4
   

What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2018 04:02 pm
@brianjakub,
Amen ! Cool
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2018 07:27 pm
@fresco,
Finally, after all this debate. A new convert. Very Happy Whether you agree or not, Thank you for the education Exclamation I agree with Leadfoot, you probably are a genius.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2018 05:06 am
@fresco,
Try as I might it seems I am not getting the point across. If meaning its use, use is a necessity! A mind which is not free is just Nature at work...what the mind does and does not is within the bounds of Nature not external to it. That is to say, it has no power of its own!

Post Scriptum - If you gonna troll the word "Nature" I am going to troll back the word "language"...
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2018 05:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Try as I might it seems I am not getting the point across. If meaning its use, use is a necessity! A mind which is not free is just Nature at work...what the mind does and does not is within the bounds of Nature not external to it. That is to say it has no power of its own


That is true only if dualism is not true.

How do you know dualism is not true?

If dualism is not true how does matter obtain the intelligence to create information?

If matter does contain intelligence, where did the intelligence come from that created all the information stored in matter?

Which came first, the Intelligence or the Information?

Quote:
That which is Being in everything cannot change anything because there is nothing left to be changed...all that is, was, and shall be, belongs to its Set!


Could it be true that dualism is true and the Intelligence is not part of the set?

Quote:
To the question why there is something rather than nothingness the answer is that nothingness is devoid from itself...by its own definition it can't be anything, nor empty space, nor empty time, nor anything else abstract or physical...Nothingness is not and therefore everything that IS is immutable in its beingness, its archés, its archetype!


Because there never was nothing. There was always something.

Gen1:1 In the beginning when God created[a] the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Quote:
Every possible combination of atoms that can be it is already timeless as Einstein understood the tricks of Time passage. Things are what they are as they should be in every moment of existence. Perfection needs no change in all moments. Sweet and bitter, sadness or joy, love or misery, it all is part of God which is the rock and the ground of all Being!


That is true only from the point of view to someone observing from the outside of our universe and who knows the processes of the universe intimately enough to see all the possibilities that ever could and will happen.

Quote:
God does not speak because it does not need words...


Then where did all the information that existed in the universe as matter for billions of years come from?

Quote:
God does not command because of all that which is, is already on track.


What evidence do you have to support that is true?

Quote:
God is no person, no mind, nor an agent.
Awareness is in God but not for God as God does not need to be reminded of all its possessions...God sleeps beyond Life it does not live!...
Powerless to change itself because it is all that can be God is dead as a rock and yet embraces everything in Unity. God is the Logos the Alpha and the Omega bounded to repeat itself in a fractal loop forever. Finite and yet without stopping...


How is that statement not contradictory with itself and our observations as intelligent beings?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2018 08:55 am
@brianjakub,
Dualism is inelegant.
Dualism can't be true because two different kinds of substance would not communicate with each other, nor any information would be exchangeable. For instance, an apparition can only happen through a manifestation of photons, an image.
Intelligence is an optimization algorithm imbibed in Biology, you still a puppet with no free will whatsoever. Same is valid for your anthropic "God".

Post Scriptum - The irony is if you really had any grasp of metaphysics you would perfectly understand my pantheistic view of God as a "rock"...no contradiction whatsoever is in place when the extent of my languaging is intuitively understood.
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2018 09:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
If the rock made of matter, Where did the matter come from?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Would you mind answering these questions from my previous post?

Quote:
Quote:
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Try as I might it seems I am not getting the point across. If meaning its use, use is a necessity! A mind which is not free is just Nature at work...what the mind does and does not is within the bounds of Nature not external to it. That is to say it has no power of its own



That is true only if dualism is not true.

How do you know dualism is not true?

If dualism is not true how does matter obtain the intelligence to create information?

If matter does contain intelligence, where did the intelligence come from that created all the information stored in matter?

Which came first, the Intelligence or the Information?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:50 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
We see knowledge as a matter of conversation and of social practice, rather than as an attempt to mirror nature
Richard Rorty.

