A Philosophical Conundrum Involving 'Spock's Brain'

[Giggling Ghast]

"Brain and brain? What is brain?!"
-Kara, from that one episode of Star Trek that was nearly as bad as the one with the space hippies and the tiresome Garden of Eden metaphor

OK, have you ever watched the Star Trek: TOS episode "Spock's Brain?" Here's the short rundown: Spock's brain gets removed by stupid alien babes who need it to run their implausible civilization. Spock's body temporarily gets a mechanical replacement. (He can't talk or nothin', though.) Eventually, McCoy uses a make-you-super-smart machine and sticks Spock's brain back into Spock's body so that he can finish out the rest of TOS' mediocre third season.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Spock's brain couldn't be put back, as it was literally impossible to reconnect all the ... brain-thingies. Shut up. Not wishing to lose his first officer, Kirk orders that they use the technology of the stupid alien babes to implant an upgraded mechanical brain in Spock's body that will be able to perfectly mimic Spock's personality.

However, shepherding a civilization of hot morons when you don't have a physical body presents all sorts of difficulties, so Spock's original brain constructs a robot body that is identical to his old body.

So now we have two Spocks: one with the original body with a mechanical brain, and one with the original brain and a mechanical body. Both have the original personality of Mr. Spock.

The question is: which is the true "Spock"? Who do you make First Officer of the Starship Enterprise? And is a two-fisted hammer punch really that effective in hand-to-hand combat?

[Grinner]

Give the meatbrain one the uniform and throw the metalbrain one into the nearest sun. Yeah, they might be equivalent as far as proficiency goes, but you sidestep a lot of existential questions that way.

[golentan]

Assuming you actually copied the memories and personality? They're both spock, though the meat mind has continuity and so may as well be called Spock A, vs. uploaded mind as Spock B.

If Spock B doesn't have cloned memories, and is merely emulating Spock A, he's still Spock but he's not the original Spock, he's basically a super in-character cosplayer, but he's probably got the delusion he's original spock and it's as mean to try and break that delusion as to have created it unless you can do it non-traumatically.


Give the meatbrain one the uniform and throw the metalbrain one into the nearest sun. Yeah, they might be equivalent as far as proficiency goes, but you sidestep a lot of existential questions that way.

That's murder...

[SiuiS]

They are both Spock. The only valid difference is when their narrative bifurcates.

Yes, that's murder, but it does make the problem go away. I won't say "solves", but.

[Giggling Ghast]

They are both Spock. The only valid difference is when their narrative bifurcates.

But who do you make First Officer? As I see it, they both have a claim to the position.

[Grinner]

That's murder...

So are teleporters. :smallamused:


On a more serious note, you all might be interested in a variant of the Ship of Theseus problem. If you take a ship and replace every piece, is it still the same ship? What if you build another ship from the disassembled parts of the original?

Edit:

But who do you make First Officer? As I see it, they both have a claim to the position.

I'd say Meatbrain has the greater claim, being the original chronologically speaking.

[Giggling Ghast]

On a more serious note, you all might be interested in a variant of the Ship of Theseus problem. If you take a ship and replace every piece, is it still the same ship? What if you build another ship from the disassembled parts of the original?

That's actually what inspired the question.

[SiuiS]

But who do you make First Officer? As I see it, they both have a claim to the position.

Who wants to be first officer? You have two highly intelligent and rational people with identical desires who can work out a system of benefit to all parties, I doubt this is an actual issue.



On a more serious note, you all might be interested in a variant of the Ship of Theseus problem. If you take a ship and replace every piece, is it still the same ship? What if you build another ship from the disassembled parts of the original?

This is easier, because "ship" insofar as it pertains to the concept of the vessel bearing the name and history isn't really tied to the physical ship. If you replace is systematically, you're left with the ship with new pieces. The old pieces do not have claim to the concept of being a certain ship except where they shaped that concept. Just like disassembling a legion piece by piece and later taking all those men into a new legion doesn't have this problem.

[golentan]

Is it, though? It is Spock's body, but strictly speaking, it isn't the original Spock, merely a simulacrum that acts like the original Spock.

And that makes it not a person? If it's bright enough to legitimately emulate a living mind, that seems pretty person to me. I mean, you wouldn't gun down a guy in a mental hospital who declares "Je Suis Napoleon!" just because' he's not the original Napoleon, but rather acting as a simulacrum of the man to the best of his ability, would you?

And like I said, if you've actually copy pasted spock's memories and emotions about them (yeah vulcans have emotions, it's not my fault Roddenberry never adequately learned his psychology), that is absolutely Spock.

Think of it this way, Spock died in the movies, neh? Dead, gone, doornailed, definitely dead. And he came back to life afterwards. Despite the gap in continuity, what makes spock spock isn't the body, it isn't the continuity, what makes him spock is when they give him his mind/katra back.

If you've got an indistinguishable mind/katra, because you duplicated the original, that's spock, and it's at least as much spock as post resurrection and continuity gap spock. You can't tell the difference from any test that relies on the content of that mind, until such time as the two branches of spock have grown into different people from experiencing new, unshared memories, and if the new spock was a second meat brain instead of a metal one, there would be 0 tests you could perform without "marking the cards" so to speak before the test to tell the original from duplicate. The material that mind is encased in doesn't matter to it.

In the paraphrased words of Dr. King, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their brain, but by the content of their character.

[LaZodiac]

Seeing as how the brain is the seat of thought, it would therefor be the original Spock and thus have ownership of everything that is his, including his job and stuff. Just because you get an artificial leg doesn't mean you're no longer you, this is just a highly extended metaphor for that.

The mechanical duplicate brain, though perfectly Spock in every way, is still a mechanical device and thus would be considered, for lack of a better term, the lesser of the two.

[golentan]

So are teleporters. :smallamused:


On a more serious note, you all might be interested in a variant of the Ship of Theseus problem. If you take a ship and replace every piece, is it still the same ship? What if you build another ship from the disassembled parts of the original?

Teleporters aren't murder in the same way, though, because despite the potential continuity gap you've still got the person you sent through it. Throwing someone into a sun, you don't get them back, and if you had two simultaneous spocks that does mean you've got two different spocks (they'll start differentiating straight away), even if they're both spocks, and if you later find yourself permanently down to one spock after that, it means spock has died... Continuity gaps are way easier ethically than duplication in my mind, but the ethics of duplicates are pretty clearly that the duplicate is still a person...

As SiuiS says with the ship of theseus problem. Though if you really want to take it beyond that, it always seemed to me that continuity makes it the same ship, and in this case "cloning" also makes it the same ship, and so you're gonna have to differentiate between the ships by name but you can't claim one is more the original than the other...


I'd say Meatbrain has the greater claim, being the original chronologically speaking.

Probably? But that's a different question... Does it really matter? They'll have the same opinion of the job and the same competency if B is a true duplicate. Either way you need to find Spock a new job, and Spock keeps his job, honestly I'd probably flip a coin just to be fair.

[Grinner]

This is easier, because "ship" insofar as it pertains to the concept of the vessel bearing the name and history isn't really tied to the physical ship. If you replace is systematically, you're left with the ship with new pieces. The old pieces do not have claim to the concept of being a certain ship except where they shaped that concept. Just like disassembling a legion piece by piece and later taking all those men into a new legion doesn't have this problem.

It's a metaphor.

[golentan]

It's a metaphor.

Eh, you contain very few of your original atoms, are you still your mom's child?

It's a bad metaphor...

[Lord Raziere]

put the two Spocks in a room and let them figure this out themselves. they're the super-rationalist logician people. they should be able to come up with a better solution than I ever could, and they probably need to hash out the whole philosophical existence thing themselves.

but if I was perfectly rational/logical/whatever, I'd say "well you may be me or at a least a perfect duplicate, no reason to let you go to waste. since your presence on this ship should would undoubtedly cause confusion and emotional turmoil among the crew, perhaps it would be best that you find some other career or occupation to best be useful to other people in the best manner possible."
"I concur. Your are the one with the organic brain and therefore the Spock the rest of the crew would psychologically consider the real one, and therefore it is in our best interests for you to continue your voyage with them. I will find something else to do, Live long and prosper."

[golentan]

put the two Spocks in a room and let them figure this out themselves. they're the super-rationalist logician people. they should be able to come up with a better solution than I ever could, and they probably need to hash out the whole philosophical existence thing themselves.

but if I was perfectly rational/logical/whatever, I'd say "well you may be me or at a least a perfect duplicate, no reason to let you go to waste. since your presence on this should would undoubtedly cause confusion and emotional turmoil among the crew, perhaps it would be best that you find some other career or occupation to best be useful to other people in the best manner possible."
"I concur. Your are the one with the organic brain and therefore the Spock the rest of the crew would psychologically consider the real one, and therefore it is in our best interests for you to continue your voyage with them. I will find something else to do, Live long and prosper."

A good solution! And no murdering! Have your 564th internet.

[Grinner]

Eh, you contain very few of your original atoms, are you still your mom's child?

Fortunately, biology provides an answer. I recall reading somewhere that at a certain point, the brain, the modern seat of the soul, ceases to develop. While the rest of your body may continue to seethe with new cells, the brain just succumbs to the pull of time.

I think the question is perfectly fine as is. What I find interesting is the way it provokes people to scramble for answers and what they come up with.

[golentan]

Fortunately, biology provides an answer. I recall reading somewhere that at a certain point, the brain, the modern seat of the soul, ceases to develop. While the rest of your body may continue to seethe with new cells, the brain just succumbs to the pull of time.

I think the question is perfectly fine as is. What I find interesting is the way it provokes people to scramble for answers and what they come up with.

Didn't say cells, said atoms. Your brain cells may stop multiplying, but they still exchange fluids and nutrients and gases which are excreted into the wider world and replaced by you eating and drinking new ones. Let's face it, your fundamental parts have been swapped out. So, the question stands. Are you your mother's child?

Because if you think that the neurons and not the atoms are what matter for this question, we have to admit that there's a level of component that is negligible to the continuity question. And really, your neurons still are dying and forming new connections constantly, they're just not replicating. And if your neurons were all intact, but you forever lost all memories and emotions and even the subconscious elements of learning from everything that came before that moment, would you consider the person who emerged from the rubble to be you? If not, isn't it the memories and thoughts contained within that matters to you? And if that's true, why is a true duplicate of your mind any less you? If you found out tomorrow that you were a computer program emulating the life of the "original" would you be any more willing to die?

[Grinner]

Didn't say cells, said atoms. Your brain cells may stop multiplying, but they still exchange fluids and nutrients and gases which are excreted into the wider world and replaced by you eating and drinking new ones. Let's face it, your fundamental parts have been swapped out. So, the question stands. Are you your mother's child?

Because if you think that the neurons and not the atoms are what matter for this question, we have to admit that there's a level of component that is negligible to the continuity question. And really, your neurons still are dying and forming new connections constantly, they're just not replicating. And if your neurons were all intact, but you forever lost all memories and emotions and even the subconscious elements of learning from everything that came before that moment, would you consider the person who emerged from the rubble to be you? If not, isn't it the memories and thoughts contained within that matters to you? And if that's true, why is a true duplicate of your mind any less you? If you found out tomorrow that you were a computer program emulating the life of the "original" would you be any more willing to die?

Might I point out that fluids and nutrients and gases do not make a cell just as fuel does not make a car?

A technicality, yes.

Frankly, I would love to consider your stance on this and its implications, but it's getting late. Also, we're cutting into my TV time. I'll see you in the morning.

[golentan]

We're talking about structural and active mechanical components, not just fuel (cells are so complex that only rarely does a nutrient only fuel something without also playing some actively mechanical role), and I'd argue that an automobile which has no fuel and no intent to be refueled isn't an automobile so much as a very strange sculpture, lacking as it does the defining characteristic that gives automobiles their name (self moving).

[factotum]

Didn't they handle this exact dilemma in a TNG episode where they find that Riker accidentally got a transporter duplicate of himself stranded on a hostile planet years before, so they had two of him aboard? I can't actually remember how they resolved it in the end, though...I know that the Riker clone ended up as a member of the Maquis, though, because he appeared again in a Deep Space 9 episode.

My answer to the posted conundrum would be: the brain in the machine body is the rightful Spock, because he existed as a sentient entity before the mechanical mind in the Spock body did.

(And shouldn't this whole thread be in Media Discussions?).

[Grinner]

Didn't say cells, said atoms. Your brain cells may stop multiplying, but they still exchange fluids and nutrients and gases which are excreted into the wider world and replaced by you eating and drinking new ones. Let's face it, your fundamental parts have been swapped out. So, the question stands. Are you your mother's child?

Because if you think that the neurons and not the atoms are what matter for this question, we have to admit that there's a level of component that is negligible to the continuity question. And really, your neurons still are dying and forming new connections constantly, they're just not replicating. And if your neurons were all intact, but you forever lost all memories and emotions and even the subconscious elements of learning from everything that came before that moment, would you consider the person who emerged from the rubble to be you? If not, isn't it the memories and thoughts contained within that matters to you? And if that's true, why is a true duplicate of your mind any less you? If you found out tomorrow that you were a computer program emulating the life of the "original" would you be any more willing to die?

To address your first point, I think the best answer is "Cogito ergo sum". However, I enjoy a relatively uncomplicated existence. I've never met a doppelganger of myself nor have my memories ever been edited by an external actor, to my knowledge at least.

To address your second point, shortly after I signed off, I watched some anime and went to bed. As I slept, I dreamed what I thought was one of the most bizarre things I ever encountered. I wanted to remember this dream when I woke up, but that turned out not to be the case. So I sit here with the memory of a memory. Certainly that's not so hard to imagine, but why does such a useless thing exist? I might propose that those little cognitive oddities are what make us us.

That's what the whole question is about: identity.

Others have proposed different answers. Some are characterized as speculation, some as theology, and still others as pseudoscience.

Personally, if I were to experience some revelation that I'm not existentially who I think I am, I think my first response would be one of denial. After all, it's simply not within my background to think otherwise. If I were convinced, that certainly would not strip me of my "entity-hood", and I certainly wouldn't be more willing to die. In fact, I might be less willing to die, for the existing bodies of philosophy and scripture do not address the transmigration of the RAM. :smalltongue:

[golentan]

To address your first point, I think the best answer is "Cogito ergo sum".

Personally, if I were to experience some revelation that I'm not existentially who I think I am, I think my first response would be one of denial. After all, it's simply not within my background to think otherwise. If I were convinced, that certainly would not strip me of my "entity-hood", and I certainly wouldn't be more willing to die. In fact, I might be less willing to die, for the existing bodies of philosophy and scripture do not address the transmigration of the RAM. :smalltongue:

And there we have it.

[Jay R]

Consider an 18th century philosopher asking, "If it were possible to build a machine that would perfect mimic everything I say when I say it, and another that would do the same for you. We each take the other's machine. While 500 miles apart, I talk to your machine and you talk to mine. Which one is the real conversation?"

We. living when we do, answer, "The machine is called a telephone, and there's only one conversation. Your lack of technological understanding has made you believe there was a philosophical question when there wasn't." The 18th century philosopher doesn't realize technology has erased the idea that my 'real' voice can only exist in one place.


[...an upgraded mechanical brain in Spock's body that will be able to perfectly mimic Spock's personality.

If this is possible, then the notion that there is only one Spock is technologically backwards. Only backward 21st century savages (us) could believe that the question has meaning because we don't realize that this technology erased the idea of unique individuality forever.

[Elemental]

But who do you make First Officer? As I see it, they both have a claim to the position.

You send them both on vacation and book them regular sessions with therapists. Vulcans are still people with much of what that entails, I wouldn't put them back into a stressful position after such an unusual event until they both get it sorted out.


Anyways... That aside, I prefer the chronological approach. The biological Spock came first so the other must therefore be a copy barring time travel shenanigans (which we cannot discount as this is Star Trek we're talking about).
Therefore, despite how perfect the copy is, it isn't the true Spock as it was produced afterwards. Just as a forger can produce a duplicate of a famous painting, they can't paint the original, again barring time travel shenanigans. Should we throw the duplicate away? No, that's wasteful.
Of course, a painting is a poor analogy for a brain given that brains do things and paintings usually don't, but it was the first thing that came to mind.

[GolemsVoice]

My first idea would be to let the Spocks discuss it, it IS their life, after all. Being rational, and willing to make personal sacrifice, I think they could come to some satisfying conclusion. What Lord Raziere said sounds like something they would come up with.

However, if for some reason I had to make a decision, I'd take the meat-brain Spock, for the same reasons others have given, namely that the brain is the seat of the mind, and that brain is the older of the two Spock-brains.

As for the ship of Theseus problem: the ship of Theseus is whatever ship Theseus happens to have sailed on, it's not neccessarily bound to individual physical components. Such, each new part Theseus replaces becomes part of his ship, while each old part he throws away does not stop to be part of Theseus' ship. Just not a part of the ship as it currently is.

[Gavran]

Consider an 18th century philosopher asking, "If it were possible to build a machine that would perfect mimic everything I say when I say it, and another that would do the same for you. We each take the other's machine. While 500 miles apart, I talk to your machine and you talk to mine. Which one is the real conversation?"

We. living when we do, answer, "The machine is called a telephone, and there's only one conversation. Your lack of technological understanding has made you believe there was a philosophical question when there wasn't." The 18th century philosopher doesn't realize technology has erased the idea that my 'real' voice can only exist in one place.

If this is possible, then the notion that there is only one Spock is technologically backwards. Only backward 21st century savages (us) could believe that the question has meaning because we don't realize that this technology erased the idea of unique individuality forever.
Genuinely excellent post. Kudos if its original thought, and thanks for sharing if it isn't.

[Grinner]

And there we have it.

I'm not sure what we have, but okay.


*snip*

So if you ever get bored of doing math for a living, I think you have a promising career in science fiction awaiting. :smalleek:

[SiuiS]

It's a metaphor.

It's an extended koan. It just happens to actually have direct parallels that provide context for an answer. I believe that makes it a bad koan – you should think about it, not answer it – but then, that's context. A metaphor used as an example of a principle is perforce going to be stripped of details and have the principle attended to. I just used words that also matched the metaphor.


Consider an 18th century philosopher asking, "If it were possible to build a machine that would perfect mimic everything I say when I say it, and another that would do the same for you. We each take the other's machine. While 500 miles apart, I talk to your machine and you talk to mine. Which one is the real conversation?"

We. living when we do, answer, "The machine is called a telephone, and there's only one conversation. Your lack of technological understanding has made you believe there was a philosophical question when there wasn't." The 18th century philosopher doesn't realize technology has erased the idea that my 'real' voice can only exist in one place.



If this is possible, then the notion that there is only one Spock is technologically backwards. Only backward 21st century savages (us) could believe that the question has meaning because we don't realize that this technology erased the idea of unique individuality forever.

This is a neat hook for a Mage game, thanks. I like that I got the answer pretty immediately myself. I could use a bit of smugness before bed. :)

Seems about the same as the boat; the concept isn't objective and is based on POV, strictly, so assign how you like but don't assume universal validity.

[Mx.Silver]

The question is: which is the true "Spock"?

Well, that answer rather depends on what you mean by 'the true Spock'.
One persistent wrinkle in discussions of personal identity is that,at least in discussion outside of philosophy, humans don't really distinguish between type identity and token identity in the context of what defines a person (likely because, so far, all humans are both type and token unique). Given that personal identity has been a subject of philosophy for centuries, there's been an awful lot of writing about it and how it can be thought of along both those lines (and even if both are relevant to it), but setting that aside for now we'll just see how it applies to this question.
If you define 'the true Spock' as being the Spock that shares token identity with the Spock the rest of the crew have travelled with then, quite obviously, Spock's original brain has the stronger case. After all, barring the grandfather's axe/ship of theseus issue, the same brain (note that it's also technically the older of the two, so in regards to the officer question it can also be argued to have seniority). It should be noted however that this does not necessarily mean Robo-brain Spock loses any personhood status, just that he's a seperate instance rather a continuation of the existing one

However, if we're placing priority on type identity, then the answer rather has to be both of them. While the two are distinct entities, since both have the same personality, memories and thought process as Spock, and therefore are both 'the true Spock', in the same way that two copies of Nueromancer are both the 'true book'.*


You will probably have noticed that this issue is one that also turns-up in the 'teleporter problem'. In fact it's largely the core of that, as well as being one of bigger obstacles to the 'personal immortality through back-up personalities' notion.



*Well, sort of. There is something in your hypothetical scenario that complicates things a bit, but I'll get to that later.


It's a metaphor.

It's an extended koan.
It's a paradox used as a thought experiment. So, you're both wrong :smalltongue:




[skipping the analogy because it's not an argument, unless you actually want to argue that a conversation and a person are equivalent]

If this is possible, then the notion that there is only one Spock is technologically backwards. Only backward 21st century savages (us) could believe that the question has meaning because we don't realize that this technology erased the idea of unique individuality forever.


Well, sort of. As mentioned above, it hasn't actually broken the concept of unique individuals (both Spocks in this example are distinct, and will become increasingly less identical on the type front as one has experiences the other doesn't), which is why if you shot one of them into the sun you'd still be committing murder, instead of just making Spock lose a lot of weight. Rather, it's created a scenario whereby type identity no longer has to be concurrent with token identity - which seems to be the case at the moment as far as the real world is concerned.



That passage does however raise another point which might be worth considering, as it does raise a few other questions. Most significantly: is the robot brain capable of functioning as a tabula rasa entity without having a copy of another consciousness implanted in it? Logically, it seems plausible but if the answer is yes, then there does not appear to be much differentiating this process from taking someone and convincing them they're someone else. As in, it would not be akin to growing a clone and implanting that with memories.
Moreover, in that case, what then is it that distinguishes the implanted memories from false memories? Assuming such a distinction would matter in the first place.

[Jay R]

That passage does however raise another point which might be worth considering, as it does raise a few other questions. Most significantly: is the robot brain capable of functioning as a tabula rasa entity without having a copy of another consciousness implanted in it? Logically, it seems plausible but if the answer is yes, then there does not appear to be much differentiating this process from taking someone and convincing them they're someone else. As in, it would not be akin to growing a clone and implanting that with memories.
Moreover, in that case, what then is it that distinguishes the implanted memories from false memories? Assuming such a distinction would matter in the first place.

People seem to want to debate the meaning of a technological achievement that has not been achieved, or shown to be achievable. It has no meaning; it's merely a word game.

If the "soul" exists as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality, then such technological developments are inherently impossible.

A re-statement is this: if such technological developments are possible, then the "soul" does not exist as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality.

These statements are logically equivalent, being contrapositives. Either way, it's a logical connection between two unprovable postulates.

We are so used to extrapolating from extensions of known and supportable science ("If a rocket could travel at a continuous acceleration of 1 g, we could reach Alpha Centauri in X years"), that we can easily forget that the second statement above is not extending known science, but speculating on an unsupported fantasy.

[golentan]

People seem to want to debate the meaning of a technological achievement that has not been achieved, or shown to be achievable. It has no meaning; it's merely a word game.

If the "soul" exists as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality, then such technological developments are inherently impossible.

A re-statement is this: if such technological developments are possible, then the "soul" does not exist as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality.

These statements are logically equivalent, being contrapositives. Either way, it's a logical connection between two unprovable postulates.

We are so used to extrapolating from extensions of known and supportable science ("If a rocket could travel at a continuous acceleration of 1 g, we could reach Alpha Centauri in X years"), that we can easily forget that the second statement above is not extending known science, but speculating on an unsupported fantasy.

I don't know that that's true: You're making some assumptions by saying that the concept of a soul is mutually exclusive with the technology to duplicate a person. I mean, if the soul exists, we create souls all the time through our natural biological processes. We couldn't duplicate those processes until recently: the creation of living things was the purview of nature alone. But now cloning, and making gametes from skin cells, and in vitro fertilization, and successful pregnancies from transplanted wombs, and organ printers and new species and breeds of living beings all owe their existence to the march of technology. Perhaps the soul does exist, but is something that can be duplicated, or created from whole cloth, by a sufficiently advanced people with the right machinery?

[Mx.Silver]

People seem to want to debate the meaning of a technological achievement that has not been achieved, or shown to be achievable. It has no meaning; it's merely a word game.

The reason why I brought that up is twofold. First, this sort of device is not an uncommon element in Speculative Fiction, but very few of those actually touch-on those sort of issues. That's likely to be of some interest in a thread which directly references a work of fiction, read by fans of the genre some of whom may also have creative instincts themselves.

Secondly, the thread in general is using these fictional technologies to touch on the question of personal identity and more general matters within Philosophy of Mind, because this sort of fiction is likely to be familiar to most of the audience and therefore makes for an easier jumping-off point rather than diving straight into the completely abstract. Given that these sort questions have been common fixtures of recorded thought, one would assume there is at least something about the subject that draws interest.



If the "soul" exists as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality, then such technological developments are inherently impossible.

A re-statement is this: if such technological developments are possible, then the "soul" does not exist as a non-physical but real consciousness or mentality.

These statements are logically equivalent, being contrapositives.

They're also equally lacking in validity, since there isn't anything in either of them that links the antecedent to the consequent. At least, not without accepting a lot of implicit assumptions can't reasonably be taken as read (golentan's post should give some examples as to why).



We are so used to extrapolating from extensions of known and supportable science ("If a rocket could travel at a continuous acceleration of 1 g, we could reach Alpha Centauri in X years"), that we can easily forget that the second statement above is not extending known science, but speculating on an unsupported fantasy.
You're in a thread that states it's a philosophical exercise involving a work fiction in the title. I doubt that anyone here is going to be unaware that this is 'unsupported speculation'. Nor is anyone likely to care that much.

[SiuiS]

I'll bite. Is there anything inherent to a paradox that prevents it from being a koan?

[Mx.Silver]

I'll bite. Is there anything inherent to a paradox that prevents it from being a koan?

In principle, it's probably possible to form a koan that uses a paradox in the general sense. In practice, paradoxes that stem from the classical Greek tradition (of which the Ship of Theseus is obviously an example) are tied heavily to the thought experiment. They are meant to be answered, or to serve as a point in and of themselves.
Therefore, you're not incorrect to note that the Ship of Theseus makes a bad koan. It doesn't work as a koan very well, because that's not what it's meant to be used for.

[Bulldog Psion]

IMO, they are both Spock, but Spock with different and separate viewpoints. Therefore, they are technically exactly the same person and different, distinct individuals simultaneously, without paradox.

[Donnadogsoth]

"Brain and brain? What is brain?!"
-Kara, from that one episode of Star Trek that was nearly as bad as the one with the space hippies and the tiresome Garden of Eden metaphor

OK, have you ever watched the Star Trek: TOS episode "Spock's Brain?" Here's the short rundown: Spock's brain gets removed by stupid alien babes who need it to run their implausible civilization. Spock's body temporarily gets a mechanical replacement. (He can't talk or nothin', though.) Eventually, McCoy uses a make-you-super-smart machine and sticks Spock's brain back into Spock's body so that he can finish out the rest of TOS' mediocre third season.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Spock's brain couldn't be put back, as it was literally impossible to reconnect all the ... brain-thingies. Shut up. Not wishing to lose his first officer, Kirk orders that they use the technology of the stupid alien babes to implant an upgraded mechanical brain in Spock's body that will be able to perfectly mimic Spock's personality.

However, shepherding a civilization of hot morons when you don't have a physical body presents all sorts of difficulties, so Spock's original brain constructs a robot body that is identical to his old body.

So now we have two Spocks: one with the original body with a mechanical brain, and one with the original brain and a mechanical body. Both have the original personality of Mr. Spock.

The question is: which is the true "Spock"? Who do you make First Officer of the Starship Enterprise? And is a two-fisted hammer punch really that effective in hand-to-hand combat?

The human/vulcan mind is associated with a brain. There are no examples in scientific literature of either cultures of a mind not being associated with a brain. God is a special case and not relevant to the matter under discussion. The matter is the brain, as the associate of the mind.

Now, in the example, we know where Spock's brain is. It's in the machine body he constructed. That's Spock. The mechanical brain constructed by the babes is not Spock. It's a machine, and to say it "perfectly mimics" Spock's brain is where the flawed premise is. Nothing "perfectly mimics" anything else without becoming that thing. If both mechanical brain-Spock and organic brain-Spock were the same thing, they would think the same thoughts, perform the same actions, speak the same words. Since they are not doing this, the mechanical brain is not a perfect imitation of Spock's organic brain.

The mechanical brain may well be sophisticated enough to harbour a mind of its own, but that mind ain't Spock, and Kirk would know it.

[SiuiS]

The human/vulcan mind is associated with a brain. There are no examples in scientific literature of either cultures of a mind not being associated with a brain. God is a special case and not relevant to the matter under discussion. The matter is the brain, as the associate of the mind.

Now, in the example, we know where Spock's brain is. It's in the machine body he constructed. That's Spock. The mechanical brain constructed by the babes is not Spock. It's a machine, and to say it "perfectly mimics" Spock's brain is where the flawed premise is. Nothing "perfectly mimics" anything else without becoming that thing. If both mechanical brain-Spock and organic brain-Spock were the same thing, they would think the same thoughts, perform the same actions, speak the same words. Since they are not doing this, the mechanical brain is not a perfect imitation of Spock's organic brain.

The mechanical brain may well be sophisticated enough to harbour a mind of its own, but that mind ain't Spock, and Kirk would know it.

Your response is actually flawed. At least in presentation.

Up to the point of genesis, let's call that second zero, the two brains are, indeed, 100% identical (sufficient for our purposes). They do have all the same thoughts; they are called memories. The question is, starting from second zero when individuate on of their respective perspectives begins, which one has a greater claim to the title of "Spock".

If anything. The true flaw is the idea that any one of these two could be Spock. Neither could be. Spock was a half human, half Vulcan of the federation with only one brain and body. This new system has similar bases but two bodies; both would have a direct lineage to Spock but neither would be he, all things beig equal.

Is the symbol of "Spock" in the minds of the crew based on this same concept? No. But the crew do not decide who is Spock. They make a snap judgement usig flawed data and ten rationalize it. They do not determine the ontological status of either post-Spock entity.

[JDL]

Check them both. The one without the goatee is the real Spock.
http://www.amyleighstrickland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/evil-spock.png
On a more serious note, this particular question, when taken in the literal rather than the abstract, becomes a case of defining where a person ends and a copy begins. The series has played with this concept many times. Data from TNG: is he a person with rights or a machine that is property? The Doctor from Voyager: Is he a computer program or a living being? If we can upload our brain into a machine and create a copy, where does our individuality go?

In terms of fundamental rights, I'd treat it as a twin analogy. As soon as the consciousness becomes separated you have two unique individuals, even if both have identical memories up to a point and are for all other purposes the same. Who has a biological or mechanical brain is mostly irrelevant if we assume the fact that cybernetic substitution of bodily organs is a routine matter. So who gets to be first officer? Whoever is most qualified, and given the person we're discussing, I'm sure they'd be quite capable of working it out amongst themselves.

[Bulldog Psion]

post-Spock entity.

That right there is simultaneously hilarious and magnificent. Thank you. :smallbiggrin:

[Donnadogsoth]

Your response is actually flawed. At least in presentation.

Up to the point of genesis, let's call that second zero, the two brains are, indeed, 100% identical (sufficient for our purposes). They do have all the same thoughts; they are called memories. The question is, starting from second zero when individuate on of their respective perspectives begins, which one has a greater claim to the title of "Spock".

If anything. The true flaw is the idea that any one of these two could be Spock. Neither could be. Spock was a half human, half Vulcan of the federation with only one brain and body. This new system has similar bases but two bodies; both would have a direct lineage to Spock but neither would be he, all things beig equal.

Is the symbol of "Spock" in the minds of the crew based on this same concept? No. But the crew do not decide who is Spock. They make a snap judgement usig flawed data and ten rationalize it. They do not determine the ontological status of either post-Spock entity.

I deny the premise that there could ever be two 100% identical brains. The rest follows.

[Devils_Advocate]

However, if for some reason I had to make a decision, I'd take the meat-brain Spock, for the same reasons others have given, namely that the brain is the seat of the mind, and that brain is the older of the two Spock-brains.

Seeing as how the brain is the seat of thought, it would therefor be the original Spock and thus have ownership of everything that is his, including his job and stuff.
But... saying that the brain is the seat of the mind implies that it isn't the mind itself, and that one mind can in principle (in practice being another matter) move from one brain to another, just like getting up from your chair and going to sit somewhere else doesn't make you a different person.

