21
   

The Half-life of Facts.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 02:39 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

So you don't like the analogy. Fine.
What has that got to do with the specific "fact" about cognition/physiology ?

As far as I am concerned nothing since I didn't bring up cognition/physiology.

However if we accept that your original premise is correct then the likely statistical result is that the "fact" is no longer true.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 02:54 pm
@parados,

I wrote
Quote:
1. Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.

You wrote
Quote:
You state this as if it is a fact. I submit that if facts have half lives then your statement is no longer true.

(Your Post 5499352)
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:00 pm
@fresco,
So then your original statement was true or not?

I am merely pointing out that anything you present as a "fact" would have a finite length during which it would be valid. Statistically speaking the statement would probably be no longer valid. The paradox of claiming it is factual vs your original statement still exists.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:07 pm
A fact may refer to an historical fact. Since when facts that ceased to be are not facts any more eh ? Whatever frame of reference in spacetime one chooses a fact is a fact. In one million years from now it still will be true I wrote this post at this point in time.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:12 pm
@parados,
I'm afraid not. That fact as stated has not yet decayed. Nor can the analogy be artificially stretched to mean "spontaneous unexplained decay". That's a mathematical game you are playing. Facts decay when their functionality is superceded.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:34 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I'm afraid not. That fact as stated has not yet decayed.


That leads us back to you needing to show it's a fact to begin with.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:39 pm
@parados,
A fact per se does not depend on demonstration. Asserting one does. I am sure you know this but still the context required clarification.

Equally a true fact does not depend on time or space to be true although it is bound to one. True facts are forever true whatever space of reference you chose to question them.

If something is bound to be true in the future then no matter how far back you recede such fact is bound to be true. Equally if something was true no matter where and when, then something will be forever true, in its own local referent.

A true event both, IS an event, as it will somewhere some when, WAS an event, or bound to, WILL BE an event.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:44 pm
@parados,
I suggest you read back over the thread to see how I have defined "fact".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:51 pm
@fresco,
Your argument against infinite regression being a valid counter is flawed for the simple reason that whatever is circumstantial and finite, in a chain of cause, has a non caused starting point nonetheless. Taking the argument to its ultimate consequence, to its stretching point, by imagining there was only one thing and that such thing was you, the first thing, it still would be a problem to argue for construction of facts once you, the first fact could not build yourself from your own strap boots. Something ALWAYS must be a given, n thus something is not bound to be constructed...Take your "facere" to where it fits properly or in turn learn what it means so you can use it in the future.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 03:55 pm
@fresco,
I realize you think "fact" is your opinion and that simply by you having that opinion it means there is consensus. However, let me ask for where I can find that consensus that the following is considered likely to be true.

Quote:
Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.


I think physiology can account for cognition. Cognition is nothing more than electrical and chemical impulses in a controlled environment.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 04:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am re posting this because the initial post was already edited several times as there where some logical links I jumped forward in the hurry to present the conclusion.
...I do that often imagining it is not a problem for those you are familiar with the argument nonetheless I recognize it is better to fully explain step by step no matter how annoying it may seam.

The argument against infinite regression being a valid counter to total relativism is flawed for the simple reason that whatever is circumstantial and finite, mankind society and negotiated concepts for instance, in a chain of cause, has a non caused starting point nonetheless. Taking the argument to its ultimate consequence, to its stretching point, by imagining there was only one thing and that such thing was you, the first thing, it still would be a problem to argue for construction of facts once you, the first fact itself could not build himself from its own strap boots. Something ALWAYS must be a given, n thus something is not bound to be constructed by any agent or anything...

In resume:

The final first cause, cannot cause itself.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 04:59 pm
@parados,
Here is one article you might find useful.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Reductionism
I should add that there have been moves to "decay the fact" by redefining cognition and physiology in terms of "embodiment theory". Such a redefinition represents a major paradigm shift in cognitive science somewhat reflective of the amalgamation of space and time into space-time in physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Note that "embodiment" is a million miles away from the concept of electrical circuits and biochemistry
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 05:31 pm
To put that another way, embodiment theory is "what they try next" given the fact of the failure of reductionism. Such a paradigm shift alters what accounts for experiential reality.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 05:56 pm
@fresco,
Its quite obvious to anyone an effect cannot be confounded with its cause.
Some people seam to think a cause is to be confounded equated with its own effect and from there proceed to say things like red is not light spectrum n similar stuff.

