a substantial thing) and what is claimed in the bible--correct ?

 

AnssiH: I am saying there is no fundamental difference.

 

==

Well, your philosophy really cannot be made much more clear than your answer to this question, and I thank you for it. Your answer is as I expected, and it is consistent with the world view you hold.

[Kriminal99]

Remember - an object is a pattern of matter. If we see a representation of it (e.g. a photograph), then we make the connection that the photograph is of a book. Seeing the book/photograph/ect. is a process, and so is taking the photograph, but the end result is an object.

 

But the issue is perspective, an issue which you keep dodging. All our knowledge comes from a process of observation, yet you keep presuming objective knowledge of external objects' existences. Perhaps you have some subspace connection with the universe that everyone else lacks that allows you to define external objects, but the left of us are left to work a process on subjective observations that ultimately cannot be proven to be of anything real. What if they are just projections being fed to us somehow of something that isn't there?

 

Once you understand this possibility, then the definition of object becomes less meaningful. Perhaps we should limit definitions to the context in which the thing being referred to is presented. This is the only way to avoid issues where we are surprised by additional information.

 

In this case, an object is merely the result of a process on subjective observations.

[Kriminal99]

PS Polymath, a Hopfield net is a type of artificial neural network, and as I described involve training a neural net's weights so that they only light up for certain inputs. I am not sure why you attempted to introduce me to the very thing I just described in the same post you quoted.

[joekgamer]

But the issue is perspective, an issue which you keep dodging. All our knowledge comes from a process of observation, yet you keep presuming objective knowledge of external objects' existences.

 

How is the' process of observation' not objective? Say I have a pattern which both of us see. I say to you "The pattern is a dots." In order to make sense of that statement, you must know what those words mean, with the word 'dot' being the most important. When you see a dot, you see X. When I see a dot, I see Y. While this may seem like it would lead to it being impossible to communicate, it doesn't. This is because when I say 'dot', you think of X, while I think of Y. The same pattern produces different responses in the two of us, but when those responses are communicated, they must be converted back into the original pattern, which when received produces the same response as the actual pattern, or some representation of it (for example saying 'dot' instead of drawing a dot), which does the same, because we mentally have the pattern=representation1=representation2=etc...

 

For another (probably more clear) example/analogy, think of color-blindness. This happens when the brain reacts the same way to two different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (or even doesn't react at all). Say the normal reaction to color A is C and the normal reaction to color B is D. What if someone, instead of reacting C to A and D to B, reacts D to A and C to B? If someone shows them color A, unless they can read the person's mind they will think that the person is reacting to the color as C instead of D, which is how they really are reacting. In that case, what is different between the two? One person reacts to color A as C and the other person reacts to the same color as D, but when they communicate neither can tell. This is because you have a 'chain' of reactions that is C=A=D, or in other words, while the two people react differently, they both define their reaction to A as 'reaction to A", thereby preventing miscommunication.

 

Perhaps you have some subspace connection with the universe that everyone else lacks that allows you to define external objects, but the left of us are left to work a process on subjective observations that ultimately cannot be proven to be of anything real. What if they are just projections being fed to us somehow of something that isn't there?

 

Like the 'brain in a tank' idea? If that is the case, then reality is like a gigantic MMORPG, with our 'brains' networked together. If this is the case then our 'virtual' bodies (like in a video game) are as 'real' as we can get. Therefore, the argument is rather moot because this 'virtual reality' is, in fact, reality.

[joekgamer]

PS Polymath, a Hopfield net is a type of artificial neural network, and as I described involve training a neural net's weights so that they only light up for certain inputs. I am not sure why you attempted to introduce me to the very thing I just described in the same post you quoted.

 

I was unaware of that. That you for correcting me.