I, um, think that you may have inadvertently selected a metaphor that says the opposite of what you thought it said, is what I'm saying.


Just because you get an artificial leg doesn't mean you're no longer you, this is just a highly extended metaphor for that.
"The legal status of Copies is being framed as a human rights issue, especially in Europe: Copies are disabled people, no more, no less -- really just a kind of radical amputee --"
--- Paul Durham, Permutation City

Okay. So. That our brains perform our mental functioning is a big honking deal because that that mental functioning is itself of value to us. Being cryogenically frozen doesn't preserve your mind if you're never revived, and not because it doesn't literally preserve biological life. Becoming an indestructible vampire could grant "immortality" in the relevant sense, even if it technically makes you a walking corpse, whereas brain death means the end of "life" in the same relevant sense, right?

So, given that it's a bunch of stuff that the brain does that makes it valuable, then if you can get something else to do all of that stuff, then there's no more practical, non-sentimental reason to retain your original brain than there is to retain any other part of your body, is there? Like, totally granted that that's a big "if", but, y'know, hypothetically speaking.


Now, in the example, we know where Spock's brain is. It's in the machine body he constructed. That's Spock. The mechanical brain constructed by the babes is not Spock. It's a machine, and to say it "perfectly mimics" Spock's brain is where the flawed premise is. Nothing "perfectly mimics" anything else without becoming that thing. If both mechanical brain-Spock and organic brain-Spock were the same thing, they would think the same thoughts, perform the same actions, speak the same words. Since they are not doing this, the mechanical brain is not a perfect imitation of Spock's organic brain.

The mechanical brain may well be sophisticated enough to harbour a mind of its own, but that mind ain't Spock, and Kirk would know it.
woah wait what

Are you claiming that it's impossible for a program to run on two different machines with no observable difference?

The whole idea of a mind upload is based on the concept that software is portable between different hardware because the underlying implementation details are irrelevant to its functioning. Objections are usually along the lines that even if a process produces the same outputs from the same inputs as a human mind, the internal details may still differ in some way held to be metaphysically significant. But you seem to be instead saying that two processes that are internally different won't even give the same outputs. That's an actual empirical prediction, which is notable in this sort of discussion! :O

So just to be clear, do you think that it's not possible e.g. for two computers with different architectures to play the same video exactly the same way, with no observable difference in their performance?

That seems to be what you're claiming with


Nothing "perfectly mimics" anything else without becoming that thing.

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you claiming that it's impossible for a program to run on two different machines with no observable difference?

The whole idea of a mind upload is based on the concept that software is portable between different hardware because the underlying implementation details are irrelevant to its functioning. Objections are usually along the lines that even if a process produces the same outputs from the same inputs as a human mind, the internal details may still differ in some way held to be metaphysically significant. But you seem to be instead saying that two processes that are internally different won't even give the same outputs. That's an actual empirical prediction, which is notable in this sort of discussion! :O

So just to be clear, do you think that it's not possible e.g. for two computers with different architectures to play the same video exactly the same way, with no observable difference in their performance?

The mind is not a videogame. The mind is an internalised experience with an “I”. A videogame is a phenomenon perceived by “I”s. Two copies of the same videogame may be run on different machines, but the running is going to be subtly different due to atomic differences in the architecture. It may not be an observable difference but it will be a difference. Now magnify that effect a trillion-fold when it comes to “running” an “I”.

[SowZ]

If you made a clone of me, with my exact chemical composition and memories and personality, it would be me as much as I am me. There would be no distinction. The concept of 'me' is abstract, anyway. There is an idea that is me. There is a string of information that is me. Copy that information and the idea and you still have me.

Both Spocks are Spock.

[SiuiS]

I deny the premise that there could ever be two 100% identical brains. The rest follows.

Okay.



woah wait what

Are you claiming that it's impossible for a program to run on two different machines with no observable difference?

A program of sufficient complexity with sufficient variables will not be the same. See the whole chaos theory lever demo.


The mind is not a videogame. The mind is an internalised experience with an “I”. A videogame is a phenomenon perceived by “I”s. Two copies of the same videogame may be run on different machines, but the running is going to be subtly different due to atomic differences in the architecture. It may not be an observable difference but it will be a difference. Now magnify that effect a trillion-fold when it comes to “running” an “I”.

This is technically accurate but not entirely relevant. It's too fine grain. Do you cease being you when you eat breakfast and integrate biomass into yourself? No. The symbol of you is more than your technical parameters as observed in any slice of time.

[Jay R]

We are debating an issue of fact which we cannot know the truth of.

Is it possible to make an exact copy of everything that makes a person what he or she is?

I don't know. I suspect not. I suspect that there is an actual non-physical aspect that, while tied to the physical components of the brain, is not itself merely physical.

You may call it a "soul", a "mind", a "spirit", or anything you like. But available evidence, in particular the fact that I am self-aware, seems to indicate that such a thing exists.

If so, then it is impossible to make a clone of Spock's mind, simply by duplicating his brain.

But I have no proof. If I'm wrong, and the mind and all its wonders, including self-awareness, can be duplicated physically, then the mind is entirely software, in theory a perfect copy can be created, and there could be two Spocks.

But this debate hinges entirely on the answer to this question: is the mind purely physical?

And at our current state of technology, it is impossible to know. So on either side of the issue, we can state an opinion, but we cannot argue against the opposing opinion.

We just don't know.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is technically accurate but not entirely relevant. It's too fine grain. Do you cease being you when you eat breakfast and integrate biomass into yourself? No. The symbol of you is more than your technical parameters as observed in any slice of time.

Granted. If we want to dematerialise the issue, then the matter is simply that the mind is sovereign and uncounterfeitable. Talking about duplicating brains as if brains are minds betrays a materialist bent, which was not my intent. Since brains are associated with minds, though, it is more logical to presume that Spock's mind continues to associate with his brain, rather than instead associating with his brainless body or with a mechanical brain modelled after Spock's own biological brain.

[SiuiS]

This gets into things such as whether Spock will consider his cult both shell "his" body or some counterfeit. Is a prosthesis your leg? Or a stand in?

Regardless however, I believe that Spock would regard this other with equal consideration as himself. It for all intents and purposes met every achievement and sound decision he himself did. It stands that Spock would consider this thing his equal – his self, even, though with recognition for the individuation of perspective which instantaneously asserts itself – sufficiently similar to refer to it as "Spock" simply because engaging in this conversation every time something comes up which relies on the P.S.E.'s individuality would be trying beyond bearing.

Really, P.S.E. Is the only way to refer to either at that point. Deciding on a Spock, even for Spock, seems arbitrary. It may be necessary but that's why we have this discussion, lay down this foundation. To establish the necessity of the grain of approximation. Of what fits neatly enough for our primitive meat brains to accept it while still advancing said primitive meat brains.

[SowZ]

Granted. If we want to dematerialise the issue, then the matter is simply that the mind is sovereign and uncounterfeitable. Talking about duplicating brains as if brains are minds betrays a materialist bent, which was not my intent. Since brains are associated with minds, though, it is more logical to presume that Spock's mind continues to associate with his brain, rather than instead associating with his brainless body or with a mechanical brain modelled after Spock's own biological brain.

Our understanding of the universe indicates that everything is information. All of it is data. Even the matter and laws of physics are, in a sense, information. The 'mind' should also be information. Theoretically, this info could also be duplicated and the duplicate would be Spock in a real, full sense. It's not a matter of pure materialism. It is a matter of the fundamental composition of the universe.

[Jay R]

Our understanding of the universe indicates that everything is information.

Simply untrue. Our understanding of the universe is that 95% of it is stuff we cannot see or understand. We don't know what dark matter or dark energy are, or how they work.


All of it is data. Even the matter and laws of physics are, in a sense, information. The 'mind' should also be information.

"should also be" is speculation.


It's not a matter of pure materialism. It is a matter of the fundamental composition of the universe.

... which we do not know.

I repeat, if there is a non-physical component to the "mind", the "spirit", the "soul", "the non-crunchy bit", whatever, then we have not found a way to measure it or even identify it with physical instruments - which is a property it has in common with 95% of the universe. Therefore we do not know if such a copy of the m/s/s/n-cb is even theoretically possible.

If we put the topic back in Star Trek where it came, from then we have the following two additional points of data:

1. The fact that transporters work is an indication that the "soul" or "non-crunchy bit" can be encoded and transferred (in that fictional universe).

BUT:

2. In the one episode in which it was duplicated ("The Enemy Within", original series), each duplicate mind was incomplete. That's an indication that you cannot have two perfect copies.

Yes, that's fiction, invented by a writer. In the real world, we cannot have an informed opinion about whether a perfect copy of the "soul"/"non-crunchy bit" could ever be duplicated.

[SowZ]

Simply untrue. Our understanding of the universe is that 95% of it is stuff we cannot see or understand. We don't know what dark matter or dark energy are, or how they work.



"should also be" is speculation.



... which we do not know.

I repeat, if there is a non-physical component to the "mind", the "spirit", the "soul", "the non-crunchy bit", whatever, then we have not found a way to measure it or even identify it with physical instruments - which is a property it has in common with 95% of the universe. Therefore we do not know if such a copy of the m/s/s/n-cb is even theoretically possible.

If we put the topic back in Star Trek where it came, from then we have the following two additional points of data:

1. The fact that transporters work is an indication that the "soul" or "non-crunchy bit" can be encoded and transferred (in that fictional universe).

BUT:

2. In the one episode in which it was duplicated ("The Enemy Within", original series), each duplicate mind was incomplete. That's an indication that you cannot have two perfect copies.

Yes, that's fiction, invented by a writer. In the real world, we cannot have an informed opinion about whether a perfect copy of the "soul"/"non-crunchy bit" could ever be duplicated.

Functioning string theory models as well as M-theory suppose that dark matter should exist, just as other matter, as information/patterns of energy.

We don't know this, certainly. It isn't particularly testable. But presently there are no alternatives as compelling or satisfying. Yes, it's possible there is something that is not fundamentally a set of information or theoretically repeatable patterns. But there are more reasons to believe that everything has a specific set of qualities than the alternative. If this 'soul' is a set of properties, there's no real reason to think it couldn't theoretically be repeated under the same conditions. If it can't be explained as a set of properties, what is it? Is it anything at all?

If the universe oscillates, that is it repeats, it seems very silly to me to say that an identical universe with another me performing the exact same actions is not me. Hell, I don't even think identity is real. It's just a useful tool, like all of taxonomy and classification. It's useful, but not really truthful to how the universe works.

Of course I can't say anything with certainty. But if you made a perfect duplicate of me, the same information, the same matter composition, the same everything; I see plenty of reasons to think it is me and no real reason to think it isn't. "There's things we don't know," isn't a real argument against this.

This hypothetical asks me to make working assumptions because it is a scenario that is untestable/has never actually happened. I'm naturally going to make assumptions that are the most consistent with the current evidence.

[Donnadogsoth]

Our understanding of the universe indicates that everything is information. All of it is data. Even the matter and laws of physics are, in a sense, information. The 'mind' should also be information. Theoretically, this info could also be duplicated and the duplicate would be Spock in a real, full sense. It's not a matter of pure materialism. It is a matter of the fundamental composition of the universe.

By this reasoning all consciousness is one, because all conscious beings partake of the idea of consciousness. You are me and I am he and he is she. Do you really believe this?

[Donnadogsoth]

This gets into things such as whether Spock will consider his cult both shell "his" body or some counterfeit. Is a prosthesis your leg? Or a stand in?

Regardless however, I believe that Spock would regard this other with equal consideration as himself. It for all intents and purposes met every achievement and sound decision he himself did. It stands that Spock would consider this thing his equal – his self, even, though with recognition for the individuation of perspective which instantaneously asserts itself – sufficiently similar to refer to it as "Spock" simply because engaging in this conversation every time something comes up which relies on the P.S.E.'s individuality would be trying beyond bearing.

Really, P.S.E. Is the only way to refer to either at that point. Deciding on a Spock, even for Spock, seems arbitrary. It may be necessary but that's why we have this discussion, lay down this foundation. To establish the necessity of the grain of approximation. Of what fits neatly enough for our primitive meat brains to accept it while still advancing said primitive meat brains.

Spock might, but Kirk wouldn't. Kirk would know that the individual personality is sovereign and inviolable by anything, regardless of the angle or origin of attack. Photocopying a twenty dollar bill doesn't make another twenty dollar bill, it makes a counterfeit.

[SowZ]

By this reasoning all consciousness is one, because all conscious beings partake of the idea of consciousness. You are me and I am he and he is she. Do you really believe this?

As I said, I don't think identity actually exists as anything more than an idea. I don't believe the distinction between living and non-living particles actually exists in nature. What distinguishes one rock from a mountain or one person from the whole species is definition and perspective. There's really nothing iron clad in nature that distinguishes a cat from a dog. Taxonomy, like identity, is a useful tool but not a fundamental part of the universe. We are all just cogs in a single giant clock. If there is an afterlife, our 'souls' there are also just pieces.

[Donnadogsoth]

As I said, I don't think identity actually exists as anything more than an idea. I don't believe the distinction between living and non-living particles actually exists in nature. What distinguishes one rock from a mountain or one person from the whole species is definition and perspective. There's really nothing iron clad in nature that distinguishes a cat from a dog. Taxonomy, like identity, is a useful tool but not a fundamental part of the universe. We are all just cogs in a single giant clock. If there is an afterlife, our 'souls' there are also just pieces.

That should put the murderer's mind at ease as he disposes of an irritating part of himself.

[SiuiS]

Spock might, but Kirk wouldn't. Kirk would know that the individual personality is sovereign and inviolable by anything, regardless of the angle or origin of attack. Photocopying a twenty dollar bill doesn't make another twenty dollar bill, it makes a counterfeit.

That would be Kirk's position, yes.

[SowZ]

That should put the murderer's mind at ease as he disposes of an irritating part of himself.

Not really. It isn't useful at all to look at human interaction that way. Identity is just an idea, but it's a functional idea, and one we live our lives by. All you are doing is highlighting the absurdity of human existence, which I won't argue, not actually making a point against the viewpoint that everything is just an ingredient in one giant, cosmic soup. Identity doesn't exist outside of your perception.

There's no mystical forcefield making a chair a chair. Each particle in the chair is its own thing just as each molecule just as each leg just as the row of chairs is a thing. It's purely definition. We choose to attach meaning to the individual chair but if we didn't there wouldn't be anything special separating the chair from the rest of the room. Even 'you' is just an idea. There isn't an iron-clad you.

Look at it this way. Pick the most similar person to you on the planet. Someone who looks a lot and thinks a lot and acts a lot like you and is roughly the same age. Let's say you have an identical twin with whom you share a lot of common interests and opinions. Who do you share more in common with? Him, or yourself at 2 years old? The answer is certainly the former. And yet you consider yourself the same person then and now, don't you? Why? Your cells are almost entirely different now than when you were 2 years old. You are Theseus' Ship. And it isn't just your appearance and cells and particles that are different. Your opinions, worldview, interests, abilities, etc. etc. are all so radically different that functionally you aren't remotely the same human being. But that isn't a practical way to look at human beings. It wouldn't work for society to say you are a different person every 10 years. Besides, when would you count yourself as a different person? You can't select a specific day when you are now so different from a previous version of yourself that you count as a new person.

It's easy enough to say you are radically different than when you are 2, with basically entirely new cells and traits, but if you go one day at a time you are roughly the same person each and every day. Because if you compare 2 year old you to 2 years and a week you aren't a different person. And if we keep going a week at a time, there's never a point where you shifted radically. And yet, when we get far enough, we know you have almost nothing in common with your toddler self. Moving an inch at a time produces a different result than a yard at a time.

Classification in evolution has the same problem. (Forgive my oversimplification of evolution, I'll trust everyone understands the core principles enough to know where to fill in the gaps with my very broad strokes.) There's no such thing as firm lines that divide species. Take Animal A and Animal Z. Animal A is an ancestor of Animal Z and they are very distinct creatures. But Animal A gave birth to Animal B and the two aren't different species. An Animal can't just give birth to an entirely new species, it is more gradual than that. Then Animal B gives birth to C and they aren't different species, either. We keep going like this until we hit Z, with no offspring being a different species than their mother, yet somehow A and Z are distinct species of animals. If it was clear cut, like math, we could use the transitive property and say they all must be the same species. But that doesn't really work. It certainly isn't useful. So we accept that Taxonomy, like all language, is just a tool. And we use it accordingly.

This whole concept of identity is arbitrary like this. It works when you look at things on a small scale, but falls apart when you zoom the microscope out far enough.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not really. It isn't useful at all to look at human interaction that way. Identity is just an idea, but it's a functional idea, and one we live our lives by. All you are doing is highlighting the absurdity of human existence, which I won't argue, not actually making a point against the viewpoint that everything is just an ingredient in one giant, cosmic soup. Identity doesn't exist outside of your perception.

There's no mystical forcefield making a chair a chair. Each particle in the chair is its own thing just as each molecule just as each leg just as the row of chairs is a thing. It's purely definition. We choose to attach meaning to the individual chair but if we didn't there wouldn't be anything special separating the chair from the rest of the room. Even 'you' is just an idea. There isn't an iron-clad you.

Look at it this way. Pick the most similar person to you on the planet. Someone who looks a lot and thinks a lot and acts a lot like you and is roughly the same age. Let's say you have an identical twin with whom you share a lot of common interests and opinions. Who do you share more in common with? Him, or yourself at 2 years old? The answer is certainly the former. And yet you consider yourself the same person then and now, don't you? Why? Your cells are almost entirely different now than when you were 2 years old. You are Theseus' Ship. And it isn't just your appearance and cells and particles that are different. Your opinions, worldview, interests, abilities, etc. etc. are all so radically different that functionally you aren't remotely the same human being. But that isn't a practical way to look at human beings. It wouldn't work for society to say you are a different person every 10 years. Besides, when would you count yourself as a different person? You can't select a specific day when you are now so different from a previous version of yourself that you count as a new person.

It's easy enough to say you are radically different than when you are 2, with basically entirely new cells and traits, but if you go one day at a time you are roughly the same person each and every day. Because if you compare 2 year old you to 2 years and a week you aren't a different person. And if we keep going a week at a time, there's never a point where you shifted radically. And yet, when we get far enough, we know you have almost nothing in common with your toddler self. Moving an inch at a time produces a different result than a yard at a time.

Classification in evolution has the same problem. (Forgive my oversimplification of evolution, I'll trust everyone understands the core principles enough to know where to fill in the gaps with my very broad strokes.) There's no such thing as firm lines that divide species. Take Animal A and Animal Z. Animal A is an ancestor of Animal Z and they are very distinct creatures. But Animal A gave birth to Animal B and the two aren't different species. An Animal can't just give birth to an entirely new species, it is more gradual than that. Then Animal B gives birth to C and they aren't different species, either. We keep going like this until we hit Z, with no offspring being a different species than their mother, yet somehow A and Z are distinct species of animals. If it was clear cut, like math, we could use the transitive property and say they all must be the same species. But that doesn't really work. It certainly isn't useful. So we accept that Taxonomy, like all language, is just a tool. And we use it accordingly.

This whole concept of identity is arbitrary like this. It works when you look at things on a small scale, but falls apart when you zoom the microscope out far enough.

A functional idea for whom? You're still presuming there is a core “I” in the individual that has self-interest, and which would find that self-interest in ignoring your revelation about the nullity of personal identity, as if for the benefit of society, when the real truth of the matter must be that a murderer who is dismissive of “society” should have no qualm in murdering his neighbour, any more than I have a qualm about clipping a nail off my toe. As Spock would say, it is illogical to tell a man he lacks identity, and then tell him that he must act as if he didn't.

This appears to be materialism and reductionism run amok. I hold to idealism, that mind is supreme over a component of it known as matter. My resemblance to my doppelganger is irrelevant; I am not my doppelganger, but I did live through my life as a toddler, my ages contained within me like nested Russian Babushka dolls.

A good way to look at human identity is in terms of the human species, past, present, and future. Together these form a unity of purpose—survival and mastery of the universe—but that unity does not destroy the identities of its component people, any more than the unity and mentality of a human body destroys the identities of its trillions of cells. The unity of humanity's purpose requires the sovereignty of its individual “cells” as this sovereignty is the only way to contribute to the common stock of knowledge of universal principle.

[SowZ]

A functional idea for whom? You're still presuming there is a core “I” in the individual that has self-interest, and which would find that self-interest in ignoring your revelation about the nullity of personal identity, as if for the benefit of society, when the real truth of the matter must be that a murderer who is dismissive of “society” should have no qualm in murdering his neighbour, any more than I have a qualm about clipping a nail off my toe. As Spock would say, it is illogical to tell a man he lacks identity, and then tell him that he must act as if he didn't.

This appears to be materialism and reductionism run amok. I hold to idealism, that mind is supreme over a component of it known as matter. My resemblance to my doppelganger is irrelevant; I am not my doppelganger, but I did live through my life as a toddler, my ages contained within me like nested Russian Babushka dolls.

A good way to look at human identity is in terms of the human species, past, present, and future. Together these form a unity of purpose—survival and mastery of the universe—but that unity does not destroy the identities of its component people, any more than the unity and mentality of a human body destroys the identities of its trillions of cells. The unity of humanity's purpose requires the sovereignty of its individual “cells” as this sovereignty is the only way to contribute to the common stock of knowledge of universal principle.

An identity is an idea. An idea can be incredibly powerful. My point is that identities are inherently subjective. That doesn't mean they don't exist in some form, but they are entirely subjective things. There is no external metric to judge them by that doesn't build itself off of arbitrary starting points. Certain things are built into the universe. They exist whether you say so or not. Like gravity. Other things don't really exist in a concrete form, but exist because some entity somewhere says it does. An identity, the distinction between one life form and another life form, is one such thing.

I am Aaron, but objectively I'm just a clump of cells made of the exact same stuff on the quantum level as a rock. My Aaroness is an idea, not a thing. That doesn't mean it has no value, just that it is subjective and could be defined one of several ways. It makes the most sense to define it in a way that is useful.

I consider myself an existentialist, not a nihilist.

[Donnadogsoth]

An identity is an idea. An idea can be incredibly powerful. My point is that identities are inherently subjective. That doesn't mean they don't exist in some form, but they are entirely subjective things. There is no external metric to judge them by that doesn't build itself off of arbitrary starting points. Certain things are built into the universe. They exist whether you say so or not. Like gravity. Other things don't really exist in a concrete form, but exist because some entity somewhere says it does. An identity, the distinction between one life form and another life form, is one such thing.

I consider myself an existentialist, not a nihilist.

No matter how powerful or weak, ideas have to be held in minds. Gravity exists whether I say so or not? Are you saying that minds won't exist if I say they don't? Funny, these mental entities around me seem pretty tenaciously extant.

[SowZ]

No matter how powerful or weak, ideas have to be held in minds. Gravity exists whether I say so or not? Are you saying that minds won't exist if I say they don't? Funny, these mental entities around me seem pretty tenaciously extant.

The idea exists physically, sure. It exists in brain cells. But an idea that the world is hollow exists in brain cells, too.

Minds will exist no matter what you think, sure, but your concept of yourself would cease to exist if you ceased to believe in it and conceptualized yourself differently.

There's tons of versions of you, though. Whenever a person interacts with you, they are interacting with their own brains interpretation of you which is different than every other persons interpretation of you. There is no objective you. You are just an idea. There are exactly as many yous as there are people who have met you since each one has a different idea.

You can only experience and perceive through the window that is your brain. Its like in a dream where you met Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is as much you as the character in the dream who is supposed to represent you. That is, the dream character whose eyes you see through. It's all you. In a dream, you sit on a chair, that chair is no more or less yourself than your dream avatar. Make sense?

It's the same thing with people you know. You are interacting with your brains interpretation of that person. If you define that person differently, your version of that person changes and the old version dies.

That is what I mean when I say a person is an idea and not an objective identity.

[Donnadogsoth]

The idea exists physically, sure. It exists in brain cells. But an idea that the world is hollow exists in brain cells, too.

Minds will exist no matter what you think, sure, but your concept of yourself would cease to exist if you ceased to believe in it and conceptualized yourself differently.

There's tons of versions of you, though. Whenever a person interacts with you, they are interacting with their own brains interpretation of you which is different than every other persons interpretation of you. There is no objective you. You are just an idea. There are exactly as many yous as there are people who have met you since each one has a different idea.

You can only experience and perceive through the window that is your brain. Its like in a dream where you met Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is as much you as the character in the dream who is supposed to represent you. That is, the dream character whose eyes you see through. It's all you. In a dream, you sit on a chair, that chair is no more or less yourself than your dream avatar. Make sense?

It's the same thing with people you know. You are interacting with your brains interpretation of that person. If you define that person differently, your version of that person changes and the old version dies.

That is what I mean when I say a person is an idea and not an objective identity.

Once again you rely on materialism to found your point, and I disagree with materialism. The fundamental datum of experience is experience, which is mental, and everything we encounter, buildings, people, message boards, are all secondary to the primary which is mind. Brains are a function of minds, not vice versa.

The fact that others perceive me as other than I perceive myself is irrelevant. It's obfuscatory to bring it up. A tree swaying in the wind and chafing against another tree "experiences" vibrations from that other tree that are different from the vibrations that that other tree itself "experiences". This doesn't invalidate the separate existence of the trees.

Let Scotty educate us. He would say the transporter is physically impossible if one views the transportation procedure as a physical event. It's not. To record the data for each particle of a man, disassemble them into pure energy, transmit that energy to another location and reassemble said man atom by atom, is beyond even the capabilities of 24th century science. And even if it were possible, it would be a method of execution rather than of transportation. Rather, the transporter is a metaphysical device. It captures unities, of which the material accidents are implied and moved based on that implication. This is why death still matters in the 24th century, for if the materialist assumption regarding the transporter were true, everyone could have his or her pattern retained in the memory banks in order to resurrect them whenever any copy of them were to die, making death immaterial.

[SowZ]

Once again you rely on materialism to found your point, and I disagree with materialism. The fundamental datum of experience is experience, which is mental, and everything we encounter, buildings, people, message boards, are all secondary to the primary which is mind. Brains are a function of minds, not vice versa.

The fact that others perceive me as other than I perceive myself is irrelevant. It's obfuscatory to bring it up. A tree swaying in the wind and chafing against another tree "experiences" vibrations from that other tree that are different from the vibrations that that other tree itself "experiences". This doesn't invalidate the separate existence of the trees.

Let Scotty educate us. He would say the transporter is physically impossible if one views the transportation procedure as a physical event. It's not. To record the data for each particle of a man, disassemble them into pure energy, transmit that energy to another location and reassemble said man atom by atom, is beyond even the capabilities of 24th century science. And even if it were possible, it would be a method of execution rather than of transportation. Rather, the transporter is a metaphysical device. It captures unities, of which the material accidents are implied and moved based on that implication. This is why death still matters in the 24th century, for if the materialist assumption regarding the transporter were true, everyone could have his or her pattern retained in the memory banks in order to resurrect them whenever any copy of them were to die, making death immaterial.

I see no way consistent with any science that the mind could predate the brain. Consciousness in animals is only possible with a sufficient brain. Consciousness is a by-product, or perhaps a goal, of our brains and our evolution.

Now, I am a naturalist. I think everything fits within natural, physical laws and the principles of science and math, (even though human understanding has limitations.)

If you believe in supernatural things that do not follow demonstrable and consistent rules or the magical, I doubt we'll find much common ground on this issue.

Even things that I've had enough personal experience with that I cannot just rule out, like spiritual type stuff, I will assume that it follows consistent rules unless I have a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

[SiuiS]

Once again you rely on materialism to found your point, and I disagree with materialism. The fundamental datum of experience is experience, which is mental, and everything we encounter, buildings, people, message boards, are all secondary to the primary which is mind. Brains are a function of minds, not vice versa.

The fact that others perceive me as other than I perceive myself is irrelevant. It's obfuscatory to bring it up. A tree swaying in the wind and chafing against another tree "experiences" vibrations from that other tree that are different from the vibrations that that other tree itself "experiences". This doesn't invalidate the separate existence of the trees.

Let Scotty educate us. He would say the transporter is physically impossible if one views the transportation procedure as a physical event. It's not. To record the data for each particle of a man, disassemble them into pure energy, transmit that energy to another location and reassemble said man atom by atom, is beyond even the capabilities of 24th century science. And even if it were possible, it would be a method of execution rather than of transportation. Rather, the transporter is a metaphysical device. It captures unities, of which the material accidents are implied and moved based on that implication. This is why death still matters in the 24th century, for if the materialist assumption regarding the transporter were true, everyone could have his or her pattern retained in the memory banks in order to resurrect them whenever any copy of them were to die, making death immaterial.

If a brain can exist without a mind but a mind cannot exist without a brain, how do you hold this to be true?

[Donnadogsoth]

I see no way consistent with any science that the mind could predate the brain. Consciousness in animals is only possible with a sufficient brain. Consciousness is a by-product, or perhaps a goal, of our brains and our evolution.

Now, I am a naturalist. I think everything fits within natural, physical laws and the principles of science and math, (even though human understanding has limitations.)

If you believe in supernatural things that do not follow demonstrable and consistent rules or the magical, I doubt we'll find much common ground on this issue.

Even things that I've had enough personal experience with that I cannot just rule out, like spiritual type stuff, I will assume that it follows consistent rules unless I have a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

What explains the existence of consciousness itself? There is no scientific explanation, nor could there ever be, because consciousness precedes science. At best as you put it, science labels consciousness a "by-product". Never mind this scraps free will, it begs the question of how is it that there is any consciousness in the universe at all. If everything is "material" interaction, why must I bother being here to oversee the blasted stuff?

[Donnadogsoth]

If a brain can exist without a mind but a mind cannot exist without a brain, how do you hold this to be true?

It speaks to what I heard mentioned about the holographic or informational universe. The universe is not made fundamentally of matter, energy, space, or time, but of information. A mind is a particular kind of information. Asking the purpose of the brain is akin to asking the purpose of the laws of physics: they're both sets of rules for the same game. As to what a mind is like withdrawn from the game, who knows?

[SowZ]

It speaks to what I heard mentioned about the holographic or informational universe. The universe is not made fundamentally of matter, energy, space, or time, but of information. A mind is a particular kind of information. Asking the purpose of the brain is akin to asking the purpose of the laws of physics: they're both sets of rules for the same game. As to what a mind is like withdrawn from the game, who knows?

I agree that the universe is just information and the mind, like dead matter, is fundamentally information. But the same fundamental particles make up a rock that makes up a brain. The same four fundamental forces dictate the 'mind' as dictate a meteorite.


What explains the existence of consciousness itself? There is no scientific explanation, nor could there ever be, because consciousness precedes science. At best as you put it, science labels consciousness a "by-product". Never mind this scraps free will, it begs the question of how is it that there is any consciousness in the universe at all. If everything is "material" interaction, why must I bother being here to oversee the blasted stuff?

Science is perfectly capable of explaining consciousness. There are aspects to it that biophysics and psychology haven't pinned down, but there is nothing inherent in the core concept that baffles a purely scientific understanding of reality. Several people insist this is true, but There is nothing mystical about the human brain moreso than a cats brain. Consciousness predates human understanding of science and the scientific method, not the science laws of reality.

As to your question, you don't have to be here to see it. It'll do just fine when your gone. Might as well enjoy it while you're here, do some good, and then who knows? Maybe your information will go somewhere else. Maybe not.

[Coidzor]

The question is: which is the true "Spock"? Who do you make First Officer of the Starship Enterprise? And is a two-fisted hammer punch really that effective in hand-to-hand combat?

Neither is the true Spock. The concept of a true Spock is flawed in this instance.

I don't have the authority to instate anyone as any kind of officer of the Starship Enterprise, but I suspect that for Captain Kirk's violation of ethical principles in creating the copy of Spock, he would need to be relieved of command, which would cause Spock to assume command temporarily, however, due to the circumstances he would likely not be found fit for duty either since at the time he would not yet have constructed his new robot body.

The robot-brained Spock is not instated as first officer due to Kirk being relieved of command over creating him and has no claim on the position as a result while whoever is next in line tries to muddle through this as best they can while McCoy says "Damnit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a xenorobotoethicist!"


That would be Kirk's position, yes.

Which rather muddles the whole scenario when you have established personalities violating their established principles.


But who do you make First Officer? As I see it, they both have a claim to the position.