Try thinking about this with respect to the fact that every word we utter, like 'matter' or 'information' or 'God' is a human construction for no other purpose than to aid human pre-occupation with prediction and control of what we fleetingly consider as 'our lives' at the time of utterance.
It does not take a genius ( Wink ) to appreciate tthe significance of this with respect to the language games which operate on forums like this.
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 04:53 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Try thinking about this with respect to the fact that every word we utter, like 'matter' or 'information' or 'God' is a human construction for no other purpose than to aid human pre-occupation with prediction and control of what we fleetingly consider as 'our lives' at the time of utterance.


wiki
Quote:

Information is any entity or form that provides the answer to a question of some kind or resolves uncertainty. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts.[1] As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

Information is conveyed either as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message.

Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a signal). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.

Information reduces uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information, but other units such as the nat may be used. For example, the information encoded in one "fair" coin flip is log2(2/1) = 1 bit, and in two fair coin flips is log2(4/1) = 2 bits.

The concept that information is the message has different meanings in different contexts.[2] Thus the concept of information becomes closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, education, knowledge, meaning, understanding, mental stimuli, pattern, perception, representation, and entropy.

Etymology
See also: History of the word and concept "information"
The English word apparently derives from the Latin stem (information-) of the nominative (informatio): this noun derives from the verb informare (to inform) in the sense of "to give form to the mind", "to discipline", "instruct", "teach". Inform itself comes (via French informer) from the Latin verb informare, which means to give form, or to form an idea of. Furthermore, Latin itself already contained the word informatio meaning concept or idea, but the extent to which this may have influenced the development of the word information in English is not clear.

The ancient Greek word for form was μορφή (morphe; cf. morph) and also εἶδος (eidos) "kind, idea, shape, set", the latter word was famously used in a technical philosophical sense by Plato (and later Aristotle) to denote the ideal identity or essence of something (see Theory of Forms). 'Eidos' can also be associated with thought, proposition, or even concept.

The ancient Greek word for information is πληροφορία, which transliterates (plērophoria) from πλήρης (plērēs) "fully" and φέρω (phorein) frequentative of (pherein) to carry through. It literally means "bears fully" or "conveys fully". In modern Greek the word Πληροφορία is still in daily use and has the same meaning as the word information in English. In addition to its primary meaning, the word Πληροφορία as a symbol has deep roots in Aristotle's semiotic triangle. In this regard it can be interpreted to communicate information to the one decoding that specific type of sign. This is something that occurs frequently with the etymology of many words in ancient and modern Greek where there is a very strong denotative relationship between the signifier, e.g. the word symbol that conveys a specific encoded interpretation, and the signified, e.g. a concept whose meaning the interpreter attempts to decode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#Information_theory_approach

Information theory approach
Main article: Information theory
In information theory, information is taken as an ordered sequence of symbols from an alphabet, say an input alphabet χ, and an output alphabet ϒ. Information processing consists of an input-output function that maps any input sequence from χ into an output sequence from ϒ. The mapping may be probabilistic or deterministic. It may have memory or be memoryless.[3]


Atoms are symbols that can be considered an alphabet by putting energy into order into the universe. They existed before humans but after God. That God created first the higgs field and then atoms is stated in the Bible.

Quote:
Genesis 1 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath
1 In the beginning when God created[a] the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


The first two definitions which state information reduces uncertianty by introducing order is exactly what God was doing by introducing matter and the higgs field into the universe before men were ariund to undrstand the information.

Quote:
It does not take a genius ( Wink ) to appreciate tthe significance of this with respect to the language games which operate on forums like this.


The evidence suggests the information existed and was understood by God for the purpose to share with some other intelligence (humans) at a later time so, they could play language games on forums like this where, hopefully we will come to the same conclusions God did when he came up the the original idea and purpose.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2019 01:35 pm
@brianjakub,
Still waiting for you to actually think about it. No sign yet.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2019 01:16 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Try thinking about this with respect to the fact that every word we utter, like 'matter' or 'information' or 'God' is a human construction for no other purpose than to aid human pre-occupation with prediction and control of what we fleetingly consider as 'our lives' at the time of utterance.


