Cogito, Ergo Sum

The problem with the premise that the unobserved may not exist, is that the vast majority of the universe is arguably unobserved.

Yet I contend, at the very least inferentially, that is does exist and would exist even without man's existence, let alone man's complete observation.

It's also a given that man's complete observation is of course an impossibility.

There is no measurable parameters by which one can make the argument that the unobserved versus the observed in any way transmutes itself, unless you make arguments to the effect of Schrodinger's Cat, and that is specific to the potential randomness of the sub atomic world

I gather that is not the point of this thread.

0 Replies

Chumly, I have no doubt that the unobservable portion of the unobserved universe exists, but, by definition, that existence is not something we can grasp in a purely non-human way. Sub-atomic physics, even while not operating in terms that the average human can understand, nevertheless operates in terms that SOME humans grasp. It is part of the human version of the Cosmos, and that version is no more than our way of interacting with "objects" subject to human experience. We will probably never interact with most of the Cosmos, and that portion exists in a manner that is for all practical purposes non-existent for us. But I am willing to acknowledge its existence without knowing what that may mean. The unobservable universe exists in one sense but not in another. Sorry to be a two-timer

0 Replies

Hi JLNobody,

I have some points of potential contention:

JLNobody wrote:

but that existence is not something we can grasp in a purely non-human way.

Perhaps but our computers (or other technologies) can or will, and we might make use of this without any grasp of it.

JLNobody wrote:

nevertheless operates in terms that SOME humans grasp.

I am not convinced that any human fully grasps this at this time, or that it is in the realm of our potential present abilities, see the bit about computers above.

JLNobody wrote:

and that portion exists in a manner that is for all practical purposes non-existent for us.

In that I contend, due to if nothing else, the implications of the butterfly effect, and that space-time may not be as isolationistic as we might now believe and/or think we perceive.

0 Replies

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Francis wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
one (idea) that I am still struggling to absorb.

Then you have to digest it...

Most of us have had at least one teacher in school, growing up, who has said something which stayed with us for the rest of our lives. Francis' statement is one of those, which has so effectively connected and brought fondly to mind.

It was an English teacher in the 7th grade, I believe whose name was Mrs. Hastings. When giving an assignment for the class, she would sometimes impress upon us to "internalize and digest" the information. Francis' follow-up instruction for good digestion is vital to "absorption" of what is being learned.

I want Francis to know that his directive is much appreciated.

0 Replies

Chumly and JLN,

When you speak of the "unobservable universe" you are in essence observing it as you speak in "your minds eye". But all structure/pattern/properties of such a universe is meaningless without a measurer of such structures/patterns/properties.

Man is the measure of all things. (Protagoras)

0 Replies

Hi Fresco,

No necessarily so, with the intervention of certain technologies the "primitive" precept of man as yardstick of all things is diminished and/or perhaps negated, if not so much now, then as things continue to progress.

A modern tech-perception is occurring, of which man may not be central, but of which he may still use and benefit from.

I exhume I can counter your perspectives (or amplify on them or ask about them etc.) and it's all in good fun?

0 Replies

Chumly,

The "interpretation" of data from complex transducers like radio-telescopes is still in the "eye" of the human beholder. There is no "data " without a hypothesis which guides its collection. "Information" is observer specific.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Chumly,

The "interpretation" of data from complex transducers like radio-telescopes is still in the "eye" of the human beholder. There is no "data " without a hypothesis which guides its collection. "Information" is observer specific.

I am not talking about the interpretation of data. That relates only to a data collecting instrument.

Think of machines (present day and/or to be) we might benefit from but of which we do not take direct part in, nor receive data from directly (if at all).

The presumption of the man-centric realty is crumbling.

0 Replies

or maybe information is universal, and the observer is specific? Smile

JLN wrote

Quote:

Cogito ergo sum should be translated as: "There is thinking that there is thinking, ergo there is thinking that there is a thinker behind the thinking". An example of our need to perceive and discuss the world grammatically (subject-predicate structure). I've said this countless times on A2K.

Hmm... so the debate has taken it's course under the assumption that a thought is something that we generate rather than recieve. I am not saying that we do recieve them, only that we can not know for sure.

This tiny point has great effect on the turn of the rest of the debate. All thoughts are then seen as the contents of the mind, as product. Following this pattern we could also agree that all smells are part of the nose, produced by it.

In the attempt to establish the boundaries of the ego (it seems prudent before involving it in such a testy phrase) we are continously led by decicions we make. Because we see ourselves containing all aspects of our personal existence, -a natural assumption following the establishment of thought as product, we cannot say for sure where our boundaries are.

Basically I am just wondering how we would relate to these issues if we saw the capacity to think as equal to the other senses. A sort of non physical sense instead of a spiritual bakery.

0 Replies

Chumly,

You seem to be moving into the territory of AI. Even if we agreed machine could "think" and that thinking was unlike human cognition, all we have is a superior "duck" with a different relationship with "its world". (I refer to my duck example above which proved "beneficial" to Steve when he ate it).

Your point about anthropocentrism is equally valid applied to any living system (or pseudo living system in the case of machines). "Existence" for
each system IS its relationship with its world. Protogoras' dictum implies that position by extrapolation.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Your point about "thinking" being nothing special is central to the Santiago theory of cognition. "Cognition" is "life"...a self sustaining and self replicating process involving continuous dynamic exchange across a "structural membrane". We may not be able to specify contents of the exchange, only its nature. i.e. there are no "thoughts" only "thinking", there are no "sights" only "seeing".

