4
   

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

 
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2019 09:56 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I don't agree with your second quotation at all. Its tautologous word salad since 'information', 'data', 'knowledge, and 'event' are all human cognitive constructions,


My second quote is the accepted definition of information.

Quote:
Information
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


It appears from the last sentence in that quote and the following definition of knowledge you appear to be equating information with knowledge.

Quote:
knowl·edge
/ˈnäləj/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, grip, command, mastery, apprehension; More


As you can see information does not require an observer. It signifies understanding but is not "actual" understanding. For instance an animal does not understand why the information in water quenches it thirst. It doesn't even understand the information in its own body well enough to understand why it is thirsty. It takes a being that can turn information into knowledge with a higher level of intelligence to do that.

So, can our disagreement on the meaning of information be solved by introducing an understanding of how information and knowledge are related?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2019 10:22 am
@fresco,
Quote:
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'.


Quote:
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.


I completely agree with that theorem because, "No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system" is a true statement for this reason:

Looking at a system or algorithm (like the universe) from inside the system (which is the point of view we are physically required to have because our bodies are a system "with intelligence" embedded in and whose existence depends on an interaction with the universe (for instance, "the higgs mechanism of the higgs field" gives matter mass.) Being able to completely understand the system from that view forces one into a philosophical view (naive realism) that by itself can never be complete because of the physical nature of the view which is a system of information embedded and an integral part of the larger and more encompassing system.

And since, we are embedded in the system of the universe with an immeasurable number of other embedded systems (many of which have so much undetectable complexity embedded in their own system some of which reach the complexity reached the level of endowing intelligence on that system) they can alter the larger system (the universe) in unpredictable ways.

So saying that,"The only aspect that matters about such systems is whether they are pragmatically 'functional'." is correct when determining the purpose of the system from that limited view. That is the view the Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas took when he used "Natural Law" in developing the understandings that are now professed by the Roman Catholic Church.

But, he did not use religion to develop Natural Law, instead he used Natural Law to "validate" religion. That validation now gives an intelligent person a reason to look for an all encompassing purpose for the system and the hope that the purpose is understandable and attainable. What that does is give one an incentive to put natural law or naive realism (which is the philosophy of natural science) in an all encompassing context of objective idealism, which is the context of religion.

So, I think Rorty is wrong when he points out:

Quote:
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.


Because, an incentive for an all "encompassing philosophy" to put an "embedded philosophy" into context does not have to be emotional or religious in nature (though for some people it can and should be).

As for me it is an intellectual pursuit to more fully understand the "universal" system my bodily "system" is embedded in. That pursuit has given me an incentive to look for an "objective intelligence" behind the universal system we view as the algorithm called the universe.

The wonderful thing is the search has lead me to a person that has claimed to be the objective creator of the algorithm we call the universe as He created it from a position outside of the system. But, He then subjected Himself to the system as he entered the system (as the man Jesus Christ), so as to deliver the "Complete Philosophy of Objective Idealism" (and deliver it in a way that only the creator of the algorithm can) necessary to put science and natural law in its logical context.

So, can we discuss naive realism put naturalism in context and how objective idealism puts naive realism in context. and, then in a purely scientific way use those philosophies to describe the natural world?

PS I through naturalism in in the end because I like to lead the discussion Cool
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2019 02:30 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:

PS I through naturalism in in the end because I like to lead the discussion Cool



PS I meant: I threw naturalism in in the end because I like to lead the discussion Cool
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2019 05:50 pm
@brianjakub,
Wiki articles can hardly be desceribed as 'generally accepted'.
I have no wish to play any more'tis so/no it aint' games about 'information'.
I wish you luck with your quest for 'understanding' which I have argued must always be limited.
https://able2know.org/topic/227612-1
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 04:32 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Wiki articles can hardly be desceribed as 'generally accepted'.
I have no wish to play any more'tis so/no it aint' games about 'information'.


Is that because wiki is wrong or you are wrong?

Quote:
I wish you luck with your quest for 'understanding' which I have argued must always be limited.


To what level of understanding. If I understand that your subjective Idealistic view is all you will consider because you think wiki is wrong then I guess you have limited yourself to a level I am not willing to impose on myself.

Thanks for the best wishes but, I am inviting you to knock down your self imposed boundaries, and keep acquiring knowledge from more diverse points of view.

I sure enjoyed the discussion and learned a lot from the experience.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2019 09:21 am
@brianjakub,
No.
Everything is Everything.

It IS what it IS.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2019 02:35 am
@mark noble,
Which statement of mine are you disagreeing with ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Answer my Question with a question????? - Discussion by Crazielady420
What is this art sytle? - Question by GlitterBot5000
Asking for a strangers opinion - Question by Dizmonster
Whats punk ring? - Question by Someonesissue
between and - Question by Amanda Lee
What should I be doing when I'm bored? - Question by badusername715
Sexuality IS fluid yet distinct - Discussion by Dillonjm94
Relationship question - Question by Jaxx101
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 11:23:36