We did not create the first words. The first words were the atoms of nature. Water is 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That pattern is recognizable and consistent throughout the universe and therefore can be considered a word that contains information. That word is written in the language of quantum mechanics. We developed that language so we could think about water, understand water, and then communicate with each other about water in a very precise way.

The fact that, we recognize words (atoms and the processes they reveal) as a historical record of information and, we assume that the information those patterns reveal, will continue and therefore we can the information predict the future (quite accurately sometimes), does not mean we constructed the initial meaning by being one of the first intelligent beings to understand the meaning of water.

I think it is more accurate to assume that water is water because it is implied by its nature. Therefore, no matter who recognizes it as water, I think it is safe to assume that all intelligent beings who need water to survive will eventually recognize it as water, understand its purpose and, use it to survive because, all cultures, across all the ages in the past, have done that. (and sometimes, without even communicating with each other).

Quote:
We see knowledge as a matter of conversation and of social practice, rather than as an attempt to mirror nature--Richard Rorty.


Quote:
We are not mirroring nature when we see knowledge as a matter of conversation and of social practice rather, we are mirroring the the Creator of nature as we increase our knowledge by understanding the information it contains.--Brian Jakub


Therefore I agree with Richard and am logically assuming the conversation is between us and the creator of the information and, many social practices (science, religion and a combination of the two) have been developed over the ages in attempt to put some order and logic to assist in that understanding.

Why don't you agree with that assumption because, I am. . .

Quote:
Still waiting for you to actually think about it. No sign yet.


fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2019 03:06 pm
@brianjakub,
'Thinking' does not equate to denial. The fact that the scientific utility of the concept of 'atoms' was not established until the 20th century doesn't exactly help your case, nor does their subsequent deconstruction into even more conceptual 'elementary' particles.
Rorty's emphasis on 'epistemology' as couched in 'social practice' is equivalent to Kuhn's 'scientific paradigms' which are constantly open to negotiation and revision. Your problem is that you are advocating a minority paradigm with respect to which even its supporters cannot agree between themselves as to what they are talking about ! So basically your claim to any scientific respectability is ludicrous. .....ah....but to understand that requires thinking.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2019 05:38 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The fact that the scientific utility of the concept of 'atoms' was not established until the 20th century doesn't exactly help your case, nor does their subsequent deconstruction into even more conceptual 'elementary' particles


Like I said, it is not important whether you know, that water is made up of atoms and atoms are made of quarks and electrons because it has nothing to do with recognizing that the patterns reveal to a thing with minimal intelligence that there is a difference between water and a piece of food, and that one is for drinking and one is to eat. An education does not create information rather it leads to understanding of information that already existed.

Quote:
Rorty's emphasis on 'epistemology' as couched in 'social practice' is equivalent to Kuhn's 'scientific paradigms' which are constantly open to negotiation and revision.


That is fine if the author of the information is not available to help interpret the intended meaning. I Believe God through His Living Word established the information in atoms. Man along with The living Word, The Holy Spirit and Satan have manipulated those atoms sometimes for God's purpose and some times for Satan's. I believe I can still access the Holy Spirit and Satan (and I prefer the Holy Spirit) and therefore develop my own interpretation of the information that exists in the processes of our universe.

You believe that atoms haphazardly popped into by some unknown process for no particular reason and therefore its up to whoever is the smartest, strongest, or most popular to determine the purpose.

Quote:
Your problem is that you are advocating a minority paradigm with respect to which even its supporters cannot agree between themselves as to what they are talking about ! So basically your claim to any scientific respectability is ludicrous. .....ah....but to understand that requires thinking.


The problem with your proposition is that there is no purpose written into nature because you have no scientific evidence to support it is even possible to produce matter with nothing and from nothing.

So, your paradigm which is promoted by a majority of the scientific and academic community has to be under constant change because it has no basis in reality. While the rest of the population realizes reality is real (and water is for drinking and food is for eating) and the vast majority of them believe in some sort of God and some universal purpose to the universe.