[Kriminal99]

How is the' process of observation' not objective? Say I have a pattern which both of us see. I say to you "The pattern is a dots." In order to make sense of that statement, you must know what those words mean, with the word 'dot' being the most important. When you see a dot, you see X. When I see a dot, I see Y. While this may seem like it would lead to it being impossible to communicate, it doesn't. This is because when I say 'dot', you think of X, while I think of Y. The same pattern produces different responses in the two of us, but when those responses are communicated, they must be converted back into the original pattern, which when received produces the same response as the actual pattern, or some representation of it (for example saying 'dot' instead of drawing a dot), which does the same, because we mentally have the pattern=representation1=representation2=etc...

 

For another (probably more clear) example/analogy, think of color-blindness. This happens when the brain reacts the same way to two different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (or even doesn't react at all). Say the normal reaction to color A is C and the normal reaction to color B is D. What if someone, instead of reacting C to A and D to B, reacts D to A and C to B? If someone shows them color A, unless they can read the person's mind they will think that the person is reacting to the color as C instead of D, which is how they really are reacting. In that case, what is different between the two? One person reacts to color A as C and the other person reacts to the same color as D, but when they communicate neither can tell. This is because you have a 'chain' of reactions that is C=A=D, or in other words, while the two people react differently, they both define their reaction to A as 'reaction to A", thereby preventing miscommunication.

 

Like the 'brain in a tank' idea? If that is the case, then reality is like a gigantic MMORPG, with our 'brains' networked together. If this is the case then our 'virtual' bodies (like in a video game) are as 'real' as we can get. Therefore, the argument is rather moot because this 'virtual reality' is, in fact, reality.

I understand your argument, but disagree in the manner you addressed in the last paragraph. That is, how do you know the other person observing the same thing as you is real when that other person is also just something you are perceiving?

 

Ah, the inverted spectrum argument. The answer is that when you find out that the two people are experiencing different reactions to the colors, then it matters.

 

Yes, this IS the only reality we have to work with. Within this reality exists the possibility of perceptions that can fail without all of reality failing. You walk into a ghost town, only to find it is actually a movie set with false fronts.

 

By your reasoning, when this happens an object that previously existed suddenly ceased to exist or was instantly replaced with a smaller one, which objects cannot do. A logical contradiction. By my reasoning, there is no such contradiction.

 

You defined two things that almost always occur at the same time as one thing. Because of my awareness of perspective and illusions, I separated the two.

 

These issues must be fully understood to tackle topics in modern physics.

[joekgamer]

That is, how do you know the other person observing the same thing as you is real when that other person is also just something you are perceiving?

 

If other people aren't 'real' then that means that the only things that are 'real' are the things that you are perceiving.

 

The answer is that when you find out that the two people are experiencing different reactions to the colors, then it matters.

 

How do you do this?

 

By your reasoning, when this happens an object that previously existed suddenly ceased to exist or was instantly replaced with a smaller one, which objects cannot do. A logical contradiction. By my reasoning, there is no such contradiction.

 

I can't see this. Could you elaborate? How does an object 'suddenly cease to exist'?

 

You defined two things that almost always occur at the same time as one thing. Because of my awareness of perspective and illusions, I separated the two.

 

No, I defined the thing in question (the color in the second example and the pattern in the first) as itself. The reactions to it maybe different, but that difference is rendered moot when the reaction is 'translated' back into a communicable form.

[Kriminal99]

If other people aren't 'real' then that means that the only things that are 'real' are the things that you are perceiving.

 

How do you do this?

 

 

 

I can't see this. Could you elaborate? How does an object 'suddenly cease to exist'?

 

 

 

No, I defined the thing in question (the color in the second example and the pattern in the first) as itself. The reactions to it maybe different, but that difference is rendered moot when the reaction is 'translated' back into a communicable form.

 

That is a defense to global skepticism, but not to less than global skepticism. What if most people are real, but one of them is a robot? Thus, we cannot simply define people that we perceive to be external conscious entities, but rather must limit our claims to the fact that we perceive them. This claim is true both in the case of the robot and the real person.