Why do you believe the copy has a claim to the position? Because Kirk created him to be first officer, almost certainly in violation of robotethical, bioethical, and xenoethical principles of the Federation? Certainly he is a person, but he is also a new legal entity and whether he's even part of Starfleet would not be up to Jim.

[Donnadogsoth]

I agree that the universe is just information and the mind, like dead matter, is fundamentally information. But the same fundamental particles make up a rock that makes up a brain. The same four fundamental forces dictate the 'mind' as dictate a meteorite.

What four fundamental forces are you talking about? Gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, EM? Those are part of the play, they're not of the superstratum arranging the play. The numbers are not the Matrix.


Science is perfectly capable of explaining consciousness. There are aspects to it that biophysics and psychology haven't pinned down, but there is nothing inherent in the core concept that baffles a purely scientific understanding of reality. Several people insist this is true, but There is nothing mystical about the human brain moreso than a cats brain. Consciousness predates human understanding of science and the scientific method, not the science laws of reality.

As to your question, you don't have to be here to see it. It'll do just fine when your gone. Might as well enjoy it while you're here, do some good, and then who knows? Maybe your information will go somewhere else. Maybe not.

As a Berkeleyan idealist I entirely disagree. And the question remains, why should consciousness exist at all, why not just a universe of P-zombies?

[SowZ]

What four fundamental forces are you talking about? Gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, EM? Those are part of the play, they're not of the superstratum arranging the play. The numbers are not the Matrix.



As a Berkeleyan idealist I entirely disagree. And the question remains, why should consciousness exist at all, why not just a universe of P-zombies?

Yes, those are the forces I am talking about. There is in all likely-hood an even more fundamental force which you could conceptualize as some playwright I guess.

Why does consciousness exist? Does it need any other reason than, "Because it can?" Why does a rock exist? Why do emotions exist? Why does pain exist? Why do white dwarfs exist?

Murphy's Law. Conditions were present which allowed consciousness to present itself. Therefore, it did. The conditions could have been such that we were all P-zombies. But they weren't, as evidenced by our having this discussion. I refute it thus.

Consciousness is a valuable trait allowing our species to perpetuate. I see nothing magical about it anymore than I see something magical about the ability to photosynthesize light into energy.

Berkeleyan thought was interesting for Plato, but is inconsistent with our evidence of evolution and the age of the universe, which predates consciousness. Science more compelling explanations and proof in this regard.

[SiuiS]

It speaks to what I heard mentioned about the holographic or informational universe. The universe is not made fundamentally of matter, energy, space, or time, but of information.

Okay. But that doesn't answer the question. It only tells me why you would say it, not what it means or if it's relevant.


A mind is a particular kind of information. Asking the purpose of the brain is akin to asking the purpose of the laws of physics: they're both sets of rules for the same game. As to what a mind is like withdrawn from the game, who knows?

The question was not "what purpose a brain". The question was that if one can be demonstrated to emerge from the other, but not exist on it's own. How can you say the other is not important?

If flowers come from seeds, and flowers cannot grow without seeds, dismissing the existence of seeds as relevant is flawed. (Ignore for the moment that seeds come from flowers).


What explains the existence of consciousness itself?

Emergent properties.


There is no scientific explanation, nor could there ever be, because consciousness precedes science.

This seems like a leap. Why do you say there is no scientific explanation for consciousness? Do you mean what it is? Or why it came to be?

Conversely, look at the foundations of your position. Why does the existence of consciousness automatically grant legitimacy to the value of consciousness?

Free will is the ability of a system to make choice. Consciousness being an emergent property does not make this go away. It just makes it not the point of consciousness. It removes the tautological circle which implies creation over emergence. That's pretty much literally it.

The mind being a product of the brain doesn't make it any less special for being a happy accident.



Which rather muddles the whole scenario when you have established personalities violating their established principles.


Not at all.

It's like the mechanical aptitude portion of the ASVAB. You have an assortment of gears; A, connected to B and C. C is connected to D and E. E connects to F and G. If the question is "how does Gear A make gear F move" then the gears labeled B, D, and G are irrelevant despite having valid motions.

How Kirk feels about the situation tells us nothing except how Kirk feels about the situation. It's interesting. It's certainly worth noting. But it is not relevant. As such, it cannot truly muddle the issue. Not if you are keen.

[Coidzor]

And the question remains, why should consciousness exist at all, why not just a universe of P-zombies?

Would it make any difference if you and I and everyone else are all P-zombies?

[Donnadogsoth]

Would it make any difference if you and I and everyone else are all P-zombies?

Could a P-zombie be convinced of his own aqualia?

[golentan]

Could a P-zombie be convinced of his own aqualia?

No, because it can't be convinced of anything. But it could probably appear to be?

Why does it matter? Why is this such a big deal to you?

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, those are the forces I am talking about. There is in all likely-hood an even more fundamental force which you could conceptualize as some playwright I guess.

Why does consciousness exist? Does it need any other reason than, "Because it can?" Why does a rock exist? Why do emotions exist? Why does pain exist? Why do white dwarfs exist?

Murphy's Law. Conditions were present which allowed consciousness to present itself. Therefore, it did. The conditions could have been such that we were all P-zombies. But they weren't, as evidenced by our having this discussion. I refute it thus.

Consciousness is a valuable trait allowing our species to perpetuate. I see nothing magical about it anymore than I see something magical about the ability to photosynthesize light into energy.

Berkeleyan thought was interesting for Plato, but is inconsistent with our evidence of evolution and the age of the universe, which predates consciousness. Science more compelling explanations and proof in this regard.

What was holding the universe in existence during all those pre-conscious aeons? Remember that the universe as you or I or anyone experiences it now or ever, is composed of packets of sense-data and nothing else.

Why does anything exist? Yes, everything needs a reason. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason: everything has a reason for being the way it is and not another way. To deny this is to deny reason itself, and collapse all inquiry into blind emotive assertions.

[SowZ]

Could a P-zombie be convinced of his own aqualia?

I see no reason to believe that the idea of a philosophical zombie has any meaning. There would be no way to know if we aren't all p-zombies, as we would function identically to a normal human, and even posing philosophical questions and pondering our own existence is a function that human beings perform.

The whole concept of p-zombies implies there is something magical about human existence, something that makes our essence or our particles distinct from a rock. But the particles that make up living and non-living matter are precisely identical. Maybe we are, but I see no reason to base a philosophy on that foundation. I see no reason to believe it is true, and certainly no reason to be confident in such a belief. There is no evidence for it and it is certainly not self evident than consciousness is a mystical thing, no matter how hard some people insist it. The scientific method deals with things that are testable and observable. Supposing that an identical creature to a human being is somehow not a human being because of an intangible and ill-defined 'quallia' is inherently unscientific.

If humans are not defined by their functions, by their qualities, by their behaviors and make-up, I can define them however I'd like. I can say a human being is defined as something that enjoys peach cobbler and have an equally irrefutable but equally unsupported philosophy. If things aren't defined by their qualities, then causality is broken and there's no use trying to make sense of any it because there's no reason things have to behave according to logic or consistent principles.

Philosophy has not been able to keep up with science. It can still be useful, but is far more useful when it tries to explain things within the context of scientific findings, not when it tries to refute science and the scientific process.


What was holding the universe in existence during all those pre-conscious aeons? Remember that the universe as you or I or anyone experiences it now or ever, is composed of packets of sense-data and nothing else.

Why does anything exist? Yes, everything needs a reason. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason: everything has a reason for being the way it is and not another way. To deny this is to deny reason itself, and collapse all inquiry into blind emotive assertions.

The universe is not obligated to exist in order that you can view it. I ask again, do you disbelieve evolution? I do not accept that the universe was packets of sense data. The universe was information and energy. But we evolved in such a way as to interpret that information as sensory data. Not the other way around. The universe didn't evolve so that one day humans could look at it. If there is a greater consciousness out there directing everything, cool, but that doesn't invalidate the principles of physics and evolution.

And yet you insist there is some reason you are privy to on zero evidence. As far as I can tell, things exist because they can exist. That is the reason, and it is no more arbitrary than the reason you propose. If there is a more complicated reason, there's no evidence to support it and I'll hold off on unsupported claims until such time as there is.

I find other thought experiments, like the Chinese room, more compelling than the philosophical zombie, anyway.

[Donnadogsoth]

Okay. But that doesn't answer the question. It only tells me why you would say it, not what it means or if it's relevant.

“Mind precedes matter” holds to be true because I hold Mind exists prior to matter. Under the principle of sufficient reason this explains why there is anything, including temporal minds and the matter they experience. We know this because matter has no experiential meaning outside of mind. Materialism has no explanation for the existence of mind, other than just “it is, so it had to be.” Idealism explains that matter is a function of mind, and both spring from Mind.


The question was not "what purpose a brain". The question was that if one can be demonstrated to emerge from the other, but not exist on it's own. How can you say the other is not important?

If flowers come from seeds, and flowers cannot grow without seeds, dismissing the existence of seeds as relevant is flawed. (Ignore for the moment that seeds come from flowers).

Matter is the interface. But mind is the user. The identity locates in the user, not the interface. The interface is dispensable. We could say that a computer user and his interface are inextricable as far as the user's interaction with the Internet goes, and that's fine, we need rules to play a game, but the game doesn't create the player, the interface does not create the user, and the matter does not make the man.


Emergent properties.

Why? Principle of sufficient reason.


This seems like a leap. Why do you say there is no scientific explanation for consciousness? Do you mean what it is? Or why it came to be?

I mean why there should be any such thing in the universe. Something that is neither matter nor space nor energy nor time, but which registers all these things.


Conversely, look at the foundations of your position. Why does the existence of consciousness automatically grant legitimacy to the value of consciousness?

Are you asking Camus's Myth of Sisyphus question?


Free will is the ability of a system to make choice. Consciousness being an emergent property does not make this go away. It just makes it not the point of consciousness. It removes the tautological circle which implies creation over emergence. That's pretty much literally it.

The mind being a product of the brain doesn't make it any less special for being a happy accident.

Wait, were you the one holding that identity doesn't exist except as some kind of blurry non-existing existence? Why should I be happy about not existing? Have you changed your mind about which Spock is the real one?

[SowZ]

“Mind precedes matter” holds to be true because I hold Mind exists prior to matter.

That is about the justification for this philosophy, yes. "It is true because I insist it is true."

Sorry, I prefer a way of thinking that has made countless very specific predictions about the universe and been correct as opposed to an abstract concept that has not made those predictions thought up by some Greek guys thousands of years ago before they knew the origins of the universe or that the universe is not in a steady state. Don't get me wrong, they are fascinating thought experiments and science owes a lot to the early philosophers. But these kinds of ideas just don't do nearly as good a job at describing the universe as the laws of physics.

[Donnadogsoth]

No, because it can't be convinced of anything. But it could probably appear to be?

Why does it matter? Why is this such a big deal to you?

It speaks to why should consciousness exist at all. If there is insufficient reason for consciousness to exist, then it doesn't, under the principle of sufficient reason without which we are lost in chaos.

[SowZ]

It speaks to why should consciousness exist at all. If there is insufficient reason for consciousness to exist, then it doesn't, under the principle of sufficient reason without which we are lost in chaos.

Who determines what is and isn't a good enough reason? Is there some magical arbiter? Murphy's Law is better than your interpretation of sufficient reason. Things happen because they can. Insisting there must be a greater purpose gets into circular nonsense very, very quickly.

[Donnadogsoth]

“Mind precedes matter” holds to be true because I hold Mind exists prior to matter.

That is about the justification for this philosophy, yes. "It is true because I insist it is true."

Sorry, I prefer a way of thinking that has made countless very specific predictions about the universe and been correct as opposed to an abstract concept that has not made those predictions thought up by some Greek guys thousands of years ago before they knew the origins of the universe or that the universe is not in a steady state. Don't get me wrong, they are fascinating thought experiments and science owes a lot to the early philosophers. But these kinds of ideas just don't do nearly as good a job at describing the universe as the laws of physics.

Name one law of physics that describes why the colour red should exist. Not the wavelength, the colour.

Anything which lacks sufficient reason to exist, doesn't. Minds lack sufficient reason to exist, since matter will do everything that needs doing outside of any mental input whatsoever. Or at least that's what materialism holds.

What does the success of science have to do with retaining the validity of the sovereignty of individual minds? Nothing, if you are to be believed, it has everything to do with destroying that sovereignty. As Spock would say, "To use one's individuality to destroy that individuality is suicide."

[Donnadogsoth]

Who determines what is and isn't a good enough reason? Is there some magical arbiter? Murphy's Law is better than your interpretation of sufficient reason. Things happen because they can. Insisting there must be a greater purpose gets into circular nonsense very, very quickly.

You're conflating the determination of reasons with the understanding that there is one. You're also presuming there are no people of good sense that works better than "Things happen because they can" (i.e. for no reason). Anything that happens for no reason, doesn't.

[SowZ]

Name one law of physics that describes why the colour red should exist. Not the wavelength, the colour.

Anything which lacks sufficient reason to exist, doesn't. Minds lack sufficient reason to exist, since matter will do everything that needs doing outside of any mental input whatsoever. Or at least that's what materialism holds.

What does the success of science have to do with retaining the validity of the sovereignty of individual minds? Nothing, if you are to be believed, it has everything to do with destroying that sovereignty. As Spock would say, "To use one's individuality to destroy that individuality is suicide."

The color red doesn't exist on the actual object. The color red is an electro-chemical phenomena that takes place in your Cerebrum.

The color red should exist because interpreting visual data as color allows humans to see things in greater detail giving us a distinct advantage over animals who see in black and white.


You're conflating the determination of reasons with the understanding that there is one. You're also presuming there are no people of good sense that works better than "Things happen because they can" (i.e. for no reason). Anything that happens for no reason, doesn't.

Things happen because they can is not at all no reason. It is a reason. Murphy's Law. That you don't find the reason spiritually satisfying is irrelevant. If the reason were something else, I'd ask what is the reason for that. If you came up with some other principle I'd ask the reason for that. Eventually, the buck stops somewhere and there is some principle that just is.

You work with way too many axioms, despite saying everything must have a reason. You have all together too many things that make sense to you, therefore you insist they are a certainty in the universe.

Tell me. What is the reason for the universe?

[Donnadogsoth]

I see no reason to believe that the idea of a philosophical zombie has any meaning. There would be no way to know if we aren't all p-zombies, as we would function identically to a normal human, and even posing philosophical questions and pondering our own existence is a function that human beings perform.

The whole concept of p-zombies implies there is something magical about human existence, something that makes our essence or our particles distinct from a rock. But the particles that make up living and non-living matter are precisely identical. Maybe we are, but I see no reason to base a philosophy on that foundation. I see no reason to believe it is true, and certainly no reason to be confident in such a belief. There is no evidence for it and it is certainly not self evident than consciousness is a mystical thing, no matter how hard some people insist it. The scientific method deals with things that are testable and observable. Supposing that an identical creature to a human being is somehow not a human being because of an intangible and ill-defined 'quallia' is inherently unscientific.

If humans are not defined by their functions, by their qualities, by their behaviors and make-up, I can define them however I'd like. I can say a human being is defined as something that enjoys peach cobbler and have an equally irrefutable but equally unsupported philosophy. If things aren't defined by their qualities, then causality is broken and there's no use trying to make sense of any it because there's no reason things have to behave according to logic or consistent principles.

Philosophy has not been able to keep up with science. It can still be useful, but is far more useful when it tries to explain things within the context of scientific findings, not when it tries to refute science and the scientific process.
The problem of P-zombies speaks to the impossibility of matter itself, at least in the popular, delusional sense of “dead matter.” Yes, I see a stone, I can pick it up, put it down, break it if I choose to, but there is this popular misconception that the stone really exists, that a “dead” (experientially speaking) object can exist in the universe. I hold it cannot. There is no “true stone” out there. As quantum mechanics demonstrates, things doesn't quite exist when we're not looking. A mind is required for an experience, and an experience is all the stone is, unless we suppose said stone exists in a Mind when we lesser minds are not looking.
The plague of P-zombies comes from this concept, the concept of death. If stones can be “dead” then humans can be “dead” too. Indeed, with this thread's general dismissal of the sovereignty of individual minds, we're halfway there. The only escape from solipsistic zombification is the principle of sufficient reason, which demands there be a reason for the existence of mind and experience, and that reason is that there is an original Mind from whose precedent and creativity these things flow. Matter as original fails to supply any precedent for mind.
Originally Posted by Donnadogsoth
What was holding the universe in existence during all those pre-conscious aeons? Remember that the universe as you or I or anyone experiences it now or ever, is composed of packets of sense-data and nothing else.

Why does anything exist? Yes, everything needs a reason. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason: everything has a reason for being the way it is and not another way. To deny this is to deny reason itself, and collapse all inquiry into blind emotive assertions.


The universe is not obligated to exist in order that you can view it. I ask again, do you disbelieve evolution? I do not accept that the universe was packets of sense data. The universe was information and energy. But we evolved in such a way as to interpret that information as sensory data. Not the other way around. The universe didn't evolve so that one day humans could look at it. If there is a greater consciousness out there directing everything, cool, but that doesn't invalidate the principles of physics and evolution.

And yet you insist there is some reason you are privy to on zero evidence. As far as I can tell, things exist because they can exist. That is the reason, and it is no more arbitrary than the reason you propose. If there is a more complicated reason, there's no evidence to support it and I'll hold off on unsupported claims until such time as there is.

I find other thought experiments, like the Chinese room, more compelling than the philosophical zombie, anyway.

“Things exist because they exist” is the best your science (I would say scientism) can supply? I'll stick with Leibniz.

[SowZ]

The problem of P-zombies speaks to the impossibility of matter itself, at least in the popular, delusional sense of “dead matter.” Yes, I see a stone, I can pick it up, put it down, break it if I choose to, but there is this popular misconception that the stone really exists, that a “dead” (experientially speaking) object can exist in the universe. I hold it cannot. There is no “true stone” out there. As quantum mechanics demonstrates, things doesn't quite exist when we're not looking. A mind is required for an experience, and an experience is all the stone is, unless we suppose said stone exists in a Mind when we lesser minds are not looking.
The plague of P-zombies comes from this concept, the concept of death. If stones can be “dead” then humans can be “dead” too. Indeed, with this thread's general dismissal of the sovereignty of individual minds, we're halfway there. The only escape from solipsistic zombification is the principle of sufficient reason, which demands there be a reason for the existence of mind and experience, and that reason is that there is an original Mind from whose precedent and creativity these things flow. Matter as original fails to supply any precedent for mind.
Originally Posted by Donnadogsoth
What was holding the universe in existence during all those pre-conscious aeons? Remember that the universe as you or I or anyone experiences it now or ever, is composed of packets of sense-data and nothing else.

Why does anything exist? Yes, everything needs a reason. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason: everything has a reason for being the way it is and not another way. To deny this is to deny reason itself, and collapse all inquiry into blind emotive assertions.



“Things exist because they exist” is the best your science (I would say scientism) can supply? I'll stick with Leibniz.

My science isn't making bold and sweeping claims with zero evidence. Maybe there is a better reason, but for now, there is no evidence to support one. You are free to throw darts in the dark at potential answers, however.

I do have beliefs that don't lie strictly within the scientific method, but if isn't demonstrable, I won't insist on it just because it makes sense to me. And I don't see how your 'reason' is any better than Murphy's Law. If matter exists because minds exist, why do minds exist? In order that matter can exist? That's circular. If it is because another mind exists, does that mind also exist in another mind? Is it a nesting doll scenario where it is turtles all the way down? Such an entity would be more sensible as divinely simple than so needlessly complex, in my opinion.

(And now I've hit a wall on that particular topic where any examples would be religious. I like to back things up with examples, so apologies.)

[Donnadogsoth]

The color red doesn't exist on the actual object. The color red is an electro-chemical phenomena that takes place in your Cerebrum.

The color red should exist because interpreting visual data as color allows humans to see things in greater detail giving us a distinct advantage over animals who see in black and white.

No, the colour red is an experience that is associated with electro-chemical phenomena. I ask again, why does red exist, where does it come from, what or who created it? Don't tell me material causes, material causes have nothing to do with the experience itself, as a lived reality. It's like asking asking what snow is like and being told it is a state of water with the particular molecular configuration. No, snow is cold, snow is usually white, snow falls in little hexagonal crystalline flakes quite often, not "electro-chemical phenomena" having nothing to do with the experience of red, or snow, or anything else. It is arbitrary to say they do.


Things happen because they can is not at all no reason. It is a reason. Murphy's Law. That you don't find the reason spiritually satisfying is irrelevant. If the reason were something else, I'd ask what is the reason for that. If you came up with some other principle I'd ask the reason for that. Eventually, the buck stops somewhere and there is some principle that just is.

You work with way too many axioms, despite saying everything must have a reason. You have all together too many things that make sense to you, therefore you insist they are a certainty in the universe.

And you take the fashions of your time too seriously.


Tell me. What is the reason for the universe?

There may be a principle (Principle) that "just is", but even then, that substantial source of the individual minds (and the material experiences they are granted) exists for a reason, namely one of the impossibility of its non-existence. Murphy doesn't have that backing him up, so by your own logic we can beg Murphy forever. We can beg the source of the universe out of the natural, if we choose, and we run up against a mystery, but it is a mystery founded on the necessity of that source's existence, and the nature of its opposite (i.e. nothingness) as being a mere privation. In that sense the mystery is the privation of the truth.

[golentan]

You seem to be caught up in an Is-Ought and tautological nightmare...

[SowZ]

No, the colour red is an experience that is associated with electro-chemical phenomena. I ask again, why does red exist, where does it come from, what or who created it? Don't tell me material causes, material causes have nothing to do with the experience itself, as a lived reality. It's like asking asking what snow is like and being told it is a state of water with the particular molecular configuration. No, snow is cold, snow is usually white, snow falls in little hexagonal crystalline flakes quite often, not "electro-chemical phenomena" having nothing to do with the experience of red, or snow, or anything else. It is arbitrary to say they do.



And you take the fashions of your time too seriously.



There may be a principle (Principle) that "just is", but even then, that substantial source of the individual minds (and the material experiences they are granted) exists for a reason, namely one of the impossibility of its non-existence. Murphy doesn't have that backing him up, so by your own logic we can beg Murphy forever. We can beg the source of the universe out of the natural, if we choose, and we run up against a mystery, but it is a mystery founded on the necessity of that source's existence, and the nature of its opposite (i.e. nothingness) as being a mere privation. In that sense the mystery is the privation of the truth.

All of that is just people talking about crap. None of it is demonstrable. None of it is explainable in a satisfying or consistent way. Red isn't an objective concept, it is an experience, sure. But experiences are neurological and exist within my brain. That you cannot accept that does not make it an invalid explanation. Maybe there is more to it, but I'm not going to make wild speculations about some deeper level of reality without evidence.

I don't think it is valid to say I'm caught up in fashion. I have more religious sensibilities than the majority of physics majors/physicists I know of, in truth, though I don't care to get into them in this thread. But unless I have a strong reason to believe otherwise, working up from the assumption that things follow consistent, demonstrable laws makes more sense than the alternative.

I will use the most reliable and demonstrable method I know of to understand reality: The scientific method.

There is no other mechanism I know of that is more reliable to direct me towards accurate conclusions.

[Coidzor]

Could a P-zombie be convinced of his own aqualia?

Obviously, if all humans are p-zombies and humans can be convinced of anything, at least temporarily.

[Donnadogsoth]

All of that is just people talking about crap. None of it is demonstrable. None of it is explainable in a satisfying or consistent way. Red isn't an objective concept, it is an experience, sure. But experiences are neurological and exist within my brain. That you cannot accept that does not make it an invalid explanation. Maybe there is more to it, but I'm not going to make wild speculations about some deeper level of reality without evidence.

I don't think it is valid to say I'm caught up in fashion. I have more religious sensibilities than the majority of physics majors/physicists I know of, in truth, though I don't care to get into them in this thread. But unless I have a strong reason to believe otherwise, working up from the assumption that things follow consistent, demonstrable laws makes more sense than the alternative.

I will use the most reliable and demonstrable method I know of to understand reality: The scientific method.

There is no other mechanism I know of that is more reliable to direct me towards accurate conclusions.

All you have demonstrated with regards to the question of the colour red is that you have no answer. I choose not to divorce myself from the conclusion from my immediate experience, which is that experience is experience which is associated with this or that materialist phenomenon (eg brainscans) which are also experiences. There's no getting away from experience as the fundamental datum, except by willfully blinding oneself.

You're trying to imply that I am at odds with the scientific method, with the discovery of principles of nature, which I am emphatically not. You, with your "Murphy" answer to why anything exists, well, is that scientific? No, it's a statement of failure. Pure reason can supply us with the answer, as I wrote, nothing is a privation of something and therefore something has to exist. That quality of reasoning is what is out of fashion because of the empirical successes of modern science. It's not answering the questions of red, being, zombies, or identity, it's just ignoring them because gee-wow technology!

[SowZ]

All you have demonstrated with regards to the question of the colour red is that you have no answer. I choose not to divorce myself from the conclusion from my immediate experience, which is that experience is experience which is associated with this or that materialist phenomenon (eg brainscans) which are also experiences. There's no getting away from experience as the fundamental datum, except by willfully blinding oneself.

You're trying to imply that I am at odds with the scientific method, with the discovery of principles of nature, which I am emphatically not. You, with your "Murphy" answer to why anything exists, well, is that scientific? No, it's a statement of failure. Pure reason can supply us with the answer, as I wrote, nothing is a privation of something and therefore something has to exist. That quality of reasoning is what is out of fashion because of the empirical successes of modern science. It's not answering the questions of red, being, zombies, or identity, it's just ignoring them because gee-wow technology!

You are intentionally ignoring my entire premise just so you can be insulting and denigrating. Stop it. You know very well my premise is not ignoring those things, but claiming that I don't believe they have any fundamental meaning. They are secondary things in the universe, not primary. There is a wide difference, and you know it.

You don't know all this, you believe it but don't know it, and latch onto this idea that makes sense to you and treat it as gospel.

You claim you are not against science. Do you accept evolution? Do you accept the expansion of the universe?

Maybe there is more to the nature of reality than Murphy's Law, but I have no data indicating what that is. I very honestly admit ignorance on whether there is or isn't more to it, and what that something might be if there is something more.

[Donnadogsoth]

You are intentionally ignoring my entire premise just so you can be insulting and denigrating. Stop it. You know very well my premise is not ignoring those things, but claiming that I don't believe they have any fundamental meaning. They are secondary things in the universe, not primary. There is a wide difference, and you know it.

You don't know all this, you believe it but don't know it, and latch onto this idea that makes sense to you and treat it as gospel.

You claim you are not against science. Do you accept evolution? Do you accept the expansion of the universe?

Maybe there is more to the nature of reality than Murphy's Law, but I have no data indicating what that is. I very honestly admit ignorance on whether there is or isn't more to it, and what that something might be if there is something more.

Kirk wouldn't accept your twenty-first century scientistic flim-flam, and neither will I. To dismiss questions of experience, including the existence of the individual self itself, as secondary, is to degrade that self. Since I am a self, I consider myself degraded by what you say. That I—or Spock—could be duplicated and then the original executed with no net loss to the universe—that's what you're effectively saying, don't deny it. That's denying the sovereignty of the self, and that denial is based on fancy and fashionable modern ideas coming from artificial intelligence hoaxsters.

Evolution? Universal expansion? These are ideas explaining certain patterns of sense-impressions. Do you accept Fermat's least-time principle of light? What's the difference?

[SowZ]

Kirk wouldn't accept your twenty-first century scientistic flim-flam, and neither will I. To dismiss questions of experience, including the existence of the individual self itself, as secondary, is to degrade that self. Since I am a self, I consider myself degraded by what you say. That I—or Spock—could be duplicated and then the original executed with no net loss to the universe—that's what you're effectively saying, don't deny it. That's denying the sovereignty of the self, and that denial is based on fancy and fashionable modern ideas coming from artificial intelligence hoaxsters.

Evolution? Universal expansion? These are ideas explaining certain patterns of sense-impressions. Do you accept Fermat's least-time principle of light? What's the difference?

I'm not denigrating the value of human life, your emotions notwithstanding. If an individual died and was recreated simultaneously,
there would be no net loss because in my opinion they wouldn't be dead anymore. It would be them precisely. It would be the same human being. The Mudman, is that what it is called? Or Swampman? I think it is the same person. The interpretation of string theory that I go in for says that all the 'stuff' you are made of changes every second anyway. So if you are right, and Swampman isn't the same person, I've died countless times since starting to type this.

Evolution does not explain sense impressions. It explains how life changes forms over time, don't obfuscate things.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not denigrating the value of human life, your emotions notwithstanding. If an individual died and was recreated simultaneously,
there would be no net loss because in my opinion they wouldn't be dead anymore. It would be them precisely. It would be the same human being. The Mudman, is that what it is called? Or Swampman? I think it is the same person. The interpretation of string theory that I go in for says that all the 'stuff' you are made of changes every second anyway. So if you are right, and Swampman isn't the same person, I've died countless times since starting to type this.

Once again the materialist reductionist fallacy. Then it is no loss if anyone dies. Even if you were to say it is a loss if a "pattern" of "someone's" life is destroyed, what of it? Who is really there to appreciate the loss?


Evolution does not explain sense impressions. It explains how life changes forms over time, don't obfuscate things.

Without sense impressions there would be no theory of evolution. Fossils, genes, molecules, even statistics, all end up being sense-impressions or else we wouldn't know they are there.

[SowZ]

Once again the materialist reductionist fallacy. Then it is no loss if anyone dies. Even if you were to say it is a loss if a "pattern" of "someone's" life is destroyed, what of it? Who is really there to appreciate the loss?



Without sense impressions there would be no theory of evolution. Fossils, genes, molecules, even statistics, all end up being sense-impressions or else we wouldn't know they are there.

And your fallacy is the same one geocentrists make. That the buck stops with you, you are the center of the universe. There is a universe you live in slightly different from the one I live in, same with every person, but then there's the external, objective universe. It doesn't have color or sounds or anything like that.

You keep getting it backwards. You keep assuming that it all works from your perception and is built off that. It is the other way around. Everything is information, and we evolved in such a way to turn that information into sense-packets. It didn't start out as sense-packets and we were some end-game.

I do value the information of human beings. I've even had experiences that indicate something happens with it after it's all said and done. But I define it differently than you.

It seems we are running in circles and have hi-jacked the entire thread to do it. I will certainly read any final statements you have but afterwards I feel that this debate has run its course.

[Coidzor]

It's not answering the questions of red, being, zombies, or identity, it's just ignoring them because gee-wow technology!

The existence of red is a product of humanp-zombie perception of the universe. It has no greater meaning, or less meaning, than why anything else exists, you just lose self-important, unsupportable justifications like when a human says that humans exist because the universe needs something to perceive and appreciate itself. Or any other form of thought that goes into the realm of theology, which is where you inevitably go when you ask why existence exists and expect some actual answer beyond we don't know and we can't know but certain people, or p-zombies in this case, seem to enjoy thinking about it.

[Donnadogsoth]

And your fallacy is the same one geocentrists make. That the buck stops with you, you are the center of the universe. There is a universe you live in slightly different from the one I live in, same with every person, but then there's the external, objective universe. It doesn't have color or sounds or anything like that.

You keep getting it backwards. You keep assuming that it all works from your perception and is built off that. It is the other way around. Everything is information, and we evolved in such a way to turn that information into sense-packets. It didn't start out as sense-packets and we were some end-game.

I do value the information of human beings. I've even had experiences that indicate something happens with it after it's all said and done. But I define it differently than you.

It seems we are running in circles and have hi-jacked the entire thread to do it. I will certainly read any final statements you have but afterwards I feel that this debate has run its course.

Please rephrase this without using the language of identity, which "you" do not believe in anyway. Who am I talking to again?

[SowZ]

Please rephrase this without using the language of identity, which "you" do not believe in anyway. Who am I talking to again?

We've covered this. Identity is an abstract idea. I accept ideas as real albeit secondary things. They are the result of physical forces. They not objective in the way that gravity is objective. I mean, the brain and the neurons firing is objective but the truth of an idea is not. Including identity. Ergo, secondary, with the laws of physics and the information in the universe is primary. Whereas you believe ideas are primary and matter and physics come as a result of ideas. I find this far more complicated and does not explain how we came into being in our present form, while my explanation explains those in a way I find far more compelling. You, clearly, don't feel that way.