The interesting thing though is even a majority of academia agrees in reality (and water is for drinking and food is for eating). So why don't you?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2019 02:04 am
@brianjakub,
You are completely wrong about 'most academics' involved with epistemological and ontological questions. You are using the word 'reality' in a naive absolutist sense..a pov which has been under serious attack since Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'. Religious absolutism with its assorted ad hoc creation myths (yours being merely another version) has nothing to do with shifting paradigmatic 'science', despite the vested interests of some religionists in attempting to hijack it.
Similar comments could be made about your naive athropocentric use of the words 'purpose' and 'intention'. There is absolutely no 'evidence' that these words express anything more than 'hope', for a clever individual animal concerned about its sense of its own 'destiny' or 'value'. In fact, the scientific (genetic) view is that particular individuals are irrelevent to the mechanism of 'life propogation', which itself is accountable in terms of entropy maximization.
And as for your fall back position of 'you can't get sonething from nothing', this bit of nonsense is scientificallycontradicted by the 'zero sum' principle applied to particles and anti-particles, and philosophically by the deconstruction of the word 'thing' as a social construction.




Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2019 08:16 am
@fresco,
Pretty soon you will be arguing for "Zombie Robots" when AGI is upon us... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2019 08:57 pm
@fresco,
Quote:

You are completely wrong about 'most academics' involved with epistemological and ontological questions. You are using the word 'reality' in a naive absolutist sense..a pov which has been under serious attack since Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'.



I think it can be argued that, a naive absolutist sense, is the philosophical view of the universe that we "as humans" can use to best interpret the information we observing because that is the view we are physically forced to take.

But, the information we are observing was created by someone much older and with greater capabilities than us requiring us to consider an objective idealism in conjunction with a naive realism for a more thorough understanding of the universe and how we as humans should interact with it. I am saying this for 2 reasons.

1. We, as intelligent beings consisting of matter which, consist of atoms that consist of quarks. And, those quarks are embedded in a space we know as the space inside of an atom. And, that space inside the atoms, interacts (through the higgs mechanism) with the space time continuum (we know as the higgs field) which, is the space we live in. These are the embedded layers of information we recognize as the nature. These embedded universes of information interact with each other according to the laws of physics and establish patterns over time that we can recognize with our intelligence. (And, one of those patterns might be water quenches my thirst. So, to obtain water, the atoms of water must contained by the weak electromagnetic forces of the atoms in a glass, that I lift to my mouth with the atoms in my arm to drink.) Now understanding the information stored in the atoms of nature and held together by the strong nuclear force are timeless to us in our everyday lives because, they have been storing that information for eons. But the information stored by the weak-elctro nuclear forces change as atoms react with each other and the Higgs field overtime through processes which we experience overtime. These processes that happen overtime also have patterns that have stood the test of time (Like drinking water quenches thirst.) These patterns are complex, appear to serve a purpose and, would suggest that they were established long ago for these purposes. Assuming that suggestion is true is Idealism because purpose implies intelligence.


Quote:
Idealism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In philosophy, Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, Idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In contrast to Materialism, Idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence. Consciousness creates and determines the material and not vice versa. Idealism believes consciousness and mind to be the origin of the material world and aims to explain the existing world according to these principles.



And, since the information in the universe is universally accepted by science to be older than humans, (For instance we know that the light from a galaxy 10,000,000 light years away, contains information about that galaxy, and that information existed and was transmitted 10,000,000 years ago. And, because the spiral shape of the galaxy reveals that everything in that galaxy acts as a systematic unit, and the system is huge.) and, since the information is of such great magnitude, that information had to be established by someone with abilities greater than ours and before we existed.

This would suggest that some sort of Objective Idealism would be an appropriate philosophy to use when explaining the origins of the information in the universe and one I subscribe to.

wiki:
Quote:

Objective idealism posits the existence of an objective consciousness which exists before and, in some sense, independently of human ones. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society.[1] As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] Idealism thus rejects physicalist and dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind
.