 

Well, you used the example of color blindness at one point in your post. Since color blindness isn't a one to one mapping to normal vision, situations exist where people could identify a deficiency that one person had even though most of the time they would perceive the same things. Women always bug me about not matching outfits.

 

In the case of the inverted spectrum argument though, what I should say is if we have a way to tell then it matters. You know, if we could examine how consciousness is realized to determine a different reaction to the same wavelength in two different people. Before that it doesn't matter. After that, we know to separate the "raw feel" of a color from the wavelength.

 

You have assigned objects a an objective existence even though the only evidence of this a person can ever have is our perception of these objects. But these perceptions are ambiguous. If we perceive a Saloon, then you have reasoned that a Saloon actually exists apart from the people perceiving it. But then when we enter it to find it is only a front, what happened to the external object Saloon that we were just perceiving? It suddenly morphs into an external objective piece of cardboard from an external objective actual Saloon.

 

So, anticipating the typical response "It was always a piece of cardboard", the response is, what if every object we have perceived was an illusion? You cannot use the "this reality" defense because in this reality you have been alerted to the fact that perceiving something doesn't guarantee the existence of an external object. Thus you should separate the idea of perceiving from the idea of external object.

[AnssiH]

AnssiH--my problem with your comment is that it requires that non-substantial things exist, but, you have not provided an example of such a thing.

 

What I said was that we have created this separation via our own definitions, I have not said we must somehow choose some perspective on blind faith.

 

For instance, let's say I made the argument that there is no objectively defendable real difference between "living" and "dead" things, but that instead we have merely defined some things as being "living" and some things being "dead" (i.e. we decide what those words mean, but reality is not fundamentally categorized that way).

 

Would you say that my argument requires that either one or the other category is "real"? Or can you comprehend that argument as referring to epistemological issue; that we are the ones who comprehend things in that sort of terminology in the first place, we are the ones who make that division in our heads as per our particular world view.

 

And that is exactly what I'm pointing out about this categorization of reality into substantial and non-substantial things, we do that even when both types of things ultimately arise simply as our own interpretation of some information whose meaning we don't explicitly know.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

For instance, let's say I made the argument that there is no objectively defendable real difference between "living" and "dead" things...

Fine, but it is impossible for you to support the premise of your argument from definition with any facts, so, sure anyone can put forth a non-factual argument and develop complex definitions to support it, but of what value is such an approach ? I mean, you adopt a world view that you cannot tell the difference between a lizard come out to sun, and the rock it sits on, vis-a-vis the question of which is alive and which is dead.

 

Would you say that my argument requires that either one or the other category is "real"?

Of course not' date=' your argument is not based on facts, thus of course neither lizard nor rock is required to be real, to you.

 

Or can you comprehend that argument as referring to epistemological issue

No, your argument has nothing at all to do with epistemological issues, because such issues require that what you know is based on concepts derived from facts, via evidence of the senses, and clearly your argument is non-factual. You cannot take random thoughts that enter your mind and claim you are dealing with an issue of epistemology. Knowledge is knowledge of [???????]....what ? Fill in the blank, then you will understand what I am saying.

 

that we are the ones who comprehend things in that sort of terminology in the first place

. The terminology is not prior to the thing that allowed the concept to be formed. You wish to place the definition prior to concept' date=' a world view philosophy I do not agree with.

 

we are the ones who make that division in our heads as per our particular world view

Of course we make the division between (1) what we perceive and store in memeoy, (2) the concept we form of it, what we know (3) the definition we place on the concept for communication. But, it is false to say we have a "world view" of what we perceive (such as undefined patterns of energy), perception is sensation placed into memory, upon which in the future a world view may (or not) be formed after it is retrieved from memory and formed into a concept.