Put more succinctly; It is my opinion that an identity is a tool. You can identify a single person as a human or a group of people as a human and neither is more or less correct in an objective way. It's just definitions. I use the one that is more useful to me since I evolved that way. Once again, we are talking in circles, as this is covered ground.

Now I said I would read your final arguments, which I will, so go ahead and make them. But neither of us has said anything new for awhile, it's more backtracking and circle walking. I'm rather tired of the whole you asking me the same questions over and over and me asking you the same questions over and over and both of us coming up with different ways to phrase the same ideas.

So, in your final statement I'd ask that you not ask me any direct questions, because otherwise this will just continue until it is either A. a wholly tired discussion or B. we get frustrated and it escalates, (which it already has done, to some degree.) Either way, I'm fairly done with the whole discussion but consider it bad form to make an argument, then say, "But I'm done now," and leave without giving the other person room to respond. I've enjoyed the discussion so far, found it enlightening and thank you for your time. But if it went on any further I'm certain I wouldn't enjoy it.

[noparlpf]

Well, they're both cyborgs now, so I guess to prevent Skynet from taking over and killing us all you have to toss both of them into the nearest sun. :smalltongue:

[Donnadogsoth]

We've covered this. Identity is an abstract idea. I accept ideas as real albeit secondary things. They are the result of physical forces. They not objective in the way that gravity is objective. I mean, the brain and the neurons firing is objective but the truth of an idea is not. Including identity. Ergo, secondary, with the laws of physics and the information in the universe is primary. Whereas you believe ideas are primary and matter and physics come as a result of ideas. I find this far more complicated and does not explain how we came into being in our present form, while my explanation explains those in a way I find far more compelling. You, clearly, don't feel that way.

Put more succinctly; It is my opinion that an identity is a tool. You can identify a single person as a human or a group of people as a human and neither is more or less correct in an objective way. It's just definitions. I use the one that is more useful to me since I evolved that way. Once again, we are talking in circles, as this is covered ground.

Now I said I would read your final arguments, which I will, so go ahead and make them. But neither of us has said anything new for awhile, it's more backtracking and circle walking. I'm rather tired of the whole you asking me the same questions over and over and me asking you the same questions over and over and both of us coming up with different ways to phrase the same ideas.

So, in your final statement I'd ask that you not ask me any direct questions, because otherwise this will just continue until it is either A. a wholly tired discussion or B. we get frustrated and it escalates, (which it already has done, to some degree.) Either way, I'm fairly done with the whole discussion but consider it bad form to make an argument, then say, "But I'm done now," and leave without giving the other person room to respond. I've enjoyed the discussion so far, found it enlightening and thank you for your time. But if it went on any further I'm certain I wouldn't enjoy it.

This is Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise. I have beamed down to Autonomous IV on a diplomatic mission only to discover that some kind of mental plague has taken hold, shearing the inhabitants of their identities. They claim identities are secondary to the primary reality of Information. This is a sophisticated version of materialism that states that there are no individuals, merely irreducible components collected together in temporary swarms we outsiders call “people.”

Similar kinds of plagues are known to the history of the Federation. The Vulcans experienced a period of absolute logical dissolution into a greater reality, before they returned to what turned out to be their only real common ground with humans: the sovereignty of the individual soul made in the image of the universal creativity.

It's this...identity...that is the ground of all our success, this concept of human personhood as capable of discovering ideas. Ideas are what matter, ideas are primary. We fight not for facts of matter or energy or even information but for ideas, including the respective ideas that define us as people. We are defined by ideas, the Federation was founded on an idea without which it would be nothing. It wouldn't exist. Men will...die...for ideas...for the ideas they see in the eyes of their countrymen...but no man dies for matter or energy or information.

Remove the matter and energy and information and the universe itself is an idea. A living idea. Life is ideas, ideas are life. Everything else...is a collapse into the anti-human evils of a lesser age.

[Murska]

Remove the matter and energy and information and the universe itself is an idea. A living idea. Life is ideas, ideas are life. Everything else...is a collapse into the anti-human evils of a lesser age.

Remove information, which as a concept includes both energy and matter, the former of which as a concept includes the latter, from the universe, and there is nothing left.

Remove all minds, which in turn also means the loss of all ideas, and a lot of matter and energy and information would still exist.

[Donnadogsoth]

Remove information, which as a concept includes both energy and matter, the former of which as a concept includes the latter, from the universe, and there is nothing left.

Remove all minds, which in turn also means the loss of all ideas, and a lot of matter and energy and information would still exist.

If we remove all mind we must remove Mind itself, meaning, in quantum mechanical parlance, there is no observer to collapse the wave functions, and nothing strictly speaking exists. Which is, of course, impossible, as there must be something that exists in some fashion, to avoid absolute infertile nothingness.

[Murska]

If we remove all mind we must remove Mind itself, meaning, in quantum mechanical parlance, there is no observer to collapse the wave functions, and nothing strictly speaking exists. Which is, of course, impossible, as there must be something that exists in some fashion, to avoid absolute infertile nothingness.

I'm having a hard time parsing this. Are you sure you understand quantum mechanics? There's no need for any mind to be an observer. First of all, the many-worlds hypothesis tends to be superior in simplicity anyway and contains no wave-function collapse, and more importantly for this purpose 'observer' in the quantum mechanical sense does not imply 'mind'.

[Donnadogsoth]

If we remove all mind we must remove Mind itself, meaning, in quantum mechanical parlance, there is no observer to collapse the wave functions, and nothing strictly speaking exists. Which is, of course, impossible, as there must be something that exists in some fashion, to avoid absolute infertile nothingness.

I'm having a hard time parsing this. Are you sure you understand quantum mechanics? There's no need for any mind to be an observer. First of all, the many-worlds hypothesis tends to be superior in simplicity anyway and contains no wave-function collapse, and more importantly for this purpose 'observer' in the quantum mechanical sense does not imply 'mind'.

It's my understanding collapse requires a measurement be taken by a conscious observer; eg. Schroedinger's puss. This is very similar to Berkeley's idealism, which stipulates a mind is required for an object to exist, since all objects are nothing more than packets of sense-data. Lead this in to Leibnizian monadism where all minds are self-contained respective monads and there is nothing "in between" them.

The many worlds hypothesis violates free will by presuming that all actions will be taken no matter what, and violates identity by having the individual actor suffer perpetual splitting of self. This makes it the equivalent of a reductionist fallacy, discussed above.

If we remove all minds, the universe would cease to exist unless there were a Mind that were observing it. Though of course this Mind could exist prior to the universe, but not vice versa.

[golentan]

An observer is literally any other quantum unit that interacts with a quantum unit. A photon and an electron, when they collide, are observing each other at the moment of collision.

You're really trying to twist reality to fit your tautology. The universe's physical laws, unknowing of your opinion of them, continue to function as they always have.

[SiuiS]

If we remove all mind we must remove Mind itself, meaning, in quantum mechanical parlance, there is no observer to collapse the wave functions, and nothing strictly speaking exists. Which is, of course, impossible, as there must be something that exists in some fashion, to avoid absolute infertile nothingness.

Many mistakes here. One, there is no reason to avoid an infertile void. Two, reality existed before any mind, proving your theory false. Three, Mind is not necessary for observation.

[Murska]

It's my understanding collapse requires a measurement be taken by a conscious observer; eg. Schroedinger's puss. This is very similar to Berkeley's idealism, which stipulates a mind is required for an object to exist, since all objects are nothing more than packets of sense-data. Lead this in to Leibnizian monadism where all minds are self-contained respective monads and there is nothing "in between" them.

The many worlds hypothesis violates free will by presuming that all actions will be taken no matter what, and violates identity by having the individual actor suffer perpetual splitting of self. This makes it the equivalent of a reductionist fallacy, discussed above.

If we remove all minds, the universe would cease to exist unless there were a Mind that were observing it. Though of course this Mind could exist prior to the universe, but not vice versa.

Your understanding is wrong. Collapse does not require a conscious observer.

Free will is a confused concept. There's nothing outside physics choosing any outcomes, however our minds are made of physics and choose things according to how they're built. There is no greater freedom unconstrained by the laws of the universe. Identity, on the other hand, is not any kind of a fundamental concept that could not be manipulated in any number of ways, such as splitting it. Oh, and reductionism isn't fallacious.

Objective reality is that, which continues to function whether we believe in it or not. If you jump off a cliff, and midway you fall unconscious and become unable to observe anything, you'll still go splat. If you want to argue that we cannot prove anything because it is possible we are being deceived, then that is simply an artifact of being inside the system we are observing. I cannot prove that I am, even if I think, as elementary logic could be deception by the little demon on my shoulder. Assuming such, without any evidence, seems pointless and prohibited by Occam's Razor.

[Donnadogsoth]

Many mistakes here. One, there is no reason to avoid an infertile void. Two, reality existed before any mind, proving your theory false. Three, Mind is not necessary for observation.

Nothing comes from nothing, SiuiS. Fancy "quantum foam" or whatever Lawrence Krauss is talking about lately don't count, they're still something, however strange. But we don't have to worry about that because we know that nothing is a privation of something, that therefore something (Something) had to exist eternally, just a question of what.

Reality existed because there was a monad, of a kind, that created and observed it. Without that monad, nothing remains. So with us, without us, our reality vanishes, except as preserved by the universal monad or Mind. Reality is that which, when there's no one around to see it, goes away.

I see nowhere red could be,
If not in what I call me
And once my mind has gone away
Colour red no longer stays.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your understanding is wrong. Collapse does not require a conscious observer.

Free will is a confused concept. There's nothing outside physics choosing any outcomes, however our minds are made of physics and choose things according to how they're built. There is no greater freedom unconstrained by the laws of the universe. Identity, on the other hand, is not any kind of a fundamental concept that could not be manipulated in any number of ways, such as splitting it. Oh, and reductionism isn't fallacious.

Objective reality is that, which continues to function whether we believe in it or not. If you jump off a cliff, and midway you fall unconscious and become unable to observe anything, you'll still go splat. If you want to argue that we cannot prove anything because it is possible we are being deceived, then that is simply an artifact of being inside the system we are observing. I cannot prove that I am, even if I think, as elementary logic could be deception by the little demon on my shoulder. Assuming such, without any evidence, seems pointless and prohibited by Occam's Razor.

I'll have to ask my PhD theoretical physicist friend about collapse and observers. Until then at least we disagree.

In other words (bolded) there is Something regulating your experiences. It does not mean there is a physical world "out there" between your mind and mine.

[Murska]

Reality is that which, when there's no one around to see it, goes away.


No. Reality is that which, when there is no-one around to see it, does not go away. That's what the concept means. Reality is perfectly and entirely independent of observers, conscious or not.

We exist within reality, and thus cannot directly observe it.

As a side note, I would suggest doing some reading to attain a basic understanding of quantum mechanics instead of asking a friend. It's not particularly complicated, and gives valuable perspective on the world.


It does not mean there is a physical world "out there" between your mind and mine.

If I am assuming the existance of 'your mind', I am already positing that there is a physical world out there. Your mind is not part of my experience, just like the physical world isn't, nor for that matter my own brain. There's nothing special about a mind that would make it fundamentally different from any other configuration of information.

[SiuiS]

Nothing comes from nothing, SiuiS.

Do you have proof, or merely the same logical extrapolation you are arguing against in eg Murska?


I see nowhere red could be,
If not in what I call me
And once my mind has gone away
Colour red no longer stays.

A Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
If you were to kill all English speakers and erase their language from history, the color red would still exist despite there being no word, "red" to call it by.
If you were to remove all human kind from the world, objects which would reflect light in the range of 650 mm wavelength would still do so they would still do so even if all light sources in the universe were quelled.

That you would not be around to acknowledge this doesn't mean that they go away. It means you are advocating the line between solipsism and narcissism. Which is fine! But you're trying to ignore factual data using rhetorical denials. That's a terrible idea.

[Donnadogsoth]

No. Reality is that which, when there is no-one around to see it, does not go away. That's what the concept means. Reality is perfectly and entirely independent of observers, conscious or not.

We exist within reality, and thus cannot directly observe it.

At best we can obtain thought-objects which equate to laws of nature. But the bird's eye view of the universe, no that requires something of a higher, originating order.


As a side note, I would suggest doing some reading to attain a basic understanding of quantum mechanics instead of asking a friend. It's not particularly complicated, and gives valuable perspective on the world.

Care to recommend a video or book? Everything I've ever read and watched on YouTube has told me minds ("observers"--what's the difference) are needed to collapse wave functions.

[/quote]If I am assuming the existance of 'your mind', I am already positing that there is a physical world out there. Your mind is not part of my experience, just like the physical world isn't, nor for that matter my own brain. There's nothing special about a mind that would make it fundamentally different from any other configuration of information.[/QUOTE]

No, the existence of other minds only seems to suggest a physical world because we are ensconced in a physical world. The actual location of your mind, my mind, or anyone's mind is neither here nor there, because minds are not material. Makes one wonder what a non-physical existence would look like, but I can speak to that.

[Donnadogsoth]

Nothing comes from nothing, SiuiS.
Do you have proof, or merely the same logical extrapolation you are arguing against in eg Murska?

Nothing contains nothing, not even potential. A thing without potential can never change. QED



I see nowhere red could be,
If not in what I call me
And once my mind has gone away
Colour red no longer stays.
A Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
If you were to kill all English speakers and erase their language from history, the color red would still exist despite there being no word, "red" to call it by.
If you were to remove all human kind from the world, objects which would reflect light in the range of 650 mm wavelength would still do so they would still do so even if all light sources in the universe were quelled.

I'm not talking about words, SiuiS, nor wavelengths, nor physics, I'm talking about the mental experience of the distinct colour red. That colour doesn't exist outside of the mind, it's not floating out there in Space somewhere, it's not inside Sol, it's not under Terra or anywhere else but in minds. Every associated physical phenomena is just a co-incident


That you would not be around to acknowledge this doesn't mean that they go away. It means you are advocating the line between solipsism and narcissism. Which is fine! But you're trying to ignore factual data using rhetorical denials. That's a terrible idea.

Red's existence outside of the mind is not a fact. And Idealism is a wonderful idea.

[SiuiS]

Nothing contains nothing, not even potential. A thing without potential can never change. QED


So, no?



I'm not talking about words, SiuiS, nor wavelengths, nor physics, I'm talking about the mental experience of the distinct colour red.

And you're mistaking your experience of the distinct color red with the existence of the objects or concepts you attach the tag to.

Saying that your personal perception of red not existing proves anything is quite the irrational leap. It's technically true but neither germane nor ancillary to what is being discussed. In fact, you've failed to prove the relevancy of your idea. It's frustrating because you aren't discussing in good faith. You're just repeating things until people stop pointing out the flaws.

[Murska]

Care to recommend a video or book? Everything I've ever read and watched on YouTube has told me minds ("observers"--what's the difference) are needed to collapse wave functions.

It depends on your mathematical background. Modern Physics by Randy Harris is pretty good, but you'll need to already have the tools required to use the equations within.

The difference between minds and observers is that an observer in the quantum mechanical sense is literally anything that affects (and is affected, which is the same thing) the observed thing. If I throw a rock at a wall, the rock observes the wall at the moment of impact, in this sense. Wave function collapse occurs at some poorly defined point where an entangled system is too large to remain in a quantum state, and anything that interacts with an entangled system is entangled with it, so if something as large as a scientific measuring instrument interacts ('observes') with a quantum state it collapses. This is rather inelegant in my opinion, which is why I prefer the many-worlds explanation where wave-functions do not collapse when things entangle with them, but everything else remains the same.


No, the existence of other minds only seems to suggest a physical world because we are ensconced in a physical world. The actual location of your mind, my mind, or anyone's mind is neither here nor there, because minds are not material. Makes one wonder what a non-physical existence would look like, but I can speak to that.

Well, first of all, the posited 'other mind' would have to be physical, in the sense 'made of physics', as everything that exists is made of physics. There is nothing outside the laws of nature, and nothing supernatural can be, as everything that exists is by definition natural. Minds are a specific kind of arrangement of physical matter, and have to exist in a substrate of some kind.

But more importantly, any evidence I could ever get of your mind existing is physical. I can see the words you have created on my screen, and through a multitude of inferences conclude that the most likely world where I have such experiences is one where your mind exists somewhere.

[Donnadogsoth]

So, no?

Pardon?


And you're mistaking your experience of the distinct color red with the existence of the objects or concepts you attach the tag to.

Saying that your personal perception of red not existing proves anything is quite the irrational leap. It's technically true but neither germane nor ancillary to what is being discussed. In fact, you've failed to prove the relevancy of your idea. It's frustrating because you aren't discussing in good faith. You're just repeating things until people stop pointing out the flaws.

You've got this turned around. You're the one mistaking the experience of the distinct colour red with the existence of objects or concepts, like wavelengths, eyes, neurons, etc.. And you're the one with no faith in ideas, instead defaulting to materialism.

[Donnadogsoth]

It depends on your mathematical background. Modern Physics by Randy Harris is pretty good, but you'll need to already have the tools required to use the equations within.

The difference between minds and observers is that an observer in the quantum mechanical sense is literally anything that affects (and is affected, which is the same thing) the observed thing. If I throw a rock at a wall, the rock observes the wall at the moment of impact, in this sense. Wave function collapse occurs at some poorly defined point where an entangled system is too large to remain in a quantum state, and anything that interacts with an entangled system is entangled with it, so if something as large as a scientific measuring instrument interacts ('observes') with a quantum state it collapses. This is rather inelegant in my opinion, which is why I prefer the many-worlds explanation where wave-functions do not collapse when things entangle with them, but everything else remains the same.

Well, that's new on me, thanks. I'll look it up with that in mind.



No, the existence of other minds only seems to suggest a physical world because we are ensconced in a physical world. The actual location of your mind, my mind, or anyone's mind is neither here nor there, because minds are not material. Makes one wonder what a non-physical existence would look like, but I can speak to that.

Well, first of all, the posited 'other mind' would have to be physical, in the sense 'made of physics', as everything that exists is made of physics. There is nothing outside the laws of nature, and nothing supernatural can be, as everything that exists is by definition natural. Minds are a specific kind of arrangement of physical matter, and have to exist in a substrate of some kind.

But more importantly, any evidence I could ever get of your mind existing is physical. I can see the words you have created on my screen, and through a multitude of inferences conclude that the most likely world where I have such experiences is one where your mind exists somewhere.

What created the laws of nature?

Don't say "nothing" because we already know nothing is infertile.

[Murska]

What created the laws of nature?

Don't say "nothing" because we already know nothing is infertile.

We know that, huh?

Anyway, this is a confused question. Creation implies some sort of causality and precedence. Laws of nature include causality, or whatever underlies our perception thereof, and the functioning of time. It's the same problem as trying to search for some Root Cause that came before everything else.


You've got this turned around. You're the one mistaking the experience of the distinct colour red with the existence of objects or concepts, like wavelengths, eyes, neurons, etc.. And you're the one with no faith in ideas, instead defaulting to materialism.

The experience of a red is a thing. Wavelengths are also a thing, as are eyes. These things are generally linked together, but they're not the same thing. If there is no-one experiencing red, there is no experience of red, yet wavelengths, eyes and other various things might as well still exist.

Ideas are things, too. They are patterns in a material substrate. They cannot exist separately from information, while information does exist separate of ideas.

[SiuiS]

You've got this turned around. You're the one mistaking the experience of the distinct colour red with the existence of objects or concepts, like wavelengths, eyes, neurons, etc..

There is no confusion there whatsoever. The entire point of scientific verification is to remove the faulty human component. I know red exists because nonhuman nonmind confirmation of the wavelengths of light which register as red exist, as does confirmation of nonhuman nonminds recognizing physical objects with properties that would reflect electromagnetic energy of this particular wavelength.

Unless you want to somehow say that this is just converting the human experience of red into the human experience of the reading of the printout of the robot experience of red, which is a ridiculous and frankly asinine claim.

[Donnadogsoth]

There is no confusion there whatsoever. The entire point of scientific verification is to remove the faulty human component. I know red exists because nonhuman nonmind confirmation of the wavelengths of light which register as red exist, as does confirmation of nonhuman nonminds recognizing physical objects with properties that would reflect electromagnetic energy of this particular wavelength.

Unless you want to somehow say that this is just converting the human experience of red into the human experience of the reading of the printout of the robot experience of red, which is a ridiculous and frankly asinine claim.

You need instruments to tell you red exists? Do you need a brainscan to tell you you're in love?

Yes, we have experiences of red, and we have experiences of spectrometers talking about wavelengths. But the latter is just part of how the universe is arranged, it does not prove to us what we already know from native sense impression.

[Donnadogsoth]

We know that, huh?

How could that which lacks potential to change, change?


Anyway, this is a confused question. Creation implies some sort of causality and precedence. Laws of nature include causality, or whatever underlies our perception thereof, and the functioning of time. It's the same problem as trying to search for some Root Cause that came before everything else.

?


The experience of a red is a thing. Wavelengths are also a thing, as are eyes. These things are generally linked together, but they're not the same thing. If there is no-one experiencing red, there is no experience of red, yet wavelengths, eyes and other various things might as well still exist.

Ideas are things, too. They are patterns in a material substrate. They cannot exist separately from information, while information does exist separate of ideas.

Since I deny the existence of matter, I must deny that ideas are merely "patterns in a material substrate". There are ideas, of a more powerful ontological nature than apparent matter, but these ideas are not "in" matter. They are "in" the human mind.

[Murska]

How could that which lacks potential to change, change?

By having always been something different instead, perhaps? Give up the naive notion of causality, something having to first happen before it can have happened.



?

Basically, since causality and time are both results of the laws of nature, the question 'what created the laws of nature' is nonsensical.


Since I deny the existence of matter, I must deny that ideas are merely "patterns in a material substrate". There are ideas, of a more powerful ontological nature than apparent matter, but these ideas are not "in" matter. They are "in" the human mind.

And, since I deny ontologically fundamental ideas and hold that the human mind is made of matter, I don't really think we can get much further on this. But out of interest, let's prod at things a bit.

You're not a solipsist, I don't think, as you speak of other minds than your own. This would point towards you expecting there to be something outside your own consciousness - an 'outside reality' of some kind.

I don't think you deny that you experience things. You see things, smell things, touch things. Or, what you actually know is, your mind tells you of sensations that originate somewhere outside your conscious thinking. You model these sensations on a map of this intangible, untouchable 'outside reality', and based on this model you make predictions of what sensations you receive when you commit various actions. Generally these predictions are very good. To simplify, if you punch a wall, you'll usually feel pain. (Though, your arms are part of 'outside reality', so it's not that simple.)

All this could just be your mind deceiving you, all reality simply construed within your subconsciousness, but that seems like both a fruitless path to take (as it cannot be proven and has no consequences) and, by Occam's Razor, the less likely case to be true. To perfectly model the universe is to create an universe, and if all reality is just deception then what you have is the same reality as if it were not deception, except with an added compexifying agent of someone deceiving you into believing it. If you're a brain in a jar, and the machinery around you makes you believe you are seeing a tree with so good fidelity that you will never be able to realize something's off, then the tree is as real as anything you experience. If you find a dead pixel in your world, go ahead and try to break out of the Matrix, but before you do, why assume your world is less real than any other possible world?

Regardless. Every bit of information we can gain from the outside reality is filtered through our senses. And the only method of getting closer to true beliefs about the state and nature of that reality is through experimentation - that is, we make a prediction about what sensations something we do will cause, and then see if we were correct. And over many iterations of this we've come to believe in a model of the outside reality that consists of rocks, trees and various other everyday objects. (Well, technically, our best model contains probability waves in a spacetime continuum, but that's essentially the same thing.) We've received sensations that make us believe in the existance of others like us in the world beyond, though we will never meet them directly, chained as we are within the stuff that we're made of. But the only reason we expect there to exist other humans is that the model of reality we're working on, the one that so well predicts everything we experience (But is not always correct - we can be surprised by unknown unknowns, which proves that our model of the universe is not the universe) also predicts those other minds out there, as an explanation to a variety of otherwise perplexing sensations.

But your model does not contain matter, energy, probability waves, rocks, trees or houses. It still contains other minds, however. And it holds that ideas, which in the commonly accepted model are creations of minds that in turn are made of matter, things that influence the actions of such minds but nothing else directly, are instead the fundamental building block. I would be curious as to how you've come to believe in this model, what the experiments are that you have made, and how accurate your predictions are. Why is it that, in your model, when you punch a wall you feel pain, and when you layer enough radioactive material into a pile it goes critical and explodes? And then, we can pit the two models of reality against each other in a race to predict the future, and then choose to believe in the one that does better - not in explaining things after the fact, but in knowing what will happen before it happens.


You need instruments to tell you red exists?

Yes, those instruments would generally be my eyes.

Can you two stop talking about the experience of seeing a red object and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that causes such a sensation in our particular type of sensory equipment as if they are the same thing?

[golentan]

You need instruments to tell you red exists? Do you need a brainscan to tell you you're in love?

No, but I needed brainscans to tell me how love works on a mechanical level. And, incidentally, that heroin hijacks that exact same neural pathway. Heroin almost literally piggybacks on your ability to feel love, and usurps that feeling. I find that terrifying and fascinating, and evidence of the physical nature underlying and giving rise to minds.*

I don't think that makes minds not real, I think that makes the world fascinating. Minds are something that can be studied and recreated, possibly altered for the better if someone wants to tinker with their own inner workings (anyone who forces mental alterations on others without their consent though would be the lowest kind of scum in my book), and none of that makes them any less valuable as a concept. Mind is an emergent property of the universe, how amazing is that?!

*Also, a really, really good reason (as if there weren't already many) to stay away from opiates. My love is not to be artificially induced.

[Donnadogsoth]

By having always been something different instead, perhaps? Give up the naive notion of causality, something having to first happen before it can have happened.

That would be to give up the principle of sufficient reason, unless we presume the eternal Something responsible for the universe is the universe, but then that would make the universe eternal, which creates infinite regress when we look backwards to the earliest point in time. No, I'll stick with a rational universe where the Something eternal creates the persistent (universe) and the temporal (changing things).


...I would be curious as to how you've come to believe in this model, what the experiments are that you have made, and how accurate your predictions are. Why is it that, in your model, when you punch a wall you feel pain, and when you layer enough radioactive material into a pile it goes critical and explodes? And then, we can pit the two models of reality against each other in a race to predict the future, and then choose to believe in the one that does better - not in explaining things after the fact, but in knowing what will happen before it happens.

I believe in idealism from reading Berkeley, Plato, Leibniz, LaRouche, and from the YouTube videos of Johanan Raatz. It strikes me parsimonious to believe that all there are are monads, each reflecting the others but self-contained as the seats of experience, each in preestablished harmony with the others.

The experimental test of ideas is whether they can increase man's power over the universe, and they have in spades. Man is, in a sense, now a force of nature, like a glacier, capable of geological transformations. Call our age the “psychozoic” age. I can predict that without an idea orientation the world will collapse into a dark age. Reductionism and materialism will hasten that day.


Can you two stop talking about the experience of seeing a red object and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that causes such a sensation in our particular type of sensory equipment as if they are the same thing?

Indeed, colour and eye are two.

[golentan]

So... If the litmus test by which ideas are to be measured is the practical benefits they can provide, what is the benefit of approaching mind the way you do?

Because it seems to me that approaching it as an empirical object, subject to breaking apart, altering, reverse engineering, has given us many wonderful benefits in the advancement of computer science, and may yet yield true AI, improvements to the human mind, cures to mental illnesses, and the creation of minds that can formulate and deduce ideas beyond the complexities of our current frameworks.

Whereas your point of view looks like the sort of absolutism/inviolable, sacred nature view of life which has placed biology and psychology centuries behind the studies of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Your view looks... Extremely reductionist to me, and I agree that reductionism is liable to cause stagnation or backsliding on human progress. It looks tautological, and axiomatic, and the problem with that is if you didn't get the axioms right the first time (preferably by experimentation), you're always going to get the wrong answers out when you plug in your starting point...

[Murska]

That would be to give up the principle of sufficient reason, unless we presume the eternal Something responsible for the universe is the universe, but then that would make the universe eternal, which creates infinite regress when we look backwards to the earliest point in time. No, I'll stick with a rational universe where the Something eternal creates the persistent (universe) and the temporal (changing things).

The rational choice is to believe in that which works. Rationality is systemized winning. And through experimentation and closing off hypotheses, we're drawing closer to the conclusion that time is not a fundamental part of the universe. The concepts of 'eternal' and 'earliest' are hallucinations caused by our limited viewpoint of our surroundings. There can be no 'beginning' to reality any more than there can be an 'end'. Suppositing the existance of 'something' without any reason to believe in it is horrifically unlikely to produce any useful results.


I believe in idealism from reading Berkeley, Plato, Leibniz, LaRouche, and from the YouTube videos of Johanan Raatz. It strikes me parsimonious to believe that all there are are monads, each reflecting the others but self-contained as the seats of experience, each in preestablished harmony with the others.

I parse this as "I believe in my system because it sounds intuitively correct", which is horrible reasoning and has very little weight of evidence.


The experimental test of ideas is whether they can increase man's power over the universe, and they have in spades. Man is, in a sense, now a force of nature, like a glacier, capable of geological transformations. Call our age the “psychozoic” age. I can predict that without an idea orientation the world will collapse into a dark age. Reductionism and materialism will hasten that day.

Materialism does not deny ideas. Ideas are exactly as real as rocks. A rock, just like an idea, is a specific configuration of matter, energy, information. In the real reality, beyond our cognitive models, there are no separate things, there is no individual, no identity. It's been experimentally proven, in fact, that fundamental particles do not have an identity. There are no two electrons, each electron is fundamentally identical - this means there is not even in principle any difference. It is conceptually faulty to imagine two electrons. There is just reality, which is all entirely part of one massive quantum wavefunction that just happens to factorize neatly in some circumstances so as to provide us with objects that outwardly seem separatable.

But ideas do nothing without substance to act upon. If I smash your head in with a rock, whatever ideas were housed in the fragile substrate of your brain are gone. If rocks fall and every mind in the universe dies, an idea written somewhere does nothing. The fundamental layer is deeper than that.

[Donnadogsoth]

So... If the litmus test by which ideas are to be measured is the practical benefits they can provide, what is the benefit of approaching mind the way you do?

Because it seems to me that approaching it as an empirical object, subject to breaking apart, altering, reverse engineering, has given us many wonderful benefits in the advancement of computer science, and may yet yield true AI, improvements to the human mind, cures to mental illnesses, and the creation of minds that can formulate and deduce ideas beyond the complexities of our current frameworks.

Whereas your point of view looks like the sort of absolutism/inviolable, sacred nature view of life which has placed biology and psychology centuries behind the studies of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Your view looks... Extremely reductionist to me, and I agree that reductionism is liable to cause stagnation or backsliding on human progress. It looks tautological, and axiomatic, and the problem with that is if you didn't get the axioms right the first time (preferably by experimentation), you're always going to get the wrong answers out when you plug in your starting point...

What you say will probably seem plausible to the materialist true believer, but I don't see the relevance. Where does idealism devalue exploring the physical world?

Maybe idealist psychiatrists would seek to treat the mind more creatively than merely being pill pushers.

[Donnadogsoth]

That would be to give up the principle of sufficient reason, unless we presume the eternal Something responsible for the universe is the universe, but then that would make the universe eternal, which creates infinite regress when we look backwards to the earliest point in time. No, I'll stick with a rational universe where the Something eternal creates the persistent (universe) and the temporal (changing things).

The rational choice is to believe in that which works. Rationality is systemized winning. And through experimentation and closing off hypotheses, we're drawing closer to the conclusion that time is not a fundamental part of the universe. The concepts of 'eternal' and 'earliest' are hallucinations caused by our limited viewpoint of our surroundings. There can be no 'beginning' to reality any more than there can be an 'end'. Suppositing the existance of 'something' without any reason to believe in it is horrifically unlikely to produce any useful results.

If there's no beginning and no ending, then that thing is eternal. Except eternity falls apart in temporal terms, because there can never be a beginning point. That's why the temporal world has a beginning point, though it can proceed to infinity from that point.



I believe in idealism from reading Berkeley, Plato, Leibniz, LaRouche, and from the YouTube videos of Johanan Raatz. It strikes me parsimonious to believe that all there are are monads, each reflecting the others but self-contained as the seats of experience, each in preestablished harmony with the others.

I parse this as "I believe in my system because it sounds intuitively correct", which is horrible reasoning and has very little weight of evidence.