Indeed "Red" requires the light spectrum and the observer apparatus, the full form to be the red we experience, once that red is the fruit between perceiver and perceived. But that in turn says nothing in favour of constructionism since perception per se needs not be equated with volition or conscious willing. Rather perception and even intelligent perception are a consequence of interactions no different from any other interaction in nature.
At this light awareness is something that you yourself witness unfolding in spacetime.
And "causation" itself the form of 4D geometry. The form of the unfolding form in time.
Reality is united through relations of regularity and proportionality in forms. The very aware witnessing of these repeating patterns is reasonable proof of no true construction as nothing really "new" is being invented.
In other thread I posted:
Quote:
Now let me explain what I mean with "causation" since the idea is at odds with the first cause having no cause n thus resulting that nothing has a cause on close scrutiny.
There is the simple-minded vision of cause the common one A leads to B that leads to C, n then there is the vision of causation has the logical proportion between things throughout spacetime. In this light everything coexists in an ensemble and there is no actual cause but rather a logos, an order, a proportionality, in events that is elegant so it is indistinguishable from causation. Regularities are bound to the Unity of all reality and to the very fabric of spacetime. From our inner to time n space point of view we call this elegance of relations and regularities cause n effect.

But "causation" is only form in four dimensions...


"Causation" is the form of forms unfolding in spacetime. The form of these regularities.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 08:56 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

So there is no consensus about your statement. I already knew that.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 12:59 am
@parados,
Quote:
There is no consensus about the status of the explanatory gap. Reductionists deny that the gap exists. They argue that the hard problem reduces to a combination of easy problems or derives from misconceptions about the nature of consciousness. For example, Daniel Dennett (2005) argues that, on reflection, consciousness is functionally definable. On his view, once the easy problems are solved, there will be nothing about consciousness and the physical left to explain.


I assume you are referring to this paragraph. Note that my original statement earlier in the thread talked of "what we normally call cognition". I think you will find that Dennett's attempt at re-definition is anything but "normal".

By consensus in a complicated case we are talking in statistical terms. Dennett (as far as I know) does not work in the experimental field or in AI where reductionism has spectacularly failed, and that "fact" is underscored by the withdrawal of funding to straight "reductionist projects" in AI. Eleanor Rosch at Berkeley for example holds the scathing view that "neuroscience is at the stage equivalent to correlating knee problems with a belief in the power of prayer in Catholics". Rosch is one of the prominent embodiment theorists described above.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 11:12 am
@fresco,
Neurosciences in general are in their infancy and have little to bring to the mind-body debate at this stage. The issue remains a next-to-total mystery, just as the emergence of life is. So we have these two massively important events (at least from our view point) -- emergence of life + emergence of conscience -- that remain unexplained by science, thus giving religiously-inclined people plenty of reasons to believe in god(s). This is why, even though I am an agnostic, I don't think it useful to disregard religious belief as irrelevant or proven false or anything like that. Only when we'll understand the emergence of life and consciousnesses in a materialist or reductionist or any other way, will we be able to discard the hypothesis of gods.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 11:36 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Neurosciences in general are in their infancy and have little to bring to the mind-body debate at this stage. The issue remains a next-to-total mystery, just as the emergence of life is. So we have these two massively important events (at least from our view point) -- emergence of life + emergence of conscience -- that remain unexplained by science, thus giving religiously-inclined people plenty of reasons to believe in god(s). This is why, even though I am an agnostic, I don't think it useful to disregard religious belief as irrelevant or proven false or anything like that. Only when we'll understand the emergence of life and consciousnesses in a materialist or reductionist or any other way, will we be able to discard the hypothesis of gods.


Even then the hypothesis of gods will be difficult to logically dismiss. How would one argue that the gods did not dictate that what we have discovered...be what we have discovered.

Sorta like the "evolution" arguments.

Yeah...we have lots of evidence that the evolutionary process developed along certain lines that look nothing like the absurdities of the Book of Genesis...but establishing that what we have discovered about evolution was not the plan of a god is a more daunting task.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 01:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

In resume:

The final first cause, cannot cause itself.

I agree, also it would not need to cause itself because it would already exist.

But...

A prime mover i.e. an uncaused cause would have to be permanent... do you agree?

If you don't agree, how can a prime mover exist if it is not permanent?

If you agree, how can a prime mover that is permanent change from the state of not having caused an effect to having caused an effect?

If it changes states it is not permanent....

The alternative to a prime mover is not 'only' the need for an infinite regress i.e. it is not the only alternative.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 01:35 pm
@igm,
The notion of "mover" and "movement" is intrinsic to an inside the Final Set point of view perspective, but in reality nothing moves.
"Prime mover" is our description referring to "causation" in a given point in the loop inside spacetime that we establish to be the point that causally recedes further from us but in fact the whole Set per se is accomplished throughout all spacetime in an ensemble.
So in resume yes I am saying the first cause is permanent, it obviously cannot cause itself its not even something you could doubt to start with, but I am also saying that "Causation" is a contextual wording only making sense within a spacetime referent.
(check my account on causation in previous posts)
"Cause" to effect sequencing refers to the whole shape of reality timelessly speaking, its 4D geometry.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 02:04:08