 

And that is exactly what I'm pointing out about this categorization of reality into substantial and non-substantial things' date=' we do that even when both types of things ultimately arise simply as our own interpretation of some information whose meaning we don't explicitly know.[/quote']Yes, I know that is your world view, but, what I have been trying to tell you is that I do not agree with it. I do not agree with your world view that "both types of things ultimately arise simply as our interpretation of some information". YOUR MIND DOES NOT ULTIMATELY CAUSE either substantial things or non-substantial things, TO ARISE ! Consciousness does not create (make arise) reality..this is the false world view you hold onto so deadly. It is the same reason I do not agree with your world view statement of a few posts ago that you can find no difference between a fact of science and the words in the bible.

 

AnissH, you seem to think I do not understand you. I understand your world view philosophy completely. I do not agree with it.

[AnssiH]

AnissH, you seem to think I do not understand you. I understand your world view philosophy completely. I do not agree with it.

 

Actually it is quite obvious that you keep referring to different issues than I am.

 

By "epistemological issues" I'm referring to considerations of what does it even mean to say that we "understand" something, or have some "knowledge. I.e. it is the study of what "understanding" or "knowledge" even means. You seem to be referring to what it is that we (supposedly) have knowledge of.

 

And because of this confusion, you keep saying that I'm just talking about how things are in my world view, when in fact I have not referred to my particular world view at all. Essentially I am referring to the aspects of our world view that are merely aspects of the terminology that we have chosen to use about the world. When I refer to the idea that some things are alive, and some things are dead, I am trying to focus your attention on the fact that it is our terminology where we make that distinction based on some criteria (definitions) that we made up ourselves.

 

And the same confusion is reflected by your misinterpretation of my words, where you think I'm claiming that reality is created by our definitions. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying almost the opposite; I'm pointing out that finding out a valid way to conceptualize something, does not entail it is literally so. I.e. it does not entail that the used "terminology" or "language" is the only valid way to "understand" that thing. You on the other hand keep claiming that having found a valid way to conceptualize something entails that the definitions of our conceptualization must also be objects "out there".

 

You were saying that I can't support my claim with facts, only with assumptions, but if you understood what I was claiming, you would also understand that your counterarguments are essentially saying that, to doubt the ontological (i.e. literal) correctedness of one's own terminology of reality, is merely an assumption. So in order to be factual, one needs to have blind faith in whatever particular world view they have chosen to use to understand reality? You are not very coherent in your thoughts and/or in your communication.

 

Also, I just saw your response in the "Universal representation of the rules" thread, and all I can say is that if this stuff just does not make sense to you, maybe you should stop worrying about it that much.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

....I have not referred to my particular world view at all. Essentially I am referring to the aspects of our world view that are merely aspects of the terminology that we have chosen to use about the world.

But, what you are "essentially referring to" IS YOUR WORLDVIEW !

 

And the same confusion is reflected by your misinterpretation of my words' date=' where you think I'm claiming that reality is created by our definitions. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying almost the opposite [/quote'] OK, so it is your worldview that our definitions are "almost" created by reality. Now, all you need to think about is why you can remove the word "almost" from your understanding.

 

...it does not entail that the used "terminology" or "language" is the only valid way to "understand" that thing. You on the other hand keep claiming that having found a valid way to conceptualize something entails that the definitions of our conceptualization must also be objects "out there".

I did not say that "definitions" "exist out there" ? How could you have read what I said and reached this false explanation ?

 

Also' date=' I just saw your response in the "Universal representation of the rules" thread, and all I can say is that if this stuff just does not make sense to you, maybe you should stop worrying about it that much.[/quote']As I said, what you do not seem to understand is that what you claim makes perfect sense to me, but I find that it is wanting. What you present is based on a false premise. When you think you have it figured out, let me know.

[Doctordick]

But Rade the OP doesn't even specify what the question is.

I thought I put it quite clearly.

 

Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something. Why people cannot comprehend this as a significant difficulty is simply beyond me.

You (and no one else) has even provided an opening possible answer to that question.

[sigurdV]

The thesis is:

Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something.

 

My hypothesis is:

We start our lives with an inherited "world wiew apparatus",given to us by nature,structured by evolution,enabling us to hyphotesize about perceptions.