Have you read Leibniz? What other explanation is there for causality than the preestablished harmony of monads?



The experimental test of ideas is whether they can increase man's power over the universe, and they have in spades. Man is, in a sense, now a force of nature, like a glacier, capable of geological transformations. Call our age the “psychozoic” age. I can predict that without an idea orientation the world will collapse into a dark age. Reductionism and materialism will hasten that day.

Materialism does not deny ideas. Ideas are exactly as real as rocks. A rock, just like an idea, is a specific configuration of matter, energy, information. In the real reality, beyond our cognitive models, there are no separate things, there is no individual, no identity. It's been experimentally proven, in fact, that fundamental particles do not have an identity. There are no two electrons, each electron is fundamentally identical - this means there is not even in principle any difference. It is conceptually faulty to imagine two electrons. There is just reality, which is all entirely part of one massive quantum wavefunction that just happens to factorize neatly in some circumstances so as to provide us with objects that outwardly seem separatable.

But ideas do nothing without substance to act upon. If I smash your head in with a rock, whatever ideas were housed in the fragile substrate of your brain are gone. If rocks fall and every mind in the universe dies, an idea written somewhere does nothing. The fundamental layer is deeper than that.

Rather, ideas do nothing without being applied according to rules.

The images on my screen function according to rules. Whether there is one electron or a multitude makes no difference to me. But for you to say there is no identity, even my own, certainly makes a difference. Why punish someone for a crime, if there is no identity? Why not do as one pleases and rob, rape, and kill, given that no one can justly punish you? Why do anything worthy of acclaim, knowing that you will not receive the glory? No, I will not be shaken from my position that people are individuals.

And you ("you"?) smashing my head with a rock does not destroy me but renders me unavailable for comment.

[Murska]

If there's no beginning and no ending, then that thing is eternal. Except eternity falls apart in temporal terms, because there can never be a beginning point. That's why the temporal world has a beginning point, though it can proceed to infinity from that point.

There is no temporal world. Time does not exist as a fundamental thing. How do you perceive time? Not directly, never. You see time as the change in physical states. But only the physical states exist.


Have you read Leibniz? What other explanation is there for causality than the preestablished harmony of monads?

Causality is a perceptual filter, a model for perceiving relations in things in regards to the 'direction' of increasing entropy. Reality just is, things just are, but our viewpoint is moving and so we perceive change and relations that govern such change. Pre-established harmony of monads holds that there are no rules and causality does not actually exist, but things have just been preprogrammed to act according to a script that makes it seem that way - this fails the test of Occam's Razor hard. An universe where our perceptions result from as simple (in terms of message length, not ease of understanding) a set of rules as possible is vastly more likely than an universe where our perceptions result from some Mysterious Outsider meticulously micromanaging literally every single thing that happens.


Rather, ideas do nothing without being applied according to rules.

The images on my screen function according to rules. Whether there is one electron or a multitude makes no difference to me. But for you to say there is no identity, even my own, certainly makes a difference. Why punish someone for a crime, if there is no identity? Why not do as one pleases and rob, rape, and kill, given that no one can justly punish you? Why do anything worthy of acclaim, knowing that you will not receive the glory? No, I will not be shaken from my position that people are individuals.

You punish people for crimes to lessen the amount of crimes. You don't rob, rape and kill because you're punished for it - either by society or more likely by your own moral code that has evolved to enable a functioning society that is evolutionarily beneficial. You do worthy things because you want to do them, for one reason or another. What do any of these arguments have to do with anything? Just because something sounds bad doesn't make it false.

Things always add up to normality, in the end. The fact that you and me are not separate things, but instead parts of reality, does not change anything about the obvious facts of our everyday life. Just like it doesn't change anything about our life if we happen to in fact be simulations in Matrix. Sure, the underpinnings of our world may be different than we imagined, but we still need to eat to survive and falling off a cliff still kills us. Not being fundamentally separate objects does not mean we don't factorize into rather neat little blobs of probability that have brains that contain minds that hold ideas.


And you ("you"?) smashing my head with a rock does not destroy me but renders me unavailable for comment.

There is no difference between a thing that cannot be perceived and a thing that does not exist.

[Donnadogsoth]

If there's no beginning and no ending, then that thing is eternal. Except eternity falls apart in temporal terms, because there can never be a beginning point. That's why the temporal world has a beginning point, though it can proceed to infinity from that point.

There is no temporal world. Time does not exist as a fundamental thing. How do you perceive time? Not directly, never. You see time as the change in physical states. But only the physical states exist.

We never directly perceive other minds, either, yet they exist.

Time is a measure of change. In an absolute sense I agree with you, that there is an eternal Moment, and time is how we arrange our perceptions and make ordered choices. In that lesser sense time exists, temporality exists, the temporal (objects) exists within the persistent (universe). The nature of the eternal Something (ie, that which rules and creates the universe) is related to this Moment.



Have you read Leibniz? What other explanation is there for causality than the preestablished harmony of monads?

Causality is a perceptual filter, a model for perceiving relations in things in regards to the 'direction' of increasing entropy. Reality just is, things just are, but our viewpoint is moving and so we perceive change and relations that govern such change. Pre-established harmony of monads holds that there are no rules and causality does not actually exist, but things have just been preprogrammed to act according to a script that makes it seem that way - this fails the test of Occam's Razor hard. An universe where our perceptions result from as simple (in terms of message length, not ease of understanding) a set of rules as possible is vastly more likely than an universe where our perceptions result from some Mysterious Outsider meticulously micromanaging literally every single thing that happens.

I reject as unprincipled the notion that anything “just is.”

I further reject probabilistic “likelihood,” in favour of principle.



Rather, ideas do nothing without being applied according to rules.

The images on my screen function according to rules. Whether there is one electron or a multitude makes no difference to me. But for you to say there is no identity, even my own, certainly makes a difference. Why punish someone for a crime, if there is no identity? Why not do as one pleases and rob, rape, and kill, given that no one can justly punish you? Why do anything worthy of acclaim, knowing that you will not receive the glory? No, I will not be shaken from my position that people are individuals./

You punish people for crimes to lessen the amount of crimes. You don't rob, rape and kill because you're punished for it - either by society or more likely by your own moral code that has evolved to enable a functioning society that is evolutionarily beneficial. You do worthy things because you want to do them, for one reason or another. What do any of these arguments have to do with anything? Just because something sounds bad doesn't make it false.

Things always add up to normality, in the end. The fact that you and me are not separate things, but instead parts of reality, does not change anything about the obvious facts of our everyday life. Just like it doesn't change anything about our life if we happen to in fact be simulations in Matrix. Sure, the underpinnings of our world may be different than we imagined, but we still need to eat to survive and falling off a cliff still kills us. Not being fundamentally separate objects does not mean we don't factorize into rather neat little blobs of probability that have brains that contain minds that hold ideas.

What punishment can matter when it comes after one has expired? Why should anyone care about justice (which can never come if identity is a fraud) or the well-being of society (which matters to none), or even their own lives?

Such a system is not only unjust and immoral, it relies on the ignorance of the masses to their true nature in order to allow society to function.



And you ("you"?) smashing my head with a rock does not destroy me but renders me unavailable for comment.

There is no difference between a thing that cannot be perceived and a thing that does not exist.

You cannot perceive me, not my inner experience, but merely accidental associations of me such as my words.

[Murska]

We never directly perceive other minds, either, yet they exist.

Time is a measure of change. In an absolute sense I agree with you, that there is an eternal Moment, and time is how we arrange our perceptions and make ordered choices. In that lesser sense time exists, temporality exists, the temporal (objects) exists within the persistent (universe). The nature of the eternal Something (ie, that which rules and creates the universe) is related to this Moment.

Technically we never directly perceive anything, the concept itself is confused, but we indirectly perceive reality. Time, however, is not necessary for an explanation of perceptions - we don't even indirectly perceive it. It's a matter of perspective, not perception. As for discussion about creators and rulers, I'll bow out of that.


I reject as unprincipled the notion that anything “just is.”

I further reject probabilistic “likelihood,” in favour of principle.

Well, unfounded rejections of other people's arguments doesn't really help the discussion. If you reject the assumption that something "just is", the only alternative is nothing existing, which is possible but not an useful assumption nor the more likely one. The concept of a root cause is a paradox founded in cognitive limitations based on a false perspective. Probability is the only way we can interact with reality, as absolutes do not exist - probabilities 0 and 1 are literally impossible to ever achieve by any means, through any observation or leap of logic.


What punishment can matter when it comes after one has expired? Why should anyone care about justice (which can never come if identity is a fraud) or the well-being of society (which matters to none), or even their own lives?

Justice is a faulty concept. You cannot assign moral responsibility to someone for their actions. Either the world is deterministic, and so they were fated to make their choice, or the world is indeterministic, and their choice was pure random chance. Free will is paradoxical, and cannot exist. But why would you not care about punishment, which hurts you, the prevention of crime, which keeps you safe, the well-being of society that provides you with all the things you enjoy or your life which allows you to experience things you enjoy? Why would you being part of reality change any of that? It's like saying that, were you in the Matrix, you shouldn't care about danger or pursue your happiness because 'it is all just a simulation'. So it is, what of it? That doesn't make it not real.


Such a system is not only unjust and immoral, it relies on the ignorance of the masses to their true nature in order to allow society to function.

As a counterexample, I believe myself to be part of reality, yet I don't threaten the functioning of society. In fact, through arriving at the starting point of rational thought regarding reality, I've become an optimist and began putting real effort towards bettering the lives of other people. According to my experience and knowledge, if more people were like me, I don't believe society would entirely collapse in short order.

I am confused by the notion that the underpinnings of reality, whatever form they take, have anything to do with everyday morality and ethics. It is unquestionably, obviously wrong to think that if it turns out you are just a simulation in a computer, it would suddenly be 'okay' to kill you. Just as it is wrong to think that, once we fully understand quantum gravity, we would suddenly somehow not die if we fall off a cliff. Understanding how something works does not change the fact that it works. Understanding that something is not the way we thought it was does not mean that we've somehow altered reality. It never was, we just didn't know that yet. If you need something beyond yourself to give meaning to your morality and your values, then they are on shaky ground already. If you need some external force to justify your actions to yourself, you are already wrong.


You cannot perceive me, not my inner experience, but merely accidental associations of me such as my words.

I cannot directly perceive your words either. I perceive photons that are emitted by my screen? No, I don't. I perceive signals sent to my brain by my eyes? No, I don't. I perceive signals my brain sends to itself when interpreting input from the outside? Well, kind of, but those signals travel at the speed of light and so my brain, and by extension mind, is not some monolithic singular entity. It's built out of smaller parts. It's reducible.

If you were to take that sentence as meaning things you cannot even in theory directly perceive, then you arrive at the choice of emptiness, where nothing exists. That cannot be disproven, yet it is a picture of futility. However, if you accept indirect perception, suddenly reality unfolds around you like the most beautiful work of art ever conceived.

If I destroy your brain, your mind will no longer have any effect on anything anywhere. There won't be photons emitted by your mind that my eyes can sense, there won't be fluctuations in the movements of quantum waveforms, I will never telepathically receive thoughts from you. That is what nonexistance means.

[Donnadogsoth]

We never directly perceive other minds, either, yet they exist.

Time is a measure of change. In an absolute sense I agree with you, that there is an eternal Moment, and time is how we arrange our perceptions and make ordered choices. In that lesser sense time exists, temporality exists, the temporal (objects) exists within the persistent (universe). The nature of the eternal Something (ie, that which rules and creates the universe) is related to this Moment.

Technically we never directly perceive anything, the concept itself is confused, but we indirectly perceive reality. Time, however, is not necessary for an explanation of perceptions - we don't even indirectly perceive it. It's a matter of perspective, not perception. As for discussion about creators and rulers, I'll bow out of that.

In human terms, we should view humanity as a single indivisible entity spanning past, present and future, so in that sense—the “simultaneity of eternity” of contributions to human development--there is no time, only perspective as you've said.



I reject as unprincipled the notion that anything “just is.”

I further reject probabilistic “likelihood,” in favour of principle.

Well, unfounded rejections of other people's arguments doesn't really help the discussion. If you reject the assumption that something "just is", the only alternative is nothing existing, which is possible but not an useful assumption nor the more likely one. The concept of a root cause is a paradox founded in cognitive limitations based on a false perspective. Probability is the only way we can interact with reality, as absolutes do not exist - probabilities 0 and 1 are literally impossible to ever achieve by any means, through any observation or leap of logic.

The rejection of an unprincipled argument is about the least unfounded thing I can imagine.



What punishment can matter when it comes after one has expired? Why should anyone care about justice (which can never come if identity is a fraud) or the well-being of society (which matters to none), or even their own lives?

Justice is a faulty concept. You cannot assign moral responsibility to someone for their actions. Either the world is deterministic, and so they were fated to make their choice, or the world is indeterministic, and their choice was pure random chance. Free will is paradoxical, and cannot exist. But why would you not care about punishment, which hurts you, the prevention of crime, which keeps you safe, the well-being of society that provides you with all the things you enjoy or your life which allows you to experience things you enjoy? Why would you being part of reality change any of that? It's like saying that, were you in the Matrix, you shouldn't care about danger or pursue your happiness because 'it is all just a simulation'. So it is, what of it? That doesn't make it not real.

Free will is the third option besides determinism and chaos. It may be mysterious but it is no less compelling. I used to believe we were either slaves to order or slaves to chaos, but no longer. We are slaves to our free choices and we are culpable for them.

If I lack identity, why would I care what happens to a future me, or you, or anyone, or that a future me or you or anyone is safe, or for the well-being of a society a future us will inhabit? No, caring in your paradigm requires ignorance of the reality. None of the Matrix characters doubted their individuality, however much they doubted their circumstance.



Such a system is not only unjust and immoral, it relies on the ignorance of the masses to their true nature in order to allow society to function.

As a counterexample, I believe myself to be part of reality, yet I don't threaten the functioning of society. In fact, through arriving at the starting point of rational thought regarding reality, I've become an optimist and began putting real effort towards bettering the lives of other people. According to my experience and knowledge, if more people were like me, I don't believe society would entirely collapse in short order.

I am confused by the notion that the underpinnings of reality, whatever form they take, have anything to do with everyday morality and ethics. It is unquestionably, obviously wrong to think that if it turns out you are just a simulation in a computer, it would suddenly be 'okay' to kill you. Just as it is wrong to think that, once we fully understand quantum gravity, we would suddenly somehow not die if we fall off a cliff. Understanding how something works does not change the fact that it works. Understanding that something is not the way we thought it was does not mean that we've somehow altered reality. It never was, we just didn't know that yet. If you need something beyond yourself to give meaning to your morality and your values, then they are on shaky ground already. If you need some external force to justify your actions to yourself, you are already wrong.

Ah, but you are, in your own philosophy, a slave to either chaos or order. You have no choice but to behave as you do. In my philosophy, you are free to ignore the basis of your own imagined non-existence.

“In fact, through arriving at the starting point of rational thought regarding reality, I've become an optimist and began putting real effort towards bettering the lives of other people.” is a statement of how one's view of reality affects one's identity and therefore actions. So by your own belief system it's really a silly thing to say. Act optimistic and work to better people's lives, and to hell with one's belief system, is what you're really saying.

You say you don't believe in identity but act as though you did, as though your choices now will matter consequentially to a you in the future.

You also claim ultimate reality is irrelevant to how we live our lives, and yet you claim a renewed optimism and empathy by accepting your own lack of identity.

For my part, I am confused as to how the nature of reality could not affect identity. Prove to me I don't exist and I will act like it. Then unlike you in this regard I will at least be consistent.



You cannot perceive me, not my inner experience, but merely accidental associations of me such as my words.

I cannot directly perceive your words either. I perceive photons that are emitted by my screen? No, I don't. I perceive signals sent to my brain by my eyes? No, I don't. I perceive signals my brain sends to itself when interpreting input from the outside? Well, kind of, but those signals travel at the speed of light and so my brain, and by extension mind, is not some monolithic singular entity. It's built out of smaller parts. It's reducible.

If you were to take that sentence as meaning things you cannot even in theory directly perceive, then you arrive at the choice of emptiness, where nothing exists. That cannot be disproven, yet it is a picture of futility. However, if you accept indirect perception, suddenly reality unfolds around you like the most beautiful work of art ever conceived.

If I destroy your brain, your mind will no longer have any effect on anything anywhere. There won't be photons emitted by your mind that my eyes can sense, there won't be fluctuations in the movements of quantum waveforms, I will never telepathically receive thoughts from you. That is what nonexistance means.

Again, only according to your materialist paradigm. In monadic idealism, I would be incommunicado, but what of it? There is always the possibility of future resurrection, “materially” speaking, and in any case there is the immortality of the soul, by which I exclusively mean the contribution I have made to humanity's successful survival, which will act on humanity as a whole for all time.

[Murska]

The rejection of an unprincipled argument is about the least unfounded thing I can imagine.

Saying something doesn't make it so.


Free will is the third option besides determinism and chaos. It may be mysterious but it is no less compelling. I used to believe we were either slaves to order or slaves to chaos, but no longer. We are slaves to our free choices and we are culpable for them.

There are no mysterious things, only confused people. Feel free to provide actual arguments, however.


If I lack identity, why would I care what happens to a future me, or you, or anyone, or that a future me or you or anyone is safe, or for the well-being of a society a future us will inhabit? No, caring in your paradigm requires ignorance of the reality.

Why would you not care? Why would not being fundamentally singular affect that?


Ah, but you are, in your own philosophy, a slave to either chaos or order. You have no choice but to behave as you do. In my philosophy, you are free to ignore the basis of your own imagined non-existence.

Relevance?


“In fact, through arriving at the starting point of rational thought regarding reality, I've become an optimist and began putting real effort towards bettering the lives of other people.” is a statement of how one's view of reality affects one's identity and therefore actions. So by your own belief system it's really a silly thing to say. Act optimistic and work to better people's lives, and to hell with one's belief system, is what you're really saying.

I would prefer you not to attempt to tell me what I am saying. I find myself to be the foremost expert on the matter. Obviously what someone thinks affects how they act, and this does not in any way contradict anything I have ever said. I find it horribly insulting that you would attempt to strawman my arguments when I've done my best to steelman yours.


You say you don't believe in identity but act as though you did, as though your choices now will matter consequentially to a you in the future.

Again assuming the perspective of time, my choices now decide what happens to me in the future, and so I would rather not make poor choices.


You also claim ultimate reality is irrelevant to how we live our lives, and yet you claim a renewed optimism and empathy by accepting your own lack of identity.

Ultimate reality defines how we live, but it has always done so. Us not understanding something is a fact about us, not the world. We might not be right about why gravity works, but nothing we will discover can make it not work. Same applies to morality, though in a more vague sense given the more vague, subjective sort of concept - as morality is molded by our thoughts, unlike gravity, it is possible for us to choose different values for ourselves based on something we learn. However, the way reality is construed is, shall we say, exceedingly unlikely to mean that it is the correct thing for us to start murdering people, as there is no hint of a connection between the unitary nature of reality and our everyday world's concerns.


For my part, I am confused as to how the nature of reality could not affect identity. Prove to me I don't exist and I will act like it. Then unlike you in this regard I will at least be consistent.

If I can prove that you don't exist, there's no-one to prove it to. But what's that got to do with anything? Nowhere have I claimed that we don't exist. I feel you're reading 'lack of identity' as something different than what I've explained it to mean.

Look at your hand. It seems like an individual object, in a sense. You can look at it from various angles, and move it around. It's attached to your body at one end, but it doesn't look like it's attached to the keyboard, or the air. But the hand's made out of various parts. You have fingers, for example. When you look at them more closely, they seem like individual objects too. You can keep going down levels to look at smaller and smaller pieces, each time imagining them to have a separate, unique identity, but every time you'll find that, by looking closer, it seems that they're made out of things. And then, when you're at the level of atoms and probability states, the edges blur out - the difference between your hand and the air around it is no longer absolute, or clear at all.

Mathematical proof has been found and confirmed by physical experiments for the fact that, at the basic level, particles (that aren't actually particles at this point) are identical. Entirely, fully identical. Not to the theoretical limit of observational accuracy identical, not 'as good as we can measure' identical, they're fundamentally the same things. This property of nature holds up to every level. Not in saying that humans are identical to each other - that's obviously untrue - but that the true nature of reality is not as a large collection of separate, individual objects. Reality is a single object, a single unimaginably huge calculation of state on a substrate of energy. Seeing two atoms is a distinction that fades when we zoom out, or when we zoom in. Seeing two rocks is a distinction that disappears if we zoom out, or zoom in. Seeing two people is a distinction that disappears once we're far enough away from that level of perception, when we view things on the scale of planets or on the scale of atoms. It's just a trick of the mind to file our sensory experiences in distinct little boxes for easier processing.

That doesn't make our selves somehow untrue. Just because I am made out of smaller parts, and a small part of something larger, does not detract from me in any way. Just like it doesn't somehow suddenly make obvious ethical choices less obvious, or turn off gravity.


Again, only according to your materialist paradigm. In monadic idealism, I would be incommunicado, but what of it? There is always the possibility of future resurrection, “materially” speaking, and in any case there is the immortality of the soul, by which I exclusively mean the contribution I have made to humanity's successful survival, which will act on humanity as a whole for all time.

Well, here we run into the problem that you're just making an assertion about something unprovable that has zero evidence towards it whatsoever. There's not much to discuss there.

[BaronOfHell]

We distinguish people by our senses, we say they've a certain personality that defines them in our view and while a personality constitutes of actions, i.e. mainly visual, tactile and auditory inputs, one could in stead imagine an animal who could only experience the world through smell. For this animal, personality would be defined through smell alone, so imagine you manage to give two different people the exact same smell (and whatever that follows)... does it mean they're the same people now? If you ask a human, of course not, but if you ask this animal, then yes, there's no difference..

So to answer the original question, just because you go out of your way to build someone that mimic Mr. Spock as you remember him, does not mean he's Mr. Spock, only that you won't be able to tell.

[Murska]

We distinguish people by our senses, we say they've a certain personality that defines them in our view and while a personality constitutes of actions, i.e. mainly visual, tactile and auditory inputs, one could in stead imagine an animal who could only experience the world through smell. For this animal, personality would be defined through smell alone, so imagine you manage to give two different people the exact same smell (and whatever that follows)... does it mean they're the same people now? If you ask a human, of course not, but if you ask this animal, then yes, there's no difference.

The point is valid. However, in theory, the animal that can only smell could still indirectly perceive the difference. For example, the two humans that smell the same might act in different ways and those actions could affect other smells near the animal, or someone could modify the animal's brain to add new senses. That means that the two people that smell the same are not fundamentally identical, just that the measuring equipment used is not precise enough to see the difference. As opposed to two electrons.

To answer the original question, both are Spock and they begin to diverge immediately from the point of creation due to having different experiences mold their minds. More importantly, a two-fisted hammer punch is not that effective.

[BaronOfHell]

Well sure, change the premises and the argument is invalid. :p

Anyway if we label spock's brain with robo body A, computer with spock's body B and everyone else C, who'd A, B and C respectively say is the real Spock if they've the options of A, B, both or..?

I imagine it'd be like this:

A: A
B: B
C: can't tell / both

But then I think one comes to a field of what defines a unique being.. and what is it actually to be "Spock"?
I am me, but if I see someone else who is identical to me in every way except I don't observe the world through his senses, I'd say he's not me. I would not be surprised if I was the only one who could tell and that he'd think he'd be me, since he'd likely have the exact memory I do, only artificially created.. or perhaps I'd be the one with the artificial memory.
We're however still two individual beings, but at the moment of the event described we possess the exact same qualities in every way except that we're are not the same being. So we both deserve the label of 'me', despite we don't both share the same experience of the world from the moment of the event described.
Alternatively, imagine I experience the world through both bodies, they now provide equal, non-identical, inputs to my consciousness and I can't tell which one is the original body. Then I'd say both are me [similarly if we had limbs not attached to our body, but we were still in full control over], and I'd merely be one person with two bodies.

[Donnadogsoth]

The rejection of an unprincipled argument is about the least unfounded thing I can imagine.
Saying something doesn't make it so.

There is no purpose to debating someone who is unprincipled.



Free will is the third option besides determinism and chaos. It may be mysterious but it is no less compelling. I used to believe we were either slaves to order or slaves to chaos, but no longer. We are slaves to our free choices and we are culpable for them.

There are no mysterious things, only confused people. Feel free to provide actual arguments, however.

Saying something doesn't make it so?



If I lack identity, why would I care what happens to a future me, or you, or anyone, or that a future me or you or anyone is safe, or for the well-being of a society a future us will inhabit? No, caring in your paradigm requires ignorance of the reality.

Why would you not care? Why would not being fundamentally singular affect that?

Why would I not care that my lifespan is effectively zero, that there is no consequence to anything I do that matters to me or to anyone else, that no meaningful relationships are possible because no one else lives to experience any substantive length of said relationship? I don't exist anymore, and neither do you, in your philosophy, we're both dead, and you wonder why I would somehow care to pretend I do exist. Why discuss anything if I will not live to see its conclusion? There is no “I” to you, so who are you talking to?



Ah, but you are, in your own philosophy, a slave to either chaos or order. You have no choice but to behave as you do. In my philosophy, you are free to ignore the basis of your own imagined non-existence.
Relevance?

I am not a slave, but you think you are.



“In fact, through arriving at the starting point of rational thought regarding reality, I've become an optimist and began putting real effort towards bettering the lives of other people.” is a statement of how one's view of reality affects one's identity and therefore actions. So by your own belief system it's really a silly thing to say. Act optimistic and work to better people's lives, and to hell with one's belief system, is what you're really saying.

I would prefer you not to attempt to tell me what I am saying. I find myself to be the foremost expert on the matter. Obviously what someone thinks affects how they act, and this does not in any way contradict anything I have ever said. I find it horribly insulting that you would attempt to strawman my arguments when I've done my best to steelman yours.

I find your attempts to reduce my identity to zero a dreadful and immoral thing to attempt to do, but do you hear me complaining? And what I said is true. You were asking why should one's view of reality affect one's actions and morality, and then you said you were so affected.



You say you don't believe in identity but act as though you did, as though your choices now will matter consequentially to a you in the future.
Again assuming the perspective of time, my choices now decide what happens to me in the future, and so I would rather not make
poor choices.

We've got a breakdown in logic here. You're pretending your choices decide what happens to you in the future and claim a preference. But by your own philosophy “you” in the future are not the same person as you now. In fact, by your view, they are completely different entities. So why would you care what happens to some future “you” after your infinitesimal lifespan has expired? Are you really big-hearted about the whole scenario? But, then again, why am I talking to you—the “you” I was talking to a second ago is dead, never to return, and now I'm facing a new “you”. Really, you are attempting a definition of pointlessness.



You also claim ultimate reality is irrelevant to how we live our lives, and yet you claim a renewed optimism and empathy by accepting your own lack of identity.

Ultimate reality defines how we live, but it has always done so. Us not understanding something is a fact about us, not the world. We might not be right about why gravity works, but nothing we will discover can make it not work. Same applies to morality, though in a more vague sense given the more vague, subjective sort of concept - as morality is molded by our thoughts, unlike gravity, it is possible for us to choose different values for ourselves based on something we learn. However, the way reality is construed is, shall we say, exceedingly unlikely to mean that it is the correct thing for us to start murdering people, as there is no hint of a connection between the unitary nature of reality and our everyday world's concerns.

You don't know we can't nullify gravity.

And why should you claim a renewed optimism and empathy toward the world by accepting your own lack of identity, if “there is no hint of a connection between the unitary nature of reality and our everyday world's concerns”?



For my part, I am confused as to how the nature of reality could not affect identity. Prove to me I don't exist and I will act like it. Then unlike you in this regard I will at least be consistent.
If I can prove that you don't exist, there's no-one to prove it to. But what's that got to do with anything?

Nowhere have I claimed that we don't exist. I feel you're reading 'lack of identity' as something different than what I've explained it
to mean.

Once again I'm talking to a dead man. The person I was addressing in my previous post is dead. Why am I talking to you instead?


Look at your hand. It seems like an individual object, in a sense. You can look at it from various angles, and move it around. It's attached to your body at one end, but it doesn't look like it's attached to the keyboard, or the air. But the hand's made out of various parts. You have fingers, for example. When you look at them more closely, they seem like individual objects too. You can keep going down levels to look at smaller and smaller pieces, each time imagining them to have a separate, unique identity, but every time you'll find that, by looking closer, it seems that they're made out of things. And then, when you're at the level of atoms and probability states, the edges blur out - the difference between your hand and the air around it is no longer absolute, or clear at all.

Material fetishism that you are using to deny my existence.


Mathematical proof has been found and confirmed by physical experiments for the fact that, at the basic level, particles (that aren't actually particles at this point) are identical. Entirely, fully identical. Not to the theoretical limit of observational accuracy identical, not 'as good as we can measure' identical, they're fundamentally the same things. This property of nature holds up to every level. Not in saying that humans are identical to each other - that's obviously untrue - but that the true nature of reality is not as a large collection of separate, individual objects. Reality is a single object, a single unimaginably huge calculation of state on a substrate of energy. Seeing two atoms is a distinction that fades when we zoom out, or when we zoom in. Seeing two rocks is a distinction that disappears if we zoom out, or zoom in. Seeing two people is a distinction that disappears once we're far enough away from that level of perception, when we view things on the scale of planets or on the scale of atoms. It's just a trick of the mind to file our sensory experiences in distinct little boxes for easier processing.

First, I would be interested in reading more about this “confir[mation] by physical experiments” you refer to. Can you recommend an article about it?

Second, this is all materialism and while it's interesting it's irrelevant to the metaphysical question of human sovereign identity. I exist, you're not me, and anything else is a drug trip, whether that drug is LSD or materialist scientism.


That doesn't make our selves somehow untrue. Just because I am made out of smaller parts, and a small part of something larger, does not detract from me in any way. Just like it doesn't somehow suddenly make obvious ethical choices less obvious, or turn off gravity.

Once again you're presuming that “you” are made out of smaller parts in the manner of a chip of mica. I maintain, and my entire experience of life supports this, than I am me, an irreducible, nonreductionistic, nonmaterial entity, who experiences a changing set of phenomena termed conceptions, emotions, and sensations. I do not fetishise sensations, so I am not prey to the delusion that what we see happening to “fundamental” particles has anything to say about my mind, except insofar as it is part of my mind.



Again, only according to your materialist paradigm. In monadic idealism, I would be incommunicado, but what of it? There is always the possibility of future resurrection, “materially” speaking, and in any case there is the immortality of the soul, by which I exclusively mean the contribution I have made to humanity's successful survival, which will act on humanity as a whole for all time.

Well, here we run into the problem that you're just making an assertion about something unprovable that has zero evidence towards it whatsoever. There's not much to discuss there.

Plato is not immortal? Churchill is not immortal? Their actions have positively impressed humanity for eternity, whether or not their names pass from living memory.

[BaronOfHell]

It's the opposite, no two particles are identical...

[Murska]

There is no purpose to debating someone who is unprincipled.

Your arguments are zorgleblarg, and there's no purpose debating someone who zorgleblarg.


Saying something doesn't make it so?

Precisely! So, then, I've provided two clear and well-defined options that appear to shut out all alternatives, and you've said 'There's a third alternative X' without providing any reasoning as to why that would be true.


Why would I not care that my lifespan is effectively zero, that there is no consequence to anything I do that matters to me or to anyone else, that no meaningful relationships are possible because no one else lives to experience any substantive length of said relationship? I don't exist anymore, and neither do you, in your philosophy, we're both dead, and you wonder why I would somehow care to pretend I do exist. Why discuss anything if I will not live to see its conclusion? There is no “I” to you, so who are you talking to?

Maybe in your strawman of my philosophy we're dead. I don't think I'm dead, I believe I've experienced several meaningful relationships and my lifespan is hopefully going to be at least several thousand years. On what basis are you attributing these statements to me?


I am not a slave, but you think you are.

I feel 'slave' is a loaded term, but regardless, how is that relevant?


I find your attempts to reduce my identity to zero a dreadful and immoral thing to attempt to do, but do you hear me complaining? And what I said is true. You were asking why should one's view of reality affect one's actions and morality, and then you said you were so affected.

I assumed an unspoken agreement from the onset of the discussion that we would attempt to approach truth. Ad hominem attacks and trying to misconstrue things the other side is saying are against the rules of civil debate, while attempting to convince the other of your viewpoint is not.