2. We, as intelligent beings, are embedded in a physical system made up of atoms. That small system (contained in our bodies) is embedded in the universe (higgs field) which is a much larger system. To understand how all these interacting and embedded systems are operating as part of an overall universal system we must accept that:

a. The system that we are embedded in and interacting with (the universe) is real, otherwise we also would not be real.

b. We must interact with the system for a period of time to observe the patterns the system reveals as it operates (live to understand).

Which I believe is why we should use Naive Realism as a philosophy to "experience the universe to "understand" it in the context of Objective Idealism.

Quote:
Naïve realism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the psychological theory called "naïve realism", see naïve realism (psychology)

Naïve realism argues we perceive the world directly
In philosophy of mind, naïve realism, also known as direct realism, common sense realism or perceptual realism, is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.[1] They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly.


So we can then decide, if the Intelligence that we logically concluded earlier using Objective Idealism as a philosophy to put into context what we concluded using Naive Realism, is an intelligence worthy of our attempt to understand it. And if so, then try to determine The Intelligence's purpose by observing and experiencing how the system operates to reach a goal (like to raise a healthy family in a loving environment), and various other means (Including Spiritual, Historical Documentation including the fossil record and written, mythology, hear say, philosophical and scientific debate, etc. . .).
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2019 09:34 pm
@brianjakub,
PS By combining Objective Idealism and Naive realism I think we can combine the Many Worlds Interpretation of physics with the Copenhagen Interpretation of physics to help develop a unified theory of physics.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2019 07:02 am
@brianjakub,
I'm impressed that you are doing a bit of philosophical research. There are, of course, fundamental breaches in the walls of your belief citadel, but no doubt the exercise of running from one to the other in an attempt to shore up is a useful source of self reinforcement for you.
Further than that, I have nothing more to add since your axiom about 'information' makes no sense to me at all.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2019 09:37 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I'm impressed that you are doing a bit of philosophical research.


Just trying to reason and communicate with you at the high level you have established. Thank you for the opportunity.

Quote:
Further than that, I have nothing more to add since your axiom about 'information' makes no sense to me at all.


Is this the axiom you are referring to.

brianjakub
Quote:
And, since the information in the universe is universally accepted by science to be older than humans, (For instance we know that the light from a galaxy 10,000,000 light years away, contains information about that galaxy, and that information existed and was transmitted 10,000,000 years ago. And, because the spiral shape of the galaxy reveals that everything in that galaxy acts as a systematic unit, and the system is huge.) and, since the information is of such great magnitude, that information had to be established by someone with abilities greater than ours and before we existed.


Are you sure you aren't confusing information with knowledge?

wiki on "information"
Quote:
Information is any entity or form that provides the answer to a question of some kind or resolves uncertainty. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts.[1] As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.


I think I am within the parameters established by the definition of the word "information".

Quote:
There are, of course, fundamental breaches in the walls of your belief citadel


What fundamental breaches?

Quote:
no doubt the exercise of running from one to the other in an attempt to shore up is a useful source of self reinforcement for you.


Not looking for reinforcement. Just looking for a debate where both views are given their due consideration so as to have a more thorough understanding by all who are interested. If I have fundamental breaches, I would suspect you could point them out and I could understand why you think they exist. Whether, I agree with them or not I am looking forward to the education.

Once again, thanks for the education so far.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2019 02:54 pm
@brianjakub,
I don't agree with your second quotation at all. Its tautologous word salad since 'information', 'data', 'knowledge, and 'event' are alll human cognitive constructions,
One major breach is that belief systems cannot justify the 'truth' of their principal axioms (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) so 'rational' argument which ensues is irrelevent. The only aspect that matters about such systems is whether they are pragmatically 'functional'. As Rorty points out, the functionality of religious belief systems is limited to emotionality or psychological comfort. They have no longer any place in what we call science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q
(Sound quality poor in second half, but first half good}
 

Related Topics

Answer my Question with a question????? - Discussion by Crazielady420
Asked a strange question at work - Question by Mimiclau03
Rouse Belts? - Question by roger2909
A riddle - Discussion by Gollumscave
My dilemma - Question by PISA
the word Quora? - Question by jhonwilliam
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:20:31