I am asking why should what reality is like underneath the surface change how we perceive it to be like in our everyday lives. If it turns out that hypothesis X is true about quantum physics, it should not change what we see, hear or feel. This is because us knowing something is entirely separate from that something being one way or another. If you have firm reasons to believe that killing people is wrong, based on experiences you have gathered over years of ordinary life, there is no obvious reason why an unrelated revelation about the behaviour of fundamental forces would change that conclusion.


We've got a breakdown in logic here. You're pretending your choices decide what happens to you in the future and claim a preference. But by your own philosophy “you” in the future are not the same person as you now. In fact, by your view, they are completely different entities. So why would you care what happens to some future “you” after your infinitesimal lifespan has expired? Are you really big-hearted about the whole scenario? But, then again, why am I talking to you—the “you” I was talking to a second ago is dead, never to return, and now I'm facing a new “you”. Really, you are attempting a definition of pointlessness.

By my philosophy, I in the future am a somewhat changed version of I in the now (the present doesn't actually exist as a coherent concept, but that's an interesting discussion for some other time). I care for me in the future quite a bit. He's a nice person whose thoughts and actions are very relatable to me. And trying to define 'me' as just one slice of the concept of 'me' that moves through spacetime sounds a bit strange. A much more workable definition would be that I am the continuity of my consciousness. Still, this is not what we were talking about at all.


You don't know we can't nullify gravity.

Sure I do. It's a much stronger knowledge than most other things I know. I know my name, but that could be a lie fed to me all my life - the plausibility of that is higher than the plausibility that all my experiences about gravity are false. Maybe our understanding of gravity is false, and maybe with greater understanding of it we can, for example, create a device that allows us to ignore the effects of gravity, but that doesn't mean gravity will turn off if we simply understand it - we must actually use that understanding in some way to change our environment for our environment to change.


And why should you claim a renewed optimism and empathy toward the world by accepting your own lack of identity, if “there is no hint of a connection between the unitary nature of reality and our everyday world's concerns”?

I recall my words were something to the line of 'embracing the beginning of the path of rational thought'. The fact that I know what I must aspire towards and know the steps to take helps me remain a balanced individual. Specific laws of physics don't really enter the equation there.


Once again I'm talking to a dead man. The person I was addressing in my previous post is dead. Why am I talking to you instead?

Uh, no, the person is right here? Somewhat changed, but perfectly continuous.


Material fetishism that you are using to deny my existence.

First, I would be interested in reading more about this “confir[mation] by physical experiments” you refer to. Can you recommend an article about it?

Second, this is all materialism and while it's interesting it's irrelevant to the metaphysical question of human sovereign identity. I exist, you're not me, and anything else is a drug trip, whether that drug is LSD or materialist scientism.

I'll see if I can dig something up later. No comment on your denial of materialism, it's obvious you are unconvinceable there.

EDIT: I'm too busy and unwilling to put in the effort to search further after spending two minutes looking up pages on it, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles)is a good place to start and follow the links therein to gather more information.


Once again you're presuming that “you” are made out of smaller parts in the manner of a chip of mica. I maintain, and my entire experience of life supports this, than I am me, an irreducible, nonreductionistic, nonmaterial entity, who experiences a changing set of phenomena termed conceptions, emotions, and sensations. I do not fetishise sensations, so I am not prey to the delusion that what we see happening to “fundamental” particles has anything to say about my mind, except insofar as it is part of my mind.

Well, if someone's brain gets damaged, their personality changes. That would point towards mind being affected by the brain.


Plato is not immortal? Churchill is not immortal? Their actions have positively impressed humanity for eternity, whether or not their names pass from living memory.

No. As mentioned elsewhere, the sensation of red is not the eye. The effects of someone's actions are not that person.

[Donnadogsoth]

Uh, no, the person is right here? Somewhat changed, but perfectly continuous.

No, this is getting stupid. According your ("your") philosophy there is no individual with a continuous identity, there is only a deck of infinite cards played out one after the other instant by instant. I do not wish to debate with a deck of cards. Sorry. Unless you're going to recant your view on identity this is really a farce. Nice talking with "you".

[SiuiS]

Donna, if you say that the fundamental underpinnings of the universe change who you are as a mind, why are you saying that the fundamental underpinnings of the brain don't change who you are as a mind?

[Donnadogsoth]

Donna, if you say that the fundamental underpinnings of the universe change who you are as a mind, why are you saying that the fundamental underpinnings of the brain don't change who you are as a mind?

The issue is materialism versus idealism, a metaphysical question. If I adhere to the latter, then I think the brain is a function of my mind and therefore not going to change who I am as a mind. My brain is not going to change my soul. Altering the brain can, of course, alter the furniture of the mind, but it doesn't change the soul. Presumably only the soul can change itself freely, for good or ill. In terms of the external observer, of course, changing the brain can radically change the personality of a person.

[SiuiS]

The issue is materialism versus idealism, a metaphysical question.

No it is not. What started this was you saying your mind is completely unaffected by your brain. But you're now saying the state of the universe (which includes the state of your brain) affects your mind. If the brain affects the mind but the brain doesn't affect the mind, how do you reconcile the inevitable cognitive dissonance?

Also, I believe once you start arguing the metaphysics of reality you're arguing religion. That would be why Murska kept to philosophy and discussion thereof.

[golentan]

Again, Donna, you're arguing backwards. You're starting from the conclusion you want, and saying that it must be true basically because the alternative is repugnant to you.

You're using tautology. And the problem with tautology is that it is both unassailable by definition and very, very likely to be wrong. By reasoning in advance of your data, and rejecting the possibility of future data, you're setting yourself up for a big upset down the line. For example, you dismiss "materialism" (a term I'm not sure was appropriate) as prone to treating psychological problems by just throwing pills at them.

I had one psychiatrist who tried that. I did not return to him. The others cared about results more than anything else, and have mixed talk therapy with medication and a bunch of other stuff, and yes, it's worked. Plus, there's a big movement to map the brain and understand it in more depth, to among other things allow more and more specifically targeted measures to treat problems at the source, in places that mind or crude chemical methods cannot necessarily reach.

[Donnadogsoth]

No it is not. What started this was you saying your mind is completely unaffected by your brain. But you're now saying the state of the universe (which includes the state of your brain) affects your mind. If the brain affects the mind but the brain doesn't affect the mind, how do you reconcile the inevitable cognitive dissonance?

Also, I believe once you start arguing the metaphysics of reality you're arguing religion. That would be why Murska kept to philosophy and discussion thereof.

Well if ontology, epistemology, and cosmology are all “religion” and you want to play the religion card on me then I guess we're done.

If not, then I'll reply.

The nature of the universe—not the state, but the nature—creates the mind as an indivisible sovereign monad. The state of the universe is a function of the nature of the mind as created according to the nature of the universe. As it happens, from this mental nature we have the material universe, the sensations, emotions, and conceptions.

UNIVERSAL NATURE --> MIND --> MATERIAL UNIVERSE

So, the material universe is tertiary, the mind secondary, the universal nature primary. The flux of the material universe as contained within the mind and operating in conjunction with the preestablished harmony of other monads can, according to rules, alter the sensations, emotions, and conceptions experienced by the mind. This is not the brain altering the mind but the mind altering itself, with the brain as the chief symbol of such alteration.

If I take a drug that alters my brain, that drug and my brain are interacting symbols originating in my mind, which itself is a function of the universal nature.

[Murska]

Now, how do we set up an experiment that produces different results depending on which is correct - the mainstream hypothesis where the material universe contains minds or your hypothesis where minds create material universes?

[Donnadogsoth]

Again, Donna, you're arguing backwards. You're starting from the conclusion you want, and saying that it must be true basically because the alternative is repugnant to you.

You're using tautology. And the problem with tautology is that it is both unassailable by definition and very, very likely to be wrong. By reasoning in advance of your data, and rejecting the possibility of future data, you're setting yourself up for a big upset down the line. For example, you dismiss "materialism" (a term I'm not sure was appropriate) as prone to treating psychological problems by just throwing pills at them.

I had one psychiatrist who tried that. I did not return to him. The others cared about results more than anything else, and have mixed talk therapy with medication and a bunch of other stuff, and yes, it's worked. Plus, there's a big movement to map the brain and understand it in more depth, to among other things allow more and more specifically targeted measures to treat problems at the source, in places that mind or crude chemical methods cannot necessarily reach.

Given experience itself is the primary datum of experience, it does not strike me as backwards to reason from it, rather than from the brute facts of material experience.

Psychiatrists in general have two bibles, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness, and the Physicians Desk Reference. To be a psychiatrist these days, per patient, one selects a diagnosis from book A, and a drug from book B and that's how it works. If you eluded this typical treatment method I am happy for you.

[Donnadogsoth]

Now, how do we set up an experiment that produces different results depending on which is correct - the mainstream hypothesis where the material universe contains minds or your hypothesis where minds create material universes?

I caught a YouTube video, unfortunately the channel I forget, perhaps Johanan Raatz, that discussed a neurology experiment with a live patient that was unable to force the person's will. So I suppose that would be a strong argument for idealism, if there are some neurological functions beyond science's ability to force. That would be what we would expect. The mind can be destroyed, in a sense, but not fully controlled.

[Murska]

I caught a YouTube video, unfortunately the channel I forget, perhaps Johanan Raatz, that discussed a neurology experiment with a live patient that was unable to force the person's will. So I suppose that would be a strong argument for idealism, if there are some neurological functions beyond science's ability to force. That would be what we would expect. The mind can be destroyed, in a sense, but not fully controlled.

If we would accept that as an argument for idealism, then we would have to accept that in every experiment where the material world appears to affect the mind we gain proof for, well, material world affecting the mind.

[SiuiS]

Well if ontology, epistemology, and cosmology are all “religion” and you want to play the religion card on me then I guess we're done.

This is base obfuscation. For one, neither epistemolyg, ontology or cosmology are really being discussed as sciences when you're trying to talk about intelligent design.

You've failed to actually address the basis of epistemology. There is no discussion about what distinguishes just belief from opinion, there is insistence that one opinion is right Because Not Materialism. You've jumped from definition to definition in ontology, using connotation as a bridge. Cosmology is a science rooted in material understanding, not rhetorical positioning, which you deny the validity of. Please don't defer authority to nebulous institutions to avoid discussion. Especially when those institutions aren't actually directly supporting you.



The nature of the universe

Quibbles. I paraphrased you. Meaning is retained even if some words are off.

If something as fundamental as how gravity functions can change a mind, why cannot something as fundamental as emergent energy signatures in brain mass change a mind? They are both energy acting on material things.



If I take a drug that alters my brain, that drug and my brain are interacting symbols originating in my mind, which itself is a function of the universal nature.

Then why does that drug alter your mind, even in the short term?
Why does taking a drug unbeknownst to you still alter your mind?

[Donnadogsoth]

If we would accept that as an argument for idealism, then we would have to accept that in every experiment where the material world appears to affect the mind we gain proof for, well, material world affecting the mind.

Materialism breaks if there is a single instance of the brain being unable to affect the mind. But idealism does not break if there are examples where the rules of nature in the image called "the brain" affect the mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well if ontology, epistemology, and cosmology are all “religion” and you want to play the religion card on me then I guess we're done.

This is base obfuscation. For one, neither epistemolyg, ontology or cosmology are really being discussed as sciences when you're trying to talk about intelligent design.

You've failed to actually address the basis of epistemology. There is no discussion about what distinguishes just belief from opinion, there is insistence that one opinion is right Because Not Materialism. You've jumped from definition to definition in ontology, using connotation as a bridge. Cosmology is a science rooted in material understanding, not rhetorical positioning, which you deny the validity of. Please don't defer authority to nebulous institutions to avoid discussion. Especially when those institutions aren't actually directly supporting you.

Discussing the nature of the universe is ontology. Trying to paint me as discussing religion is just bad faith and I expect you to stop it.

The primary datum o f idealism is the simple realisation that experience is the primary datum of experience. The next datum is the realisation that that which is inconceivable does not exist. Not that which is mysterious, but which is absolutely inconceivable—such as “dead matter”. And so although we recognise other people as real (subject to the illusions of, eg., modern spectacular media), we don't recognise dust and snowbanks as real in the same way. They are real phenomena, but they have no inner life, they are not monads, and so they, and the phenomena that make up the image of the people who are real, are parts of our experience, parts of our minds.

And, these parts operate according to rules of universal nature.



The nature of the universe

Quibbles. I paraphrased you. Meaning is retained even if some words are off.

If something as fundamental as how gravity functions can change a mind, why cannot something as fundamental as emergent energy signatures in brain mass change a mind? They are both energy acting on material things.

Both gravity and brainwaves are parts of the mind, operating according to the rules of universal nature.



If I take a drug that alters my brain, that drug and my brain are interacting symbols originating in my mind, which itself is a function of the universal nature.

Then why does that drug alter your mind, even in the short term?
Why does taking a drug unbeknownst to you still alter your mind?

The drug, which is a part of your mind, operates according to rules from universal nature. This nature operates independent of your conscious mind. Idealism does not mean solipsism or that a person's conscious mind has absolute power. There are rules.

[Murska]

The next datum is the realisation that that which is inconceivable does not exist.

Isn't this just obviously wrong? There are tons of things we currently know to exist that were inconceivable a while ago.

Anyway, if gravity, brainwaves and, assumedly, all that we perceive to be a material universe, are part of a mind that has nothing to do with your conscious mind, and that your conscious mind cannot affect except through the rules of what we call 'physics', why assume the existance of this meta-mind instead of just assuming that it doesn't exist, when there's no difference in anything we experience?

[Donnadogsoth]

Isn't this just obviously wrong? There are tons of things we currently know to exist that were inconceivable a while ago.

Inconceivable-in-principle.


Anyway, if gravity, brainwaves and, assumedly, all that we perceive to be a material universe, are part of a mind that has nothing to do with your conscious mind, and that your conscious mind cannot affect except through the rules of what we call 'physics', why assume the existance of this meta-mind instead of just assuming that it doesn't exist, when there's no difference in anything we experience?

The "meta-mind" is universal nature itself, presenting these things to us, keeping track of the state of things, harmonising the interaction between monads. Assuming there is a dead, physical universe that exists when we're not looking at lacks parsimony. It's not necessary to explain what we see, but a universal nature is.

[Murska]

Inconceivable-in-principle.

That may be true, but no concept you can communicate (such as 'dead matter') is inconceivable in principle.


The "meta-mind" is universal nature itself, presenting these things to us, keeping track of the state of things, harmonising the interaction between monads. Assuming there is a dead, physical universe that exists when we're not looking at lacks parsimony. It's not necessary to explain what we see, but a universal nature is.

This is untrue. All that we see is explained by our model of a physical universe. What your meta-mind or 'universal nature' does is add another layer on top of that which supposedly causes our experience of a physical universe. Yet, if such a thing didn't exist, if the physical universe existed but 'universal nature' didn't, we'd see the same things we do now. Namely, the physical universe.

[SiuiS]

What is the appreciable difference, between a meta mind, and a physical universe which runs according to it's principles, which makes one a valid idea and not the other?

Desire? Semantics? Insecurity?

[Donnadogsoth]

What is the appreciable difference, between a meta mind, and a physical universe which runs according to it's principles, which makes one a valid idea and not the other?

Desire? Semantics? Insecurity?

A physical universe which runs according to its principles--where do those principles or laws come from? Why are they valid? There must be a principle or law ensuring they are operating, and one to ensure that one is operating, and so on in infinite regress. The buck must eventually be stopped by the bullet of the eternal. So, given that our apprehension of the physical universe is one of sense-perception (eyes) and enhanced sense perception (computer readouts from mechanical sensors), there is no reason not to "jump to the end" and just assume the eternal universal nature is doing it, without bothering to create that which we do not see.

[Donnadogsoth]

Inconceivable-in-principle.

That may be true, but no concept you can communicate (such as 'dead matter') is inconceivable in principle.

We can communicate the number √-1 but it is inconceivable in of itself.



The "meta-mind" is universal nature itself, presenting these things to us, keeping track of the state of things, harmonising the interaction between monads. Assuming there is a dead, physical universe that exists when we're not looking at lacks parsimony. It's not necessary to explain what we see, but a universal nature is.

This is untrue. All that we see is explained by our model of a physical universe. What your meta-mind or 'universal nature' does is add another layer on top of that which supposedly causes our experience of a physical universe. Yet, if such a thing didn't exist, if the physical universe existed but 'universal nature' didn't, we'd see the same things we do now. Namely, the physical universe.

That top layer is needed anyway, as I said to SiuiS; the laws need a reason why they are valid, and once we have that reason, the substance of those laws is subsumed into the eternal law, leaving no need of any material substance outside of the experience of the conscious monads.

[Mr.Moron]

The question is: which is the true "Spock"? Who do you make First Officer of the Starship Enterprise? And is a two-fisted hammer punch really that effective in hand-to-hand combat?

The question faulty. There is no "True Spock".

You've got a Spock and also a Spock, but the question of which is the Spock isn't meaningful, since both Spocks are equally Spock. They are from this point each separate entities a they will develop their own identities let's call them Tock and Rock, which are equally spock and equally distinct. They're both equally entitled to the job, (assuming there are no starfleet regulations against robotic-bodied and/or robotic-brained officers). So the fairest way to hand it out assuming you stick with having one, is to do so randomly. Though I suspect among the humans likely in charge of the decision sentimentality would win out and the meat-brain would be given the job.

At any rate this all assumes of course that the mind-copy is:

Perfect
Simultaneous
Instantaneous

If any of those aren't true then the meat-brain is the "Real" Spock since it had the most continuous existence as the spock. The secondary brain is an entity that's just slightly less spock than the meat-brain. Though the distinction in that case is still functionally pretty meaningless. Barring noticeable copy errors or timing differences, for all purposes (beyond I guess bragging rights about the spockiest spock), the first answer is still the one that really applies.

[Murska]

We can communicate the number √-1 but it is inconceivable in of itself.

Uh, no it's not? It's called 'i' and it is a perfectly simple and conceivable concept that I have quite some familiarity at using. Maybe I can't map a physical object to it, but I can't map a physical object to the concept of the number '1' either, and that's not a problem.


That top layer is needed anyway, as I said to SiuiS; the laws need a reason why they are valid, and once we have that reason, the substance of those laws is subsumed into the eternal law, leaving no need of any material substance outside of the experience of the conscious monads.

Why do laws need a reason why they're valid? They're not some sort of a list of rules that we order atoms to follow, they're a model of what reality is. The speed of light is not some sort of a speed limit imposed upon photons that they must not cross, it's an integral part of a photon's nature.

[SiuiS]

A physical universe which runs according to its principles--where do those principles or laws come from? Why are they valid? There must be a principle or law ensuring they are operating, and one to ensure that one is operating, and so on in infinite regress. The buck must eventually be stopped by the bullet of the eternal. So, given that our apprehension of the physical universe is one of sense-perception (eyes) and enhanced sense perception (computer readouts from mechanical sensors), there is no reason not to "jump to the end" and just assume the eternal universal nature is doing it, without bothering to create that which we do not see.

You realize a law can run itself right? Doesn't need authorization. There is no infinite regress by necessity. Only by desire.



Why do laws need a reason why they're valid? They're not some sort of a list of rules that we order atoms to follow, they're a model of what reality is. The speed of light is not some sort of a speed limit imposed upon photons that they must not cross, it's an integral part of a photon's nature.

Yeah, that.

[Donnadogsoth]

We can communicate the number √-1 but it is inconceivable in of itself.

Uh, no it's not? It's called 'i' and it is a perfectly simple and conceivable concept that I have quite some familiarity at using. Maybe I can't map a physical object to it, but I can't map a physical object to the concept of the number '1' either, and that's not a problem.

Well, if we refer it to the complex domain, it does have a physical meaning, but outside of that, prior to Gauss, we have a concept that may be useful, like a book as a doorstop, but is inconceivable outside of that. Of course 1 maps to a physical object, it's a unit of measurement, as a cube of 1^3.


[quote]That top layer is needed anyway, as I said to SiuiS; the laws need a reason why they are valid, and once we have that reason, the substance of those laws is subsumed into the eternal law, leaving no need of any material substance outside of the experience of the conscious monads.

Why do laws need a reason why they're valid? They're not some sort of a list of rules that we order atoms to follow, they're a model of what reality is. The speed of light is not some sort of a speed limit imposed upon photons that they must not cross, it's an integral part of a photon's nature.

Principle of sufficient reason. Saying “reality [just] is” is just dodging the question of why it is so. Why does the photon have its nature and not another nature? You're scientific aren't you, you believe in reason and questions and answers and truth. Why deny the PSR?

[Donnadogsoth]

You realize a law can run itself right? Doesn't need authorization. There is no infinite regress by necessity. Only by desire.

Such is your assertion, but as I mention above, it violates the principle of sufficient reason. I believe in a universe that has reasons for why it is the way it is and not another way.

[SowZ]

Such is your assertion, but as I mention above, it violates the principle of sufficient reason. I believe in a universe that has reasons for why it is the way it is and not another way.

Your definition of this principle interest me some, although as stated I will not get involved in the identity thing again. So, I ask you to answer your own question. Why?

[Murska]

Well, if we refer it to the complex domain, it does have a physical meaning, but outside of that, prior to Gauss, we have a concept that may be useful, like a book as a doorstop, but is inconceivable outside of that. Of course 1 maps to a physical object, it's a unit of measurement, as a cube of 1^3.

It can't be both conceivable and inconceivable. And no, an unit of measurement is not a physical object, it's a mathematical concept.


Principle of sufficient reason. Saying “reality [just] is” is just dodging the question of why it is so. Why does the photon have its nature and not another nature? You're scientific aren't you, you believe in reason and questions and answers and truth. Why deny the PSR?

Now you're just looking for the Original Cause. That's futile. Sure, you can ask why the universe is as it is, but you can't answer it. You can claim 'universal nature' or 'metamind' or whatever, but I can always throw your 'why' back at you. Introducing an extra factor to the universe we perceive just as another level of 'why' behind it is not sufficient evidence, as then we will have an infinite-leveled universe the complexity of which would be absurd.

[Donnadogsoth]

Such is your assertion, but as I mention above, it violates the principle of sufficient reason. I believe in a universe that has reasons for why it is the way it is and not another way.

Your definition of this principle interest me some, although as stated I will not get involved in the identity thing again. So, I ask you to answer your own question. Why?

Why is the PSR valid? Or why is the universe the way it is and not another way?

[Donnadogsoth]

Well, if we refer it to the complex domain, it does have a physical meaning, but outside of that, prior to Gauss, we have a concept that may be useful, like a book as a doorstop, but is inconceivable outside of that. Of course 1 maps to a physical object, it's a unit of measurement, as a cube of 1^3.

It can't be both conceivable and inconceivable. And no, an unit of measurement is not a physical object, it's a mathematical concept.

The number 1 can be an abstract unit of measurement or it can be applied to a physical object. 1 stick, 1 beetle, 1 interlocutor. But the fact we can put words together--"dead matter," "square circle," "infinity x 1/2" doesn't mean anything non-abstract is being referred to.



Principle of sufficient reason. Saying “reality [just] is” is just dodging the question of why it is so. Why does the photon have its nature and not another nature? You're scientific aren't you, you believe in reason and questions and answers and truth. Why deny the PSR?

Now you're just looking for the Original Cause. That's futile. Sure, you can ask why the universe is as it is, but you can't answer it. You can claim 'universal nature' or 'metamind' or whatever, but I can always throw your 'why' back at you. Introducing an extra factor to the universe we perceive just as another level of 'why' behind it is not sufficient evidence, as then we will have an infinite-leveled universe the complexity of which would be absurd.

The Original Cause is not in doubt. It is an eternal creative substance. Why? Because "nothingness" is a privational concept based on desire for that which one lacks. It is not an ontological category, no one ever encountered pure nothingness. So, something must exist, and since this universe is temporal, and cannot have created itself, we face an eternal creative substance.

I hold to the hypothesis that the universe is the way it is for our benefit, although not our convenience or comfort. Just as Terra's ozone layer and magnetic fields protect us from harmful radiation and particles, I think the rest of the universe is set up like that too, protecting us to a degree, allowing for the evolution of life.

[SowZ]

Why is the PSR valid? Or why is the universe the way it is and not another way?

The latter.

[SiuiS]

Such is your assertion, but as I mention above, it violates the principle of sufficient reason. I believe in a universe that has reasons for why it is the way it is and not another way.

Such is your assertion, but it fails the scientific rigor mentioned above.

There's nothing wrong with 'I like things this way so I will work with the idea they are this way'. That's cool. What's problematic is the assertion that everyone else is wrong despite any evidence they have because you want them to be wrong, that's not cool. And that's the whole discussion in good faith thing.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why is the PSR valid? Or why is the universe the way it is and not another way?

The latter.

As I said to Murska, above, I think the universe is what way it is and not another way, to benefit man.

[Donnadogsoth]

Such is your assertion, but as I mention above, it violates the principle of sufficient reason. I believe in a universe that has reasons for why it is the way it is and not another way.

Such is your assertion, but it fails the scientific rigor mentioned above.

There's nothing wrong with 'I like things this way so I will work with the idea they are this way'. That's cool. What's problematic is the assertion that everyone else is wrong despite any evidence they have because you want them to be wrong, that's not cool. And that's the whole discussion in good faith thing.

Do you accept the PSR? If not, what business do you have invoking "science"?

I have already shown materialist evidence to be irrelevant to the primary datum of experience being experience. There is universal nature and there is us and there is no need to postulate the ontological primacy of mediators.

[golentan]

Do you accept the PSR? If not, what business do you have invoking "science"?

I have already shown materialist evidence to be irrelevant to the primary datum of experience being experience. There is universal nature and there is us and there is no need to postulate the ontological primacy of mediators.

Okay, I told myself I wasn't going to involve myself anymore, but NO YOU HAVEN'T. You have ASSERTED you have. You've not made a single coherent argument that doesn't devolve to "because I believe it so and don't want to accept the alternative interpretations of the world around me."

[Donnadogsoth]

Okay, I told myself I wasn't going to involve myself anymore, but NO YOU HAVEN'T. You have ASSERTED you have. You've not made a single coherent argument that doesn't devolve to "because I believe it so and don't want to accept the alternative interpretations of the world around me."

Your turn to assert.

As I said, materialism is unparsimonious. It also denies the existence of an eternal creative substance, which is necessary to avoid an infinite regress of material causes. It also, if this thread is to be believed, leads to the destruction of individual identity along with justice and probably truth itself. Idealism does threither.

[SowZ]

As I said to Murska, above, I think the universe is what way it is and not another way, to benefit man.

So the universe exists to benefit man. All right. Why?

[Donnadogsoth]

So the universe exists to benefit man. All right. Why?

The universe is constructed, not haphazardly evolved. (This is not a denial of biological evolution.) The constructing agency has the quality of human intellect. V.I. Vernadsky called these the three phase spaces, the abiotic realm, the biotic realm, and the intellective realm. Each succeeds and masters the previous. So, biology masters abiology, producing a blue planet, and the mind masters the biosphere, producing a noösphere. The stronger force is the mastering force. So, we have a universe characterised by mind, which has constructed it according to the demands of the development of creativity, which is the essence of mind.

In short, the eternal creative substance, which is mind, wants to benefit that which is in its image.

And you'll say, "Why?"

Because, as with the discussion about aliens versus humans, their natures are the same and therefore their interests are one.

[SiuiS]

Do you accept the PSR? If not, what business do you have invoking "science"?

I have any business i choose invoking science regardless of my acceptance of a specific philosophical theory. Because the principle of sufficient reason is not a scientific axiom, it is a philosophical postulate. It is not based on understanding but on desire.


I have already shown materialist evidence to be irrelevant.

No, you have said. You have not shown.



As I said, materialism is unparsimonious.

You have failed to provide proof that materialism lack parsimony and you have failed to engage the many people who have tried to give you examples of material parsimony.


It also denies the existence of an eternal creative substance

Does it? Is that a bad thing? Why?


which is necessary to avoid an infinite regress of material causes.

Is it necessary? Does This infinite regress need to be avoided? Why?

You literally just said "I don't like a universe without supernatural causes, so any material-based idea is flawed because it fails to cater to what I like". Which is fine, but it's not science, and it's also utterly risible philosophy, lacking in good faith or clear transmission and genesis.


It also, if this thread is to be believed, leads to the destruction of individual identity along with justice and probably truth itself. Idealism does threither.

Murska has disproven this assertion. The fault lies not with materialism but with your understanding of identity.


***


The principle of sufficient reason Is not a new or revolutionary principle. It's tautological. It is called "causation" and Nothing about it existing argues against any of the things you seem to believe it argues against. Adding in a metamind does not stop infinite regression at all; where did that mind come from? Where did that originator come from? Where did that originator come from? You've just deferred it from a physical universe to a spiritual one.

So now the universe is the same as it was under the physical model, with absolutely no change to its functions, except it is now ineffable, inexplicable and unknowable.

[Murska]

Where did the eternal creative substance come from originally? Before you answer 'it always was, because it is eternal', keep in mind that I used that exact same argument to assert that the laws of physics, being eternal and timeless in nature, always were. Your reply was that something being eternal is unprincipled and doesn't warrant a proper rebuttal or reply.

[Donnadogsoth]

Where did the eternal creative substance come from originally? Before you answer 'it always was, because it is eternal', keep in mind that I used that exact same argument to assert that the laws of physics, being eternal and timeless in nature, always were. Your reply was that something being eternal is unprincipled and doesn't warrant a proper rebuttal or reply.

You haven't explained what enforces the laws of physics. A higher law? And what enforces that?

Talking about "laws of physics" as if they're substantial is like saying if I pen "1 oz. gold" into my bank account, there will suddenly be 1 ounce of gold in the vault. "Laws of physics" aren't a substance, they're an idea. Who's having these ideas?

There must be something eternal, because nothing is a privational concept. That this something is not anything temporal, is obvious by definition. It is not "laws of physics" for the reasons I have given. Something must be eternal, and it ain't the temporal.

[golentan]

Why? You use the word "Must" so often, but why must it?

The laws of physics aren't enforced by anything save the nature of the universe. They don't need your or anyone else's permission or requirements, they just are. Understanding "how" is an interesting question, the question of "Why" has as yet proved elusive, and may well be "Why not?"

[GloatingSwine]

A "law" in physics is a mathematical expression of the relationship between two or more physical properties. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing enforces them because they are descriptive not prescriptive.

[SiuiS]

It is not "laws of physics" for the reasons I have given.

What reasons have you given?

[Donnadogsoth]

Do you accept the PSR? If not, what business do you have invoking "science"?

I have any business i choose invoking science regardless of my acceptance of a specific philosophical theory. Because the principle of sufficient reason is not a scientific axiom, it is a philosophical postulate. It is not based on understanding but on desire.

Well, I desire only to talk with people who believe in the essence of science, which is that the world is rational. Accept the PSR and I will answer the rest of your post.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why? You use the word "Must" so often, but why must it?

The laws of physics aren't enforced by anything save the nature of the universe. They don't need your or anyone else's permission or requirements, they just are. Understanding "how" is an interesting question, the question of "Why" has as yet proved elusive, and may well be "Why not?"

Boldfaced text unacceptable to the PSR.

[Donnadogsoth]

A "law" in physics is a mathematical expression of the relationship between two or more physical properties. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing enforces them because they are descriptive not prescriptive.

What enforces the relationship? "Just is" materialism?

[SiuiS]

Well, I desire only to talk with people who believe in the essence of science, which is that the world is rational. Accept the PSR and I will answer the rest of your post.

Acceptance of PSR is not a belief in rationality. PSR does not lead to what you insist it does.

If you can only convince people who already believe you, you don't have a good position to argue from. Telling me it's obvious if I just believe is insulting, as are the other insinuations you've made so far. I guess since you won't talk to me and I won't agree with you blindly, we're done? It's a pity, since the idea makes some sense and all I needed was a bit of proof.

[GloatingSwine]

What enforces the relationship? "Just is" materialism?

Mu.

The question is wrong.

[Donnadogsoth]

Acceptance of PSR is not a belief in rationality. PSR does not lead to what you insist it does.

If you can only convince people who already believe you, you don't have a good position to argue from. Telling me it's obvious if I just believe is insulting, as are the other insinuations you've made so far. I guess since you won't talk to me and I won't agree with you blindly, we're done? It's a pity, since the idea makes some sense and all I needed was a bit of proof.

Accepting that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason is not a belief in rationality?

[golentan]

Accepting that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason is not a belief in rationality?

Predefining the reason certainly isn't.

[SiuiS]

Accepting that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason is not a belief in rationality?

Not when you say "reason" but mean "motive". That is the opposite of rationality. That is dogma.

[golentan]

Not when you say "reason" but mean "motive". That is the opposite of rationality. That is dogma.

Motive can be as good a reason as any, to be clear. But presupposing motive as cause... that's a no-no.

Sometimes the reason in any given experiment boils down to "too many factors to speculate adequately." Which is functionally equivalent to "hell if I know." You can't predict the outcome of a die roll save that it will come up something on the dice, you can't predict a coin flip, you can't predict which base pairs will get damaged in transcription of DNA if you bombard it with radiation. You can't ascribe motive to an avalanche unless it was deliberately set off, even if you know the physical reason the cascade was triggered.

How's Hanlon's Razor go? Never attribute to malice anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity? The universe is a pretty stupid place in my experience (at a minimum doubly so if it's supposed to benefit humanity), I'd rather not think that often hostile indifference is actively malicious unless I get direct evidence... Now, if you have evidence that large numbers of my historical family died because the universe wanted them to because reasons, I'll listen. And probably start working on a revenge plan against the cosmos as a whole. Row Row Fight da Powah. But over and over, Donna, you've repeated what boils down to assuming the conclusion because the alternative is repugnant to you. Tautology. Shutting down argument, being a premature nihilator*, asking to only debate if people accept your conclusions a priori... And that's fine, I guess, if that worldview works for you. But it's not scientific, and it's a terrible way to advocate your position...

http://smbc-comics.com/comics/20100923.gif

[Donnadogsoth]

Accepting that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason is not a belief in rationality?

Not when you say "reason" but mean "motive". That is the opposite of rationality. That is dogma.

You're implying that the universal eternal substance's reasons are not real reasons? Or are you saying that the necessity for said substance to exist is irrational? What are real reasons to you?

[Donnadogsoth]

Motive can be as good a reason as any, to be clear. But presupposing motive as cause... that's a no-no.

Sometimes the reason in any given experiment boils down to "too many factors to speculate adequately." Which is functionally equivalent to "hell if I know." You can't predict the outcome of a die roll save that it will come up something on the dice, you can't predict a coin flip, you can't predict which base pairs will get damaged in transcription of DNA if you bombard it with radiation. You can't ascribe motive to an avalanche unless it was deliberately set off, even if you know the physical reason the cascade was triggered.

How's Hanlon's Razor go? Never attribute to malice anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity? The universe is a pretty stupid place in my experience (at a minimum doubly so if it's supposed to benefit humanity), I'd rather not think that often hostile indifference is actively malicious unless I get direct evidence... Now, if you have evidence that large numbers of my historical family died because the universe wanted them to because reasons, I'll listen. And probably start working on a revenge plan against the cosmos as a whole. Row Row Fight da Powah. But over and over, Donna, you've repeated what boils down to assuming the conclusion because the alternative is repugnant to you. Tautology. Shutting down argument, being a premature nihilator*, asking to only debate if people accept your conclusions a priori... And that's fine, I guess, if that worldview works for you. But it's not scientific, and it's a terrible way to advocate your position...

Do you believe in the PSR? If you don't believe in it, why are you talking? For no reason? Why are we talking? There is something in philosophy known as a “self-detonating statement”. “Science!--unless I prefer unreason instead because reasons,” is one.

[Murska]

Accepting that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason is not a belief in rationality?

Not really. It is rational to assume that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason if it works to maximize your utility function.

However, the only evidence we have for that assertion being true is that we have not yet found a single thing that has been proven to have happened for no reason. It's pretty strong evidence, but not perfect, and the evidence value gets lower if we are talking about more fundamental things such as the rules of physics (which include causality) as we have never proven any of them to have happened because of any reason either. Except for ones that have been proven to have happened because of other, more fundamental rules of physics, which obviously makes the former ones not actually be rules of physics after all by definition.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not really. It is rational to assume that everything happens for a reason and not for no reason if it works to maximize your utility function.

However, the only evidence we have for that assertion being true is that we have not yet found a single thing that has been proven to have happened for no reason. It's pretty strong evidence, but not perfect, and the evidence value gets lower if we are talking about more fundamental things such as the rules of physics (which include causality) as we have never proven any of them to have happened because of any reason either. Except for ones that have been proven to have happened because of other, more fundamental rules of physics, which obviously makes the former ones not actually be rules of physics after all by definition.

If there could be any part of the world, which happened for no reason, then that part, by virtue of being in the world and thus in relationship to everything else in the world, would extend its irrationality to everything else in the world. The price of denying the PSR is therefore absolute chaos. There is no middle ground: If we are to use reason, if we are to think at all rationally, we must accept that the PSR is valid. If we deny the PSR we deny reason itself.

Denying the PSR is akin to denying the doubling of the square, “because our senses and mind might be deceiving us.” Yes, we can deny our minds and our senses, but in the same way a defeated child can upset the chequerboard. Only principled people can play the game.

[SiuiS]

Donna, I do not need to answer your questions. You are not defending an established position. You are failing to establish a theory as credible.

Continuing to attempt to discredit me rather than answer my very simple questions will not establish your theory as a legitimate or credible position. It will simply demonstrate that your position is, by extrapolating sufficient reason, untenable and you know it.

[Murska]

If there could be any part of the world, which happened for no reason, then that part, by virtue of being in the world and thus in relationship to everything else in the world, would extend its irrationality to everything else in the world. The price of denying the PSR is therefore absolute chaos. There is no middle ground: If we are to use reason, if we are to think at all rationally, we must accept that the PSR is valid. If we deny the PSR we deny reason itself.

The problem is that you are using PSR to contend that there must exist a cause for reality, and then stopping there, without explaining why that something doesn't have a cause. While we're contending that it's simpler to assume reality itself doesn't have a cause, just everything in it does, because it does not posit anything extra.

[Donnadogsoth]

The problem is that you are using PSR to contend that there must exist a cause for reality, and then stopping there, without explaining why that something doesn't have a cause. While we're contending that it's simpler to assume reality itself doesn't have a cause, just everything in it does, because it does not posit anything extra.

The cause of the eternal substance is necessity. It is only a flaw in our conceptions that lead us to ask whether there could be "nothing" in lieu of the eternal substance.

Of course, you will seize on this and say, "Ah, but why couldn't the temporal universe exist necessarily?" To which I say, it is not eternal, its temporal nature precludes it from serving as the eternal substance.

"Simpler" doesn't enter into it when we're talking the PSR, we will sacrifice the former to the latter if need be. The cause of the eternal substance is necessity.

"What caused necessity?" is a misunderstanding of the word. Necessity is not a substance but the ontic equivalent of an awareness of inconceivability.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're implying that the universal eternal substance's reasons are not real reasons? Or are you saying that the necessity for said substance to exist is irrational? What are real reasons to you?

Donna, I do not need to answer your questions. You are not defending an established position. You are failing to establish a theory as credible.

Continuing to attempt to discredit me rather than answer my very simple questions will not establish your theory as a legitimate or credible position. It will simply demonstrate that your position is, by extrapolating sufficient reason, untenable and you know it.

As I said to Murska, who joins you in defending irrationalism,


If there could be any part of the world, which happened for no reason, then that part, by virtue of being in the world and thus in relationship to everything else in the world, would extend its irrationality to everything else in the world. The price of denying the PSR is therefore absolute chaos. There is no middle ground: If we are to use reason, if we are to think at all rationally, we must accept that the PSR is valid. If we deny the PSR we deny reason itself.

Denying the PSR is akin to denying the doubling of the square, “because our senses and mind might be deceiving us.” Yes, we can deny our minds and our senses, but in the same way a defeated child can upset the chequerboard. Only principled people can play the game.

[SiuiS]

If there could be any part of the world, which happened for no reason, then that part, by virtue of being in the world and thus in relationship to everything else in the world, would extend its irrationality to everything else in the world.

Sophistry with neither proof nor relevance.


The price of denying the PSR is therefore absolute chaos.

Obfuscation. PSR is only "effects have causes". You insist PSR means "effects have only this one cause, and no other possible. or probable cause", which is fallacious and misleading.

No one is denying PSR. They are denying the legitimacy of your specific use of PSR. Your use does not follow PSR; there is not sufficient reason to believe that the universe is the way you say it is. You have refused to provide sufficient reason for your way to be above other ways.


As I said to Murska, who joins you in defending irrationalism,

Continuing to attempt to discredit me rather than answer my very simple questions will not establish your theory as a legitimate or credible position. It will simply demonstrate that your position is, by extrapolating sufficient reason, untenable and you know it.

[Murska]

The cause of the eternal substance is necessity. It is only a flaw in our conceptions that lead us to ask whether there could be "nothing" in lieu of the eternal substance.

Of course, you will seize on this and say, "Ah, but why couldn't the temporal universe exist necessarily?" To which I say, it is not eternal, its temporal nature precludes it from serving as the eternal substance.

"Simpler" doesn't enter into it when we're talking the PSR, we will sacrifice the former to the latter if need be. The cause of the eternal substance is necessity.

"What caused necessity?" is a misunderstanding of the word. Necessity is not a substance but the ontic equivalent of an awareness of inconceivability.

In lieu of the eternal substance we could have the nonexistance of an eternal substance. If you claim this to be impossible because 'nothingness' can't exist, then I might as well say that pink unicorns have to exist because nothingness can't. Even if we were to agree that something has to exist because nothing can't, which is by itself not something we agree on thus far, that doesn't get us any closer to knowing what the 'something' might be.

Why do you claim the universe is temporal and not eternal? There's a varying level of confidence in various timely and timeless theories, but it's by no means clear either way. I still don't follow the logic by which something eternal has to exist, anyway, let alone why such a thing would have to function precisely as you imagine, or have anything whatsoever to do with your mind. Why could there not be a lack of anything? Aside from the anthropic principle, of course.

In the case of comparing two otherwise equally plausible hypotheses, the simpler one wins by default. Thus our current theories on physics are superior to the same theories with the added assumption that there exists an invisible, intangible duck floating around somewhere in deep space, despite the fact that our available evidence fits both theories equally well.

If necessity is not a substance and thus does not need a cause, then causality is also not a substance and doesn't need a cause.

[SiuiS]

Time is also not a thing but a human perspective on entropy. It doesn't have a beginning because it doesn't exist. Only if time is some sort of force and not an emergent property of human thought, does the idea of an infinitely lasting universe not work.

But, hell. At this point, I know exactly what Donna is trying to say and I'm beginning to argue communication methods. Means that there isn't anywhere for this to go. I keep coming back because I keep seeing instances where we should be able to see eye to eye and discuss in faith, and I keep missing the mark. I have no reason to believe either my charisma in dogsoth's eyes or my verbal clarity will improve from here on. So I'm going to turn this around.

I clear language, Donnadogsoth, what is the problem with my argument as you see it? And it's not my defense of irrationality or materialism, because I'm not defending either of those things, nor do I subscribe to them.

[Donnadogsoth]

In lieu of the eternal substance we could have the nonexistance of an eternal substance. If you claim this to be impossible because 'nothingness' can't exist, then I might as well say that pink unicorns have to exist because nothingness can't. Even if we were to agree that something has to exist because nothing can't, which is by itself not something we agree on thus far, that doesn't get us any closer to knowing what the 'something' might be.

Why do you claim the universe is temporal and not eternal? There's a varying level of confidence in various timely and timeless theories, but it's by no means clear either way. I still don't follow the logic by which something eternal has to exist, anyway, let alone why such a thing would have to function precisely as you imagine, or have anything whatsoever to do with your mind. Why could there not be a lack of anything? Aside from the anthropic principle, of course.

In the case of comparing two otherwise equally plausible hypotheses, the simpler one wins by default. Thus our current theories on physics are superior to the same theories with the added assumption that there exists an invisible, intangible duck floating around somewhere in deep space, despite the fact that our available evidence fits both theories equally well.

If necessity is not a substance and thus does not need a cause, then causality is also not a substance and doesn't need a cause.

Ah, you got me there! If causality is a necessary reflection of necessary Being, then we don't need to worry about why there is causality, we need only worry about there being (a) Being.

I claim “nothingness” is always a privation of something, that the concept could enter our minds in no other way and therefore Something must be initial. Pink unicorns are not necessary, we can conceive of their lack of necessity, instead replaced by something else (for there is always something else), but the eternal substance can have no substitute. Strictly speaking the absolute nonexistence of the eternal substance is inconceivable; there is always a substance to our thought, even if we may imagine configuration A with a black nullacorn and configuration B with a pink unicorn. There is no escaping substance.

With your thrust at temporality I must concede, in the highest sense, we live in the simultaneity of eternity, where man's actions affect all mankind past, present, and future, and in that sense yes, we are eternal, whereas clock-time is a lower consideration. As Nicolaus of Cusa put it, there is temporality (the objects in the material universe), there is the persistent (the material universe), and there is the eternal (the eternal substance). We live “materially” in temporality, generated by the creative persistent, and ultimately ordered and generated by the eternal. Note that in this sense man is an eternal creator. My response to you is therefore, that the eternal substance is doing the ordering or organising the nature of the temporal, and that man participates this in this ordering through the action of his mind.

Your objection will be, "Why can't the persistent, creative universe suffice? Why an eternal?" Because the creativity of the persistent is partway from the temporal to the eternal, but is not eternal in of itself. We know this because the universe is defined by change. It is in flux, creative flux but flux. The changing thing itself, although persistently so, is not the unchanging eternal. Mankind's highest nature is of the eternal, and must have something that is is patterning itself after.

From this you might gather that the nature of the eternal substance, and of mankind, or of the group of particular human minds, rather, are one, and in the sense of close cooperation, of common interest, they are. Without the eternal substance, there would be no universal interest to align ourselves with, and mankind would be diminished, to the point of being “thrown” into what amounts to a Cthulhoid universe of inexplicable order crumbling into a hopeless chaos.

[Donnadogsoth]

If there could be any part of the world, which happened for no reason, then that part, by virtue of being in the world and thus in relationship to everything else in the world, would extend its irrationality to everything else in the world.

Sophistry with neither proof nor relevance.
Absolute relevance to the truth of the PSR. Chaos, which fashionable intellectuals these days choose to pretend a belief in, would be a metaphysical contagion.



The price of denying the PSR is therefore absolute chaos.

Obfuscation. PSR is only "effects have causes". You insist PSR means "effects have only this one cause, and no other possible. or probable cause", which is fallacious and misleading.

No one is denying PSR. They are denying the legitimacy of your specific use of PSR. Your use does not follow PSR; there is not sufficient reason to believe that the universe is the way you say it is. You have refused to provide sufficient reason for your way to be above other ways.
You do not deny the PSR? Wonderful! Yet you deny that there must be an eternal cause for the temporal?


As I said to Murska, who joins you in defending irrationalism,

Continuing to attempt to discredit me rather than answer my very simple questions will not establish your theory as a legitimate or credible position. It will simply demonstrate that your position is, by extrapolating sufficient reason, untenable and you know it.

If you are defending chaos and denying the PSR, you are discrediting yourself. But as you claim you agree with the PSR, which you could have advanced a little while ago when I brought it up, that is a great advance, a blow for Truth.


Time is also not a thing but a human perspective on entropy. It doesn't have a beginning because it doesn't exist. Only if time is some sort of force and not an emergent property of human thought, does the idea of an infinitely lasting universe not work.

But, hell. At this point, I know exactly what Donna is trying to say and I'm beginning to argue communication methods. Means that there isn't anywhere for this to go. I keep coming back because I keep seeing instances where we should be able to see eye to eye and discuss in faith, and I keep missing the mark. I have no reason to believe either my charisma in dogsoth's eyes or my verbal clarity will improve from here on. So I'm going to turn this around.

I clear language, Donnadogsoth, what is the problem with my argument as you see it? And it's not my defense of irrationality or materialism, because I'm not defending either of those things, nor do I subscribe to them.

If you're not a materialist are you an idealist? What are you?

If you accept the PSR, then the question becomes do you accept there must be an eternal substance, whether because clock-time must originate, or else, as you submit, must not exist except as a perspective. In that case, we have the effects, such as they are, tracing themselves back to a cause, which is eternal (no clock time), necessary (PSR), substantial (because nothing comes from nothing), and universal. And that is what I am proposing, and which you apparently disagree, and I don't understand why. Perhaps your argument has become lost in the shuffle, perhaps I would like you to restate it here as I have not found a single “argument” from you, just disagreements and accusations of bad faith and sophistry. Am I mistaken in thinking you disagree? Because your argument as I see it is “No, I don't agree with that, your arguments are sophistry, la.” I mean, that's the distinct impression I get when you accuse as irrelevant my assertion of the chaos principle in response to perceived attacks on the PSR.

* Though a powerful, dare I say substantial, perspective and, though, as I'm sure you realise, the same must go for space (human perspective on relations), matter (human perspective on desire), and energy (human perspective on work).

[Murska]

Your argument that something must exist is debatable but I'll go along with it. However, why does that something have to be eternal? Even if we accept that something has to 'always' exist, which seems to me to be timeful instead of timeless thinking, that something doesn't need to be eternal if something else exists instead at the 'time' where the first thing does not exist.

Claiming that the something that exists has to be related to human minds, on the other hand, has me thoroughly unconvinced. I just don't understand the logic chain you're going through there. As far as I can tell, the existance might as well be material reality, as we perceive it to be. Reality is not temporary, according to your own argument, and as far as we perceive material universe is constantly changing, 'in flux', but it is 'inconceivable' for it to not exist. That is, you claim that there must be something that exists, which is fine, but you also claim that it must be unchanging, which seems unfounded to me.

[SiuiS]

If you're not a materialist are you an idealist? What are you?


What I am is not relevant to your argument, or mine.

At this point I'm just going to get angry that, for something you seem to believe so strongly in, you're actively antagonizing anyone who wants to talk about it with you.

You're going to continue trying to "win" and defend your stance to "prove" its legitimacy. I would continue to try and get you to see the error of your methods. We aren't even having the same conversation anymore. At this point I'm just twisting myself up over your deceptiveness, not a good condition for either of us. C'est la vie.


Thanks for the counterpoints, Murska!

[Donnadogsoth]

Your argument that something must exist is debatable but I'll go along with it. However, why does that something have to be eternal? Even if we accept that something has to 'always' exist, which seems to me to be timeful instead of timeless thinking, that something doesn't need to be eternal if something else exists instead at the 'time' where the first thing does not exist.

Claiming that the something that exists has to be related to human minds, on the other hand, has me thoroughly unconvinced. I just don't understand the logic chain you're going through there. As far as I can tell, the existance might as well be material reality, as we perceive it to be. Reality is not temporary, according to your own argument, and as far as we perceive material universe is constantly changing, 'in flux', but it is 'inconceivable' for it to not exist. That is, you claim that there must be something that exists, which is fine, but you also claim that it must be unchanging, which seems unfounded to me.

I appreciate your patience; let me try to explain my position better and then more directly answer your question.

Let's consider what “eternal” means in relation to mankind. If we have a human contribution—uniquely human, unlike any beast—it will be in the form of contributing to the general welfare of human society past, present, and future. That is, a wilful contribution as to the generation, preservation, or creative enhancement of human life. Such a contribution will fulfil the aspirations of the past, help the present, and lay the groundwork for the future, and will be eternal in that sense, in that it is unchanging in its necessity as part of the foundations for the successful survival of the species.

Now, consider that as how humanity participates in unchanging eternity. Now, turn your attention to the idea of the potent action of cognition transforming the biosphere, and increasingly further sections of physical space time such as Solar space, forming what V.I. Vernasky coined as “the noösphere”. This represents the sum of human power over the universe. Now, as it happens, it is localised, but the principle of cognition, of creativity, which humans employ to attain such power, is not localised, it is a universal principle, like Kepler's universal gravitation, Fermat's least-time theory of light, and so on.

Consider then the nature of universal principles. We face a material world, which is the shadow-play of the invisible, nonsensory universal physical principles, as Kepler showed the principle of gravitation to be. More specifically, these principles are essentially shards of Truth. Now, what I mean is, what Nicolaus of Cusa described as Truth versus man's apprehension, in the diagram of a circle representing Truth or absolute knowledge, and mankind's understanding as a polygon inscribed in the circle. As human knowledge increases, the sides of the polygon also increase, making the polygon more and more resemble the circle, even if it can never be perfectly reached, because a polygon, no matter how many sides, always has angles whereas a circle does not.

This is the relation of human participation in eternity, with eternity itself, with the latter being the “domain” of creativity as such. That is, the quality of the universe that accords with the creativity of the mind of man. In that sense, these unchanging principles, are shards or extensions of a single coherent and unchanging Truth, responsible for the organisation of the material universe which we perceive.

So, to your question: “why does that something have to be eternal?”--because of the nature of mankind's relationship to the universe. “Timeful” implies clock-time, not the simultaneity of eternity which is the domain of action of creative human beings. That is, this creativity we have, to discover ideas that transform practice and aid our survival, which is not just apes bumping up against Nature, reflects a one-to-one equivalence between the laws of the universe and the laws of the mind. We are made in the image of the Creativity, and our making is in the domain of the eternal, therefore It is eternal.

“That is, you claim that there must be something that exists, which is fine, but you also claim that it must be unchanging, which seems unfounded to me.” Yes, in this sense the principles do not change, the shadow-play in the mind changes. And it is the great task of man to rise above the temporal to the unchanging.

[Donnadogsoth]

What I am is not relevant to your argument, or mine.

At this point I'm just going to get angry that, for something you seem to believe so strongly in, you're actively antagonizing anyone who wants to talk about it with you.

You're going to continue trying to "win" and defend your stance to "prove" its legitimacy. I would continue to try and get you to see the error of your methods. We aren't even having the same conversation anymore. At this point I'm just twisting myself up over your deceptiveness, not a good condition for either of us. C'est la vie.


Thanks for the counterpoints, Murska!

Yes more insults. Well, I take them with good humour.

Please see my latest reply to Murska, above for a different perspective on the same truth.

[Murska]

Let's consider what “eternal” means in relation to mankind. If we have a human contribution—uniquely human, unlike any beast—it will be in the form of contributing to the general welfare of human society past, present, and future. That is, a wilful contribution as to the generation, preservation, or creative enhancement of human life. Such a contribution will fulfil the aspirations of the past, help the present, and lay the groundwork for the future, and will be eternal in that sense, in that it is unchanging in its necessity as part of the foundations for the successful survival of the species.

Sort of eternal, I suppose, but only in the sense that it has happened. One could say that about any event, human or not. It's perfectly possible to have a human contribute to general welfare in some way such as discovering a new technique, and then have that knowledge disappear from the sum total of human knowledge later for whatever reason.


Now, consider that as how humanity participates in unchanging eternity. Now, turn your attention to the idea of the potent action of cognition transforming the biosphere, and increasingly further sections of physical space time such as Solar space, forming what V.I. Vernasky coined as “the noösphere”. This represents the sum of human power over the universe. Now, as it happens, it is localised, but the principle of cognition, of creativity, which humans employ to attain such power, is not localised, it is a universal principle, like Kepler's universal gravitation, Fermat's least-time theory of light, and so on.

Sure. Though human cognition is an emergent property of more fundamental universal principles.


Consider then the nature of universal principles. We face a material world, which is the shadow-play of the invisible, nonsensory universal physical principles, as Kepler showed the principle of gravitation to be. More specifically, these principles are essentially shards of Truth. Now, what I mean is, what Nicolaus of Cusa described as Truth versus man's apprehension, in the diagram of a circle representing Truth or absolute knowledge, and mankind's understanding as a polygon inscribed in the circle. As human knowledge increases, the sides of the polygon also increase, making the polygon more and more resemble the circle, even if it can never be perfectly reached, because a polygon, no matter how many sides, always has angles whereas a circle does not.

This is the relation of human participation in eternity, with eternity itself, with the latter being the “domain” of creativity as such. That is, the quality of the universe that accords with the creativity of the mind of man. In that sense, these unchanging principles, are shards or extensions of a single coherent and unchanging Truth, responsible for the organisation of the material universe which we perceive.

So... basically humanity can't reach the truth, which we agree upon, and reality itself is beyond our perceptions yet still exists and follows universal principles? Sounds exactly like what I believe.


So, to your question: “why does that something have to be eternal?”--because of the nature of mankind's relationship to the universe. “Timeful” implies clock-time, not the simultaneity of eternity which is the domain of action of creative human beings. That is, this creativity we have, to discover ideas that transform practice and aid our survival, which is not just apes bumping up against Nature, reflects a one-to-one equivalence between the laws of the universe and the laws of the mind. We are made in the image of the Creativity, and our making is in the domain of the eternal, therefore It is eternal.

“That is, you claim that there must be something that exists, which is fine, but you also claim that it must be unchanging, which seems unfounded to me.” Yes, in this sense the principles do not change, the shadow-play in the mind changes. And it is the great task of man to rise above the temporal to the unchanging.

I don't think it's been rigorously proven here that universal principles can't be mutable or changing. Their 'cause' is a mystery to us, and so we cannot say whether there are meta-principles affecting them, or even true randomness. But that doesn't matter, really.

More importantly, humanity, having evolved through natural selection, is not in any way fundamentally separate from any other animal. What we have is superior intelligence, just as a cheetah has superior speed. Our actions in discovering how the universal principles governing our reality work are not eternal, nor is the sum total of human knowledge - due to culture and ever more sophisticated information storage methods, we rarely lose what we have gained, but it does happen, and anything we know can in principle be fully lost. Creativity is not an attribute we have sole domain over, though we are its most formidable wielders on Earth, nor is it any more fundamental than any other attribute of a brain.

The laws of nature are equivalent to the laws of the mind, as a matter of course - the mind is a creation of the brain, which is part of nature and exists only within the laws of nature. There can not be separate laws governing the two.

[Donnadogsoth]

Sort of eternal, I suppose, but only in the sense that it has happened. One could say that about any event, human or not. It's perfectly possible to have a human contribute to general welfare in some way such as discovering a new technique, and then have that knowledge disappear from the sum total of human knowledge later for whatever reason.



Sure. Though human cognition is an emergent property of more fundamental universal principles.



So... basically humanity can't reach the truth, which we agree upon, and reality itself is beyond our perceptions yet still exists and follows universal principles? Sounds exactly like what I believe.



I don't think it's been rigorously proven here that universal principles can't be mutable or changing. Their 'cause' is a mystery to us, and so we cannot say whether there are meta-principles affecting them, or even true randomness. But that doesn't matter, really.

More importantly, humanity, having evolved through natural selection, is not in any way fundamentally separate from any other animal. What we have is superior intelligence, just as a cheetah has superior speed. Our actions in discovering how the universal principles governing our reality work are not eternal, nor is the sum total of human knowledge - due to culture and ever more sophisticated information storage methods, we rarely lose what we have gained, but it does happen, and anything we know can in principle be fully lost. Creativity is not an attribute we have sole domain over, though we are its most formidable wielders on Earth, nor is it any more fundamental than any other attribute of a brain.

The laws of nature are equivalent to the laws of the mind, as a matter of course - the mind is a creation of the brain, which is part of nature and exists only within the laws of nature. There can not be separate laws governing the two.

The difference between human and beast is that human minds are characterised by a principle of creativity that beasts lack. You can call that just another outcome of evolution if you wish, but that outcome is special because it is of kindred nature with the creativity of evolution itself. It's what lets us wilfully alter the carrying capacity of the planet, by discovering, transmitting, and applying ideas or principles. Nothing else does this, to our knowledge, and if anything did, we would be obliged to accept it as one of us.

That's the basis for human specialness, that we are akin to the force of evolution. It's in that sense that the laws of our mind and of nature are one. In beasts' minds, their minds are not cooperating with nature, they merely are nature.

Yes, we derive from a more fundamental principle, a creative principle underlying everything, and that, as I said above, we are essentially in the image of, by virtue of our being a force of nature.

I think we agree on, “So... basically humanity can't reach the truth, which we agree upon, and reality itself is beyond our perceptions yet still exists and follows universal principles? Sounds exactly like what I believe” We can, however, become increasingly less untruthful, hence scientific and cultural progress.

When you say, “I don't think it's been rigorously proven here that universal principles can't be mutable or changing. Their 'cause' is a mystery to us, and so we cannot say whether there are meta-principles affecting them, or even true randomness. But that doesn't matter, really.” I want to submit a principle to you, of doubling the square, where as long as we have geometry, the principle of the doubling of the square is not going to change—its application may change, in culture, pedagogy, etc., but its quality as a principle does not change. So that's what I mean by principles. And the creativity behind everything would be the master principle. And at this level there is no change, or rather unending creativity, and to the degree we are there, we do not change, or are unendingly creative, even if material universal happenstance temporarily obscures that contribution.

What we can do as humans, is introduce new principles into the material universe which have never been seen before to our knowledge, changing how the material universe works. This is akin to how we create new elements in the laboratory, or other new substances that are not found in the known natural world. We can green the desert, eg..

[Murska]

The difference between human and beast is that human minds are characterised by a principle of creativity that beasts lack. You can call that just another outcome of evolution if you wish, but that outcome is special because it is of kindred nature with the creativity of evolution itself. It's what lets us wilfully alter the carrying capacity of the planet, by discovering, transmitting, and applying ideas or principles. Nothing else does this, to our knowledge, and if anything did, we would be obliged to accept it as one of us.

That's the basis for human specialness, that we are akin to the force of evolution. It's in that sense that the laws of our mind and of nature are one. In beasts' minds, their minds are not cooperating with nature, they merely are nature.

But our difference from, say, apes is not a matter of quality, it's a matter of quantity. Other animals can learn, can create truths, have culture and pass along knowledge to their offspring. All humanity does is more of the same, and what pushes us to such great feats is accumulating knowledge through, for example, writing.


I think we agree on, “So... basically humanity can't reach the truth, which we agree upon, and reality itself is beyond our perceptions yet still exists and follows universal principles? Sounds exactly like what I believe” We can, however, become increasingly less untruthful, hence scientific and cultural progress.

Or we could become increasingly more untruthful, in different circumstances.


I want to submit a principle to you, of doubling the square, where as long as we have geometry, the principle of the doubling of the square is not going to change—its application may change, in culture, pedagogy, etc., but its quality as a principle does not change. So that's what I mean by principles.

As I said, we don't have any proof that the principle of doubling the square might not change at some point, because we don't know where it comes from, and what makes it work. But, as mentioned in my previous post, this is unimportant as we have no reason to believe it would change.


And the creativity behind everything would be the master principle. And at this level there is no change, or rather unending creativity, and to the degree we are there, we do not change, or are unendingly creative, even if material universal happenstance temporarily obscures that contribution.

What? I don't understand.


What we can do as humans, is introduce new principles into the material universe which have never been seen before to our knowledge, changing how the material universe works. This is akin to how we create new elements in the laboratory, or other new substances that are not found in the known natural world. We can green the desert, eg..

Not really. We can introduce new things to the material universe, such as cars and skyscrapers. But we can't change how the material universe works. It works in the way it always has worked to our knowledge, we've never observed anything that would contradict any of the laws we currently hold to be the most approximately truthful representation of reality.

[Donnadogsoth]

The difference between human and beast is that human minds are characterised by a principle of creativity that beasts lack. You can call that just another outcome of evolution if you wish, but that outcome is special because it is of kindred nature with the creativity of evolution itself. It's what lets us wilfully alter the carrying capacity of the planet, by discovering, transmitting, and applying ideas or principles. Nothing else does this, to our knowledge, and if anything did, we would be obliged to accept it as one of us.

That's the basis for human specialness, that we are akin to the force of evolution. It's in that sense that the laws of our mind and of nature are one. In beasts' minds, their minds are not cooperating with nature, they merely are nature.

But our difference from, say, apes is not a matter of quality, it's a matter of quantity. Other animals can learn, can create truths, have culture and pass along knowledge to their offspring. All humanity does is more of the same, and what pushes us to such great feats is accumulating knowledge through, for example, writing.

I'm boggled that you don't see human wilful increase in potential relative population density as a difference in kind or quality. What would count as a difference in quality, in your eyes?


As I said, we don't have any proof that the principle of doubling the square might not change at some point, because we don't know where it comes from, and what makes it work. But, as mentioned in my previous post, this is unimportant as we have no reason to believe it would change.

What proof would you accept that principles don't change? Could logic itself change, in your view?



And the creativity behind everything would be the master principle. And at this level there is no change, or rather unending creativity, and to the degree we are there, we do not change, or are unendingly creative, even if material universal happenstance temporarily obscures that contribution.

What? I don't understand.

I mean the universe can't die, and to the degree we act as it acts—creatively—then, in a sense, we will not die either, either as a species or as individuals.



What we can do as humans, is introduce new principles into the material universe which have never been seen before to our knowledge, changing how the material universe works. This is akin to how we create new elements in the laboratory, or other new substances that are not found in the known natural world. We can green the desert, eg..

Not really. We can introduce new things to the material universe, such as cars and skyscrapers. But we can't change how the material universe works. It works in the way it always has worked to our knowledge, we've never observed anything that would contradict any of the laws we currently hold to be the most approximately truthful representation of reality.

I am saying the principled universe, the one we don't see but which comprises the body of discoverable principles, we do not change, but the material or sensory universe, the one we do see, is what we can alter in creative ways. In that sense cars and skyscrapers are functions of principles that hitherto have not been expressed. They change not the underlying principles or physical laws, but the way the visible universe operates visibly. That is what I mean.

[Murska]

I'm boggled that you don't see human wilful increase in potential relative population density as a difference in kind or quality. What would count as a difference in quality, in your eyes?

A difference in quality would mean some sort of a fundamental difference in how humans work in comparison to other animals. Something beyond simply being more intelligent, instead being a different kind of intelligent. There's no evidence of such.


What proof would you accept that principles don't change? Could logic itself change, in your view?

I have no idea.


I mean the universe can't die, and to the degree we act as it acts—creatively—then, in a sense, we will not die either, either as a species or as individuals.

That's a pretty strange sense. According to the usual definition of death, once our brain ceases functioning, we're dead.


I am saying the principled universe, the one we don't see but which comprises the body of discoverable principles, we do not change, but the material or sensory universe, the one we do see, is what we can alter in creative ways. In that sense cars and skyscrapers are functions of principles that hitherto have not been expressed. They change not the underlying principles or physical laws, but the way the visible universe operates visibly. That is what I mean.

Sure.

[Donnadogsoth]

A difference in quality would mean some sort of a fundamental difference in how humans work in comparison to other animals. Something beyond simply being more intelligent, instead being a different kind of intelligent. There's no evidence of such.

What does "fundamental" mean, here? If what we do isn't fundamentally different from the apes or the birds, what possibly would be? We can theoretically control the weather on this planet!


That's a pretty strange sense. According to the usual definition of death, once our brain ceases functioning, we're dead.

But there's no principled reason why mankind itself should ever die, and if we contribute to mankind then in that sense our contributions will not die either.



I am saying the principled universe, the one we don't see but which comprises the body of discoverable principles, we do not change, but the material or sensory universe, the one we do see, is what we can alter in creative ways. In that sense cars and skyscrapers are functions of principles that hitherto have not been expressed. They change not the underlying principles or physical laws, but the way the visible universe operates visibly. That is what I mean.

Sure.

Then will you not further agree, that these principles originate not from disparate sources, but from one source, for the reason being that, if these principles are acting in harmony, there must be a harmoniser?

[GloatingSwine]

I mean the universe can't die.

Functionally, not only can it it inevitably will. At some point in the far future all thermodynamic free energy will be gone, all protons will have decayed leaving no matter able to form, the last black hole will have evaporated, and nothing will ever happen ever again.

The universe will, eventually, die in a way more complete than humans are able to readily comprehend.

[Donnadogsoth]

Functionally, not only can it it inevitably will. At some point in the far future all thermodynamic free energy will be gone, all protons will have decayed leaving no matter able to form, the last black hole will have evaporated, and nothing will ever happen ever again.

The universe will, eventually, die in a way more complete than humans are able to readily comprehend.

What you say holds only if the universe is fundamentally entropic. If it is fundamentally negentropic, then it will continue to create new forms of higher complexity and order.

[GloatingSwine]

What you say holds only if the universe is fundamentally entropic. If it is fundamentally negentropic, then it will continue to create new forms of higher complexity and order.

However, the universe is fundamentally entropic. Complexity and order can arise locally and temporarily, but the second law always wins in the end.

You can deny it all you like, and you probably will, but until you've built your perpetual motion engine you're just wrong.

[Murska]

What does "fundamental" mean, here? If what we do isn't fundamentally different from the apes or the birds, what possibly would be? We can theoretically control the weather on this planet!

I do not know what a fundamentally different mind would be like. I can't imagine one. What we do is we use tools and our culturally preserved knowledge to do things, just like apes use tools and culturally preserved information to do things. We just have more information and therefore better tools, and so can achieve larger effects.


But there's no principled reason why mankind itself should ever die, and if we contribute to mankind then in that sense our contributions will not die either.

Our contributions aren't alive, and mankind isn't exactly alive either in the same sense as individual humans are. Their deaths would be a different sort of thing. If all humans die out, or if whatever you contributed is forgotten and lost, both are possible but not necessary. Just like any individual human is not necessarily going to die. However, the concept of death as it applies to an individual is different from the concept of death as it applies to other types of things. You can't really compare our individual deaths and the universe's death as if they were equivalent things.


Then will you not further agree, that these principles originate not from disparate sources, but from one source, for the reason being that, if these principles are acting in harmony, there must be a harmoniser?

Human inventions originate from a variety of human minds, which are separate, but similar to each other. I don't know what they acting in harmony means exactly, but human inventions work together and humans can use them, because they're made by humans for humans. We don't want to confuse actual, universal laws and principles of nature with inventions of humans, however, as they are different things.

[Donnadogsoth]

However, the universe is fundamentally entropic. Complexity and order can arise locally and temporarily, but the second law always wins in the end.

You can deny it all you like, and you probably will, but until you've built your perpetual motion engine you're just wrong.

Where did the low-entropy state of the original universe come from in the first place? You're presuming everything winds down into disorder, but haven't explained where the order came from, and why that same source can't continue to add complexity and order indefinitely.

[GloatingSwine]

Where did the low-entropy state of the original universe come from in the first place? You're presuming everything winds down into disorder, but haven't explained where the order came from, and why that same source can't continue to add complexity and order indefinitely.

So where's your perpetual motion machine?

If you were right, you'd be able to build one. It's really that simple. We have a cast iron way to tell the difference between a universe where entropy is inevitable and one where it is not and the second law can be violated. Whether you can build a perpetual motion machine in that universe.

I state that in the universe we live in you cannot build a perpetual motion machine and therefore entropy is.

If you want to be taken remotely seriously stating otherwise, put your money where your mouth is and build a perpetual motion machine.

[Donnadogsoth]

So where's your perpetual motion machine?

If you were right, you'd be able to build one. It's really that simple. We have a cast iron way to tell the difference between a universe where entropy is inevitable and one where it is not and the second law can be violated. Whether you can build a perpetual motion machine in that universe.

I state that in the universe we live in you cannot build a perpetual motion machine and therefore entropy is.

If you want to be taken remotely seriously stating otherwise, put your money where your mouth is and build a perpetual motion machine.

I have one. It's called the human race.

You're dodging my question, where did the negentropy come from in the first place?

[Donnadogsoth]

What does "fundamental" mean, here? If what we do isn't fundamentally different from the apes or the birds, what possibly would be? We can theoretically control the weather on this planet!

I do not know what a fundamentally different mind would be like. I can't imagine one. What we do is we use tools and our culturally preserved knowledge to do things, just like apes use tools and culturally preserved information to do things. We just have more information and therefore better tools, and so can achieve larger effects.

I don't know how much more fundamental a difference there could be than a mind that is capable of consciously discovering universal gravitation, and a mind capable of discovering how to scratch itself with a stick.



But there's no principled reason why mankind itself should ever die, and if we contribute to mankind then in that sense our contributions will not die either.

Our contributions aren't alive, and mankind isn't exactly alive either in the same sense as individual humans are. Their deaths would be a different sort of thing. If all humans die out, or if whatever you contributed is forgotten and lost, both are possible but not necessary. Just like any individual human is not necessarily going to die. However, the concept of death as it applies to an individual is different from the concept of death as it applies to other types of things. You can't really compare our individual deaths and the universe's death as if they were equivalent things.

I think you're cutting the definitions too finely. I didn't say mankind is an organism with cells and all the rest, that will physically age and eventually die. I said as much as mankind is a thing that is a process that eats, excretes, grows, heals, and so in a sense is alive. And that life need never die, from a principled perspective. And our contributions to it likewise need never die, so long as it persists.



Then will you not further agree, that these principles originate not from disparate sources, but from one source, for the reason being that, if these principles are acting in harmony, there must be a harmoniser?

Human inventions originate from a variety of human minds, which are separate, but similar to each other. I don't know what they acting in harmony means exactly, but human inventions work together and humans can use them, because they're made by humans for humans. We don't want to confuse actual, universal laws and principles of nature with inventions of humans, however, as they are different things.

I'm not speaking to human inventions here, I'm speaking to the principles of nature themselves, and how they cooperate, they are in the same universe and therefore reflect a single creative principle that generates them, an eternal creative substance.

[golentan]

I have one. It's called the human race.

You're dodging my question, where did the negentropy come from in the first place?

Humans being notoriously energy positive, which is why that plot point in the matrix has never been called stupid by anyone?

You're really being a terrible advocate for your position here, you know...

You know, there's a solution to that where the universe is a static object. The flow of entropy appears to be one way because our perceptions are sliding down the entropy curve, but the whole of the universe and all of history actually occur simultaneously... It has a beginning and end, sure, but so does any physical object have limits to its dimensions...

[GloatingSwine]

I have one. It's called the human race.

The human race is not going to survive the heat death of the universe, even if it manages to survive the end of this one star system (which would only happen by, you guessed it, increasing entropy because that's what all physical work requires)


You're dodging my question, where did the negentropy come from in the first place?

You know what, I don't know. But the fact that I don't know doesn't matter, because we can observe entropy always proceeding in one direction in the system as a whole, all local reversals of entropy are fuelled by greater increases of entropy elsewhere, all the local reversals of entropy you have ever heard about are a result of greater increases of entropy in a wider system.

[Murska]

I don't know how much more fundamental a difference there could be than a mind that is capable of consciously discovering universal gravitation, and a mind capable of discovering how to scratch itself with a stick.

I see no qualitative difference there, only a difference in quantity. The principle of universal gravitation is not fundamentally different from the principle of how a stick works as leverage. It's just more complex.


I think you're cutting the definitions too finely. I didn't say mankind is an organism with cells and all the rest, that will physically age and eventually die. I said as much as mankind is a thing that is a process that eats, excretes, grows, heals, and so in a sense is alive. And that life need never die, from a principled perspective. And our contributions to it likewise need never die, so long as it persists.

You can define things as you want, just remember that definitions aren't real and the things you're clumping together are not the same.


I'm not speaking to human inventions here, I'm speaking to the principles of nature themselves, and how they cooperate, they are in the same universe and therefore reflect a single creative principle that generates them, an eternal creative substance.

Principles of nature reduce to one complex system that we call reality. It's a singular, not a set of laws. The sets of laws we have are a model that quite closely corresponds to how reality works. I'm not sure whether we're agreeing or not there. But the universe is not creative, it does not have a mind nor intelligence, it does not make decisions and it is only eternal in the sense that time is part of the universe.

[Donnadogsoth]

The human race is not going to survive the heat death of the universe, even if it manages to survive the end of this one star system (which would only happen by, you guessed it, increasing entropy because that's what all physical work requires)



You know what, I don't know. But the fact that I don't know doesn't matter, because we can observe entropy always proceeding in one direction in the system as a whole, all local reversals of entropy are fuelled by greater increases of entropy elsewhere, all the local reversals of entropy you have ever heard about are a result of greater increases of entropy in a wider system.

Yes, you don't know. We're faced with this initial mass of usable energy and you don't know where it came from, but you're certain it will disappear or transform into unusable energy. I think the laws of thermodynamics are not the highest laws.

golentan, if you have a better way to defend my position, I'm all ears.

Your concept of a static universe is interesting, but why would there be an arrow of time? And why is this block universe of yours ordered the way it is?

[Donnadogsoth]

I see no qualitative difference there, only a difference in quantity. The principle of universal gravitation is not fundamentally different from the principle of how a stick works as leverage. It's just more complex.

But, as you've said, you can't imagine what a qualitative difference would look like, so you're at a disadvantage. Is there a qualitative difference between anything? It's all just energy and particles, after all, isn't it? Or all just information, if we prefer?


You can define things as you want, just remember that definitions aren't real and the things you're clumping together are not the same.

As I've said, the human race is a process and processes can continue or stop, and a continuous process can be termed "alive". That's a common usage of the word, right? "Live" wires? A "dead" battery? Etc.. It's not an illegitimate or misleading usage.


Principles of nature reduce to one complex system that we call reality. It's a singular, not a set of laws. The sets of laws we have are a model that quite closely corresponds to how reality works. I'm not sure whether we're agreeing or not there. But the universe is not creative, it does not have a mind nor intelligence, it does not make decisions and it is only eternal in the sense that time is part of the universe.

I'm not sure we're agreeing either. I would agree laws reduce to Law or truths to Truth, but this suggests there is no eternal creative substance behind the persistent material universe. I hold there is, that the substantiality and creativity of the persistent material universe is derived from an eternal creative substance. The alternative is something like the block universe proposed by golentan, but that begs the question of why is it ordered the way it is.

[GloatingSwine]

Yes, you don't know. We're faced with this initial mass of usable energy and you don't know where it came from, but you're certain it will disappear or transform into unusable energy. I think the laws of thermodynamics are not the highest laws.

On the other hand, 100% of all observed evidence in the universe ever, and we can actually look at evidence over a very long period with radiotelescopes agrees with me not you.

Fourteen billion years of evidence points to the unerring conclusion that you are wrong.

The laws of thermodynamics don't give a damn what you think about them, they happen anyway, they are happening to you right now. Entropy is eating away at you all the time and you have to generate even more of it outside your body than is going on inside to sustain yourself.

[Donnadogsoth]

On the other hand, 100% of all observed evidence in the universe ever, and we can actually look at evidence over a very long period with radiotelescopes agrees with me not you.

Fourteen billion years of evidence points to the unerring conclusion that you are wrong.

The laws of thermodynamics don't give a damn what you think about them, they happen anyway, they are happening to you right now. Entropy is eating away at you all the time and you have to generate even more of it outside your body than is going on inside to sustain yourself.

Nevertheless, if creativity happened once, it can happen again.

[Murska]

But, as you've said, you can't imagine what a qualitative difference would look like, so you're at a disadvantage. Is there a qualitative difference between anything? It's all just energy and particles, after all, isn't it? Or all just information, if we prefer?

I find it quite likely that everything is, in the end, singular.


As I've said, the human race is a process and processes can continue or stop, and a continuous process can be termed "alive". That's a common usage of the word, right? "Live" wires? A "dead" battery? Etc.. It's not an illegitimate or misleading usage.

All I'm saying is that while it is perfectly legitimate and fine to call a basketball and a tennis ball 'balls', a basketball is not a tennis ball.


I'm not sure we're agreeing either. I would agree laws reduce to Law or truths to Truth, but this suggests there is no eternal creative substance behind the persistent material universe. I hold there is, that the substantiality and creativity of the persistent material universe is derived from an eternal creative substance. The alternative is something like the block universe proposed by golentan, but that begs the question of why is it ordered the way it is.

Mm. Why is a question without answer.

[GloatingSwine]

Nevertheless, if creativity happened once, it can happen again.

So where's your perpetual motion machine?

[BaronOfHell]

I think it's important to remember that Thermodynamics deals with averages. E.g. the increase in entropy is globally and not locally, so given enough time and particles, if one looks at any particular ensemble, it's not given the entropy won't heavily decrease over "long" periods of time.

[Murska]

Nevertheless, if creativity happened once, it can happen again.

If we assume the perceived direction of time to be the direction of entropy, it can't.

[SowZ]

The only working model of the universe that, if it doesn't beat entropy, sort of works around it, basically requires our universe to end so a new one can be born in its place. Somewhat hopeful, (or horrifying, depending,) is the thought that should this cycle repeat ad infinitum, our precise universe will eventually show up again after enough oscillations. And again. An again. And so on and so forth.

[GloatingSwine]

I think it's important to remember that Thermodynamics deals with averages. E.g. the increase in entropy is globally and not locally, so given enough time and particles, if one looks at any particular ensemble, it's not given the entropy won't heavily decrease over "long" periods of time.

Where entropy appears to be locally decreasing there's a wider system in which it is increasing. Earth's biosphere as a system represents a decrease in entropy but that only exists because of increasing entropy in the sun.

And because perfect efficiency can't exist, the increase in entropy in the wider system exceeds the decrease in the restricted system.

[BaronOfHell]

Yes, that's what I wrote...

The point of it is that unless you know you're looking at a system isolated from everything else (which is impossible), given enough time, you may observe "long" periods of decrease in entropy.

[Donnadogsoth]

But, as you've said, you can't imagine what a qualitative difference would look like, so you're at a disadvantage. Is there a qualitative difference between anything? It's all just energy and particles, after all, isn't it? Or all just information, if we prefer?

I find it quite likely that everything is, in the end, singular.

Others do too, from Kelly Jones to Spinoza. It's an alluring belief. But its implications for our intuitive and scientific view of the human personality are dire. I retain belief in the sovereign human personality due to the PSR. There's no reason for a universe wholly alien to human ambition to exist--it makes for great horror films, but it's unreasonable.



As I've said, the human race is a process and processes can continue or stop, and a continuous process can be termed "alive". That's a common usage of the word, right? "Live" wires? A "dead" battery? Etc.. It's not an illegitimate or misleading usage.
All I'm saying is that while it is perfectly legitimate and fine to call a basketball and a tennis ball 'balls', a basketball is not a tennis ball.

My understanding that humanity is immortal requires nothing more from language.



I'm not sure we're agreeing either. I would agree laws reduce to Law or truths to Truth, but this suggests there is no eternal creative substance behind the persistent material universe. I hold there is, that the substantiality and creativity of the persistent material universe is derived from an eternal creative substance. The alternative is something like the block universe proposed by golentan, but that begs the question of why is it ordered the way it is.

Mm. Why is a question without answer.

I think you're giving up too easily. If we view the eternal creative substance as acting as if it had intention, the why of the ordering of the material universe becomes apparent, to be, as I said earlier, to the benefit of man as creative species capable of willfully reordering the universe for the sake of immortal survival and happiness.

[Donnadogsoth]

So where's your perpetual motion machine?

You're a member of it, though only to the degree you do not gloat and are not swinish. Humanity represents the highest-yet manifestation of universal creativity, and there is no principled reason why we will not move from height to height.

[Donnadogsoth]

If we assume the perceived direction of time to be the direction of entropy, it can't.

Again, where did the low-entropy state come from in the first place?

There's a big universe out there, with lots more--perhaps an infinitude--of power-bestowing principles to discover. To say we're doomed. or that the universe is doomed to entropic end is premature and defeatist, and in effect inhuman.

[golentan]

golentan, if you have a better way to defend my position, I'm all ears.

How about anything where you don't try to set the rules of the debate to assuming you've already won, and that any rules that result in you not winning aren't valid? I know for a fact you have turned some people sympathetic to your fundamental premise against you through the use of fallacies, tautology, and refusal to engage.

[SiuiS]

I retain belief in the sovereign human personality due to the PSR. There's no reason for a universe wholly alien to human ambition to exist--it makes for great horror films, but it's unreasonable.


There is not sufficient reason to believe a universe alien to immortal human ambition is incorrect.

There is sufficient reason for human ambition to exist; it fulfills a role in propagation of humans in their species scale. There is not sufficient reason to believe human sovereignty exists. It is at this point brazen lying to insist otherwise.




golentan, if you have a better way to defend my position, I'm all ears.

Your position does not need to be defended. It needs to be proven in the first place.

[Murska]

I think you're giving up too easily. If we view the eternal creative substance as acting as if it had intention, the why of the ordering of the material universe becomes apparent, to be, as I said earlier, to the benefit of man as creative species capable of willfully reordering the universe for the sake of immortal survival and happiness.

If something has intentionally ordered the universe for humankind to prosper, they've done a really bad job at it. Or are you claiming this is the best possible universe?


Again, where did the low-entropy state come from in the first place?

In the case where direction of time is direction of entropy, the low-entropy beginning state is the minimized part of the essentially random fluctuation.

[-D-]

I like ship of Theseus, but I think there is a fundamental problem with applying to consciousness. We aren't sure you can transfer it.

From what I've read, there are indications that your consciousness isn't just your brain, but the totality of your body. In terms of Ship of Theseus, that would be something like float-ability of a vessel. So even if you take pieces of old ship and construct a new ship, you'd get something that can't float.

For example knowledge of how hand works, that things hidden behind the hand still need to be accounted for can most accurately be learned by .... Having a hand. And without tiny tidbits like these, we can't create accurate models of other humans, for us to empathize with. So brain in a Jar Spock would find himself diverging from the actual Spock.

[GloatingSwine]

You're a member of it, though only to the degree you do not gloat and are not swinish. Humanity represents the highest-yet manifestation of universal creativity, and there is no principled reason why we will not move from height to height.

100% of all our progress has been paid for by increasing entropy in our sun.

You are wrong.

Making things up in your head with your eyes closed and your ears covered is not a genuine way to seek understanding of the universe, but it is all you appear to be offering us.

[Donnadogsoth]

100% of all our progress has been paid for by increasing entropy in our sun.

You are wrong.

Making things up in your head with your eyes closed and your ears covered is not a genuine way to seek understanding of the universe, but it is all you appear to be offering us.

Where did the universe's initial state of low entropy come from? What principle states--please, tell me, which one it is, I must have misplaced it--that that principle, that creative principle from which the low entropy state of the material universe started, cannot act, ever again, after the first time?

[Donnadogsoth]

How about anything where you don't try to set the rules of the debate to assuming you've already won, and that any rules that result in you not winning aren't valid? I know for a fact you have turned some people sympathetic to your fundamental premise against you through the use of fallacies, tautology, and refusal to engage.

If I am impoverished in my ability to defend the truth, then "sympathetic" people are obviously deficient in both charity and zeal to help understand and defend same.

[Donnadogsoth]

I retain belief in the sovereign human personality due to the PSR. There's no reason for a universe wholly alien to human ambition to exist--it makes for great horror films, but it's unreasonable.

There is not sufficient reason to believe a universe alien to immortal human ambition is incorrect.

There is sufficient reason for human ambition to exist; it fulfills a role in propagation of humans in their species scale. There is not sufficient reason to believe human sovereignty exists. It is at this point brazen lying to insist otherwise.

Love defies you. Without a universe capable of satisfying as an object of our ambitions our love of man is in vain and you know it. But, fortunately, there is no principle that prevents universal creativity from perpetuating its creation, including through man. Indeed, every principle we discover opens the view to a hundred more.



golentan, if you have a better way to defend my position, I'm all ears.

Your position does not need to be defended. It needs to be proven in the first place.

What proof would you accept? Ask yourself where the low entropy state of the initial material universe came from. Start there.

[golentan]

If I am impoverished in my ability to defend the truth, then "sympathetic" people are obviously deficient in both charity and zeal to help understand and defend same.

Okay, I'm going to say this as clearly and kindly as I can. I am schizoaffective, right? I do, from time to time, deal with delusions, and with full blown psychotic episodes. I've gotten good at recognizing the symptoms in myself, over the past decade. And most of the time, I'm pretty lucid: Dealing with my illness has not so much allowed me as forced me to become introspective and analytical with regards to my own thoughts. I can recognize that I'm delusional even when I'm not able to stop believing the delusions.

If I said half of the things you have said, it would be unambiguously a delusional symptom of my mental illness. An illness so severe that it has previously hospitalized me.

Doesn't mean I'm calling you mentally ill, mind. But you are not engaging rationally with *this* topic. You're not defending the truth, you're trying to set the laws of reality to fit your narrative. You're trying to rewrite the entire history of the universe, logic (both formal and informal), and science to unerringly point to your conclusion that the entire universe serves your mental significance.

At a guess, because the idea of cosmic insignificance is so abhorrent to you that you utterly reject any premise or evidence that could cause your belief to be wrong. And reality does not work that way. Trust in my years of hard won experience: no amount of belief, no amount of need in your belief, no amount of mind unequipped with tools designed by experiment in what affects the world (rather than belief that they will) will bend the world to your mind.

Please, please introspect, and then consider your position again from an outside perspective, with fresh eyes. Because while your fundamental position of a universe based on mind is not untenable, nor is one containing some form of eternity, the twists and hoops you are jumping through to justify your mental sovereignty and its extent are, (most notably the demand that people accede to your conclusions before any form of debate can occur) and are further alienating people to your position, and I think I speak for most witnesses when I say that it's incredibly clear to apparently everyone but you.

Your mind is a gift, and a powerful tool. Please don't waste a perfectly good scalpel on the belief that it can function as a hammer if you just will it hard enough.

[SiuiS]

our love of man is in vain

Yes it is. This is distressing to you, but it is not Sufficient Reason to think otherwise. Your desire to be important does not make you, cosmically, important.

Wanting this to be true does not establish Sufficient Reason that it be true. PSR is not a shield to hide behind to avoid critical discussion.

Your position is that the universe as a hologram model combined with the idea of an 'observer' in The quantum sense as a mind means there is a fundamental, underlying reality to what we know of as reality. Yes?

You make a jump from that to "this mind must be a creature in the sense we know. It must have made choices to orchestrate the world as we know it. It must do so out of love for us." Which is 100% valid as a concept, but is one among many 100% valid concepts and is not worthy of being declared the objective truth, nor is it grounds to deride others or declare them deficient, unintelligent, unscrupulous, or otherwise denigrate them as narrow minded nonbelievers. It lacks scientific rigor. Not in totality, but in comparison; it lacks some measure of proof saying it is best choice. It is also not mutually exclusive of the things you have denied prior.

I'm sorry a universe in which you are an accident scares, hurts or saddens you. But without objective meaning, all meaning must come from minds (as we know them). Nihilism isn't the philosophy of nothing matters so be a jerk. It's the philosophy of nothing can be said to matter for reasons other than human focus, and so human focus gains primacy as a tool for judging worth.

If we are an accident, we are a happy accident (https://youtu.be/YLO7tCdBVrA), not a mistake. But that offending your sensibilities is not grounds to deny or vilify anything we can demonstrate to be true. Not "know", not "assert", but demonstate. That is very important.


Until you can demonstrate this metamind, you are empirically wrong when you contradict other, demonstrated reality values. You may have the last laugh in the turning of eons. But for now, when asked to put money where mouth is, you not only have not. But shown that you cannot. Resorting to insults or rhetoric instead is insulting to others and demeaning of yourself.

Does this make sense at all? Not 'do you agree', but 'do you understand'.

[Donnadogsoth]

Okay, I'm going to say this as clearly and kindly as I can. I am schizoaffective, right? I do, from time to time, deal with delusions, and with full blown psychotic episodes. I've gotten good at recognizing the symptoms in myself, over the past decade. And most of the time, I'm pretty lucid: Dealing with my illness has not so much allowed me as forced me to become introspective and analytical with regards to my own thoughts. I can recognize that I'm delusional even when I'm not able to stop believing the delusions.

If I said half of the things you have said, it would be unambiguously a delusional symptom of my mental illness. An illness so severe that it has previously hospitalized me.

Doesn't mean I'm calling you mentally ill, mind. But you are not engaging rationally with *this* topic. You're not defending the truth, you're trying to set the laws of reality to fit your narrative. You're trying to rewrite the entire history of the universe, logic (both formal and informal), and science to unerringly point to your conclusion that the entire universe serves your mental significance.

At a guess, because the idea of cosmic insignificance is so abhorrent to you that you utterly reject any premise or evidence that could cause your belief to be wrong. And reality does not work that way. Trust in my years of hard won experience: no amount of belief, no amount of need in your belief, no amount of mind unequipped with tools designed by experiment in what affects the world (rather than belief that they will) will bend the world to your mind.

Please, please introspect, and then consider your position again from an outside perspective, with fresh eyes. Because while your fundamental position of a universe based on mind is not untenable, nor is one containing some form of eternity, the twists and hoops you are jumping through to justify your mental sovereignty and its extent are, (most notably the demand that people accede to your conclusions before any form of debate can occur) and are further alienating people to your position, and I think I speak for most witnesses when I say that it's incredibly clear to apparently everyone but you.

Your mind is a gift, and a powerful tool. Please don't waste a perfectly good scalpel on the belief that it can function as a hammer if you just will it hard enough.

You have made a good and convincing case. I must regroup and reevaluate how I can set about defending idealism, eternity, and human immortality. I realise these things can come across as mad, but in the country of the mad the sane man appears mad, and I find the positions and implications put forth by here and elsewhere to often deviate from what I would call sanity and common sense, and I fear most people these days are so far gone they do not see or have never been exposed to what would be considered sanity in a more enlightened age. My sword will not penetrate these giants' armour and I must retreat before I become caught up in a spell of mine own making. Thank you for your concern and candidness and hopefully we will meet again on this proving ground.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes it is. This is distressing to you, but it is not Sufficient Reason to think otherwise. Your desire to be important does not make you, cosmically, important.

Wanting this to be true does not establish Sufficient Reason that it be true. PSR is not a shield to hide behind to avoid critical discussion.

Your position is that the universe as a hologram model combined with the idea of an 'observer' in The quantum sense as a mind means there is a fundamental, underlying reality to what we know of as reality. Yes?

You make a jump from that to "this mind must be a creature in the sense we know. It must have made choices to orchestrate the world as we know it. It must do so out of love for us." Which is 100% valid as a concept, but is one among many 100% valid concepts and is not worthy of being declared the objective truth, nor is it grounds to deride others or declare them deficient, unintelligent, unscrupulous, or otherwise denigrate them as narrow minded nonbelievers. It lacks scientific rigor. Not in totality, but in comparison; it lacks some measure of proof saying it is best choice. It is also not mutually exclusive of the things you have denied prior.

I'm sorry a universe in which you are an accident scares, hurts or saddens you. But without objective meaning, all meaning must come from minds (as we know them). Nihilism isn't the philosophy of nothing matters so be a jerk. It's the philosophy of nothing can be said to matter for reasons other than human focus, and so human focus gains primacy as a tool for judging worth.

If we are an accident, we are a happy accident (https://youtu.be/YLO7tCdBVrA), not a mistake. But that offending your sensibilities is not grounds to deny or vilify anything we can demonstrate to be true. Not "know", not "assert", but demonstate. That is very important.


Until you can demonstrate this metamind, you are empirically wrong when you contradict other, demonstrated reality values. You may have the last laugh in the turning of eons. But for now, when asked to put money where mouth is, you not only have not. But shown that you cannot. Resorting to insults or rhetoric instead is insulting to others and demeaning of yourself.

Does this make sense at all? Not 'do you agree', but 'do you understand'.

I think I do understand. The giant of nihilism is subtle and better dressed in his raiment than I had given him credit, and you as his herald have given me pause.

Nicolaus of Cusa wrote that a man's proper study is his own ignorance. I must be ignorant of some crucial matter if I am unable to make headway. I must retreat and seek further counsel.

Thank you for your courtesy and may we meet again in the proving ground.

[SiuiS]

I'm not a nihilist, Donna. But the foundation of any discussion with conflicting views is "I understand, but do not agree".

When you say "the only other possible option is (eg) nihilism", all this says is you don't understand nihilism, or any other Similar philosophy. And if you don't understand something that's supposed to be a basic pinion of your argument, what else fundamental to your argument do you not really understand?

The position of devil's advocate isn't about being an Internet jackass. It's about rational rigor. Sharing out flaws and problems before moving forward into an arena where failure is not an option.

If you have the intelligence to have thought through all this, andto have chosen to ignore or see past scientific evidence for any reason, but you cannot explain enough to guide anyone else on that same path, you have a fundamental issue with your perspective that needs to be addressed before you can go public. There is a saying; "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink", and if you cannot lead anyone to water, and simply struggle to make them drink, you've lost any ability to have meaningful discussion on anything beyond accepted rote fact. Because you're trying very hard to do the impossible but have put not even token effort into making that easier.

Focus on the nominals and not the tolerances, as it we're. (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eric_brechner/archive/2008/09/01/nailing-the-nominals.aspx)