0 Replies

Hi Fresco,

I do not see it like another duck because this machine may well interact with us on a level that is superior to us, and perhaps control us with an enlarged sense of realty that we cannot encompass. What living system does all that?

I do not mean it's realty unto itself.

0 Replies

(I hope I am not breaking the continuity of the current line of discussion.)

The problem for me is that Descartes makes clarity and distinctness of subjective knowledge to be the criterion for truth.

Objects exist regardless of the observer's personal knowledge.

0 Replies

Chumly,

You are losing me now with your word "machine".

I took that to mean a device desgned by man to fulfil certain human goals. It is conceivable (just) that such a machine could cause "a few surprises" but I think you move into the realm of sci-fi when you propose that the machine becomes "superior" in some sense.

Your second point about "living systems" seems to be a non sequitur . The definition of "life" does not normally include "machines"...thats true, but some would argue that "society" or even "the earth" could be seen as "living systems" which operate at a different level of reality to our own "psychological one". The argument would then be between "different" and "superior".....does the group "control" the individual ?....some might say yes !

wandeljw,

Some of us simply cannot commune with your axiom "objects exist regardless of the observer's personal knowledge". I've presented my own argument against naive realism above, and you might refer to Kant for some classical objections.

There is a difference between our everyday dealings with a world of "objects" and the metaphysical position of philosophers who "see" that all is in flux like a weather system. Todays "rock" is tomorrows "sand". Man's "sand".... is an ant's "rock".... is a particle physicists "bunch of probabalistic wave packets"....etc. We say we "know"(intellectually) the earth goes round the sun...,yet in our everyday mode we "see" it the other way round. In the same way we "see objects"...but philosophy aspires to a "higher" vantage point.

0 Replies

fresco,

I realize that philosophy strives to attain a higher truth than realism. However, doesn't Descartes propose that the criterion for truth is that an idea is "clear and distinct" in the mind of the individual? Can this approach lead to "universal" truth?

0 Replies

wandeljw,

I am tempted to argue that I don't know what "truth" means !

However, with respect to Descartes let us say that he starts with the axiom you suggest from which he "derives" certain conclusions like the dualism of "mind" and "matter". The questions we might ask are therefore (a) is such an argument/derivation internally consistent/coherent (b) does the argument lead to an enhanced "understanding" of our existence ? I believe classical criticism of Descartes would suggest negative answers to those questions.
It follows that if what you want to call "truth" is related to such questions you have an answer of sorts.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Chumly,

You are losing me now with your word "machine".

I took that to mean a device desgned by man to fulfil certain human goals. It is conceivable (just) that such a machine could cause "a few surprises" but I think you move into the realm of sci-fi when you propose that the machine becomes "superior" in some sense.

Your second point about "living systems" seems to be a non sequitur . The definition of "life" does not normally include "machines"...thats true, but some would argue that "society" or even "the earth" could be seen as "living systems" which operate at a different level of reality to our own "psychological one". The argument would then be between "different" and "superior".....does the group "control" the individual ?....some might say yes !

No not a device designed by man to fulfil certain human goals per se, it may in fact have started that way, but it certainly does not have to be, or end up that way, witness the concept of self designing machines. I can't help the SF reference as it's my fave subject, but sometimes the precepts suggested in SF are closer to our noses than some might expect.

I guess what I am trying to suggest goes back the idea that man must be ultimate yardstick. What happens to man as the ultimate yardstick when coupled with this machine either in a real physical or mental manner or in a more removed but still interdependent or even dependant manner?

I would further suggest that in some respect these machines or their simnple predecessors are around us today.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance about the second point and living systems as I am not sure what you are referring to from my prior posts. A lot of your way of looking at things is rather new to me, but I gather my references to organic life and machine life does not sit well with you? I think I get the bit about inferior and superior and how that might affect man as the ultimate yardstick.

I hope I am saying all this with some semblance of coherence

0 Replies

Chumly,

Yes it is coherent but wheras I am entertained by some of the more speculative claims of AI, I cannot (yet) philosophically commune with HAL from 2001. I'm sure Alan Turing would have disagreed with me so allow me to pass on a recommendation of JLN's to read "The Cambridge Quintet" which explores the arguments for and against "machine intelligence".

BTW Speaking with some personal experience in AI, I can tell you that "pattern recognition" by machines is at present a crude conglomeration of high speed computing techniques which bears practically no resemblence to thought processes involving general contextual reference. Since pattern perception and extrapolation seem to central to what we mean by "human intelligence", I would say claims for machine superiority look slim.

0 Replies

Fresco, I find nothing in your posts that I do not agree with--often enthusiastically. I particularly resonate with the relativism of your representation of the human's "rock", the ant's "sand", and the particle physicist's "bunch of probabilistic wave packets" as "interactive knowledge" of the same "object". I also, as you know, hold that all human knowledge is necessarily anthropocentric. I cannot imagine how it could be otherwise.
Your statement to Chumly and myself that "When you speak of the 'unobservable universe' you are in essence observing it as you speak in 'your minds eye"'. But all structure/pattern/properties of such a universe is meaningless without a measurer of such structures/patterns/properties" is well taken. I acknowledge that my reference to an "unobservable universe" is an expression of the imagination capacity of my "minds eye." And this applies even to the unobserved but observable universe. But philosophically speaking, our human role as "measurers" of that universe's properties must ultimately be included among the properties of that universe. This is not very helpful, I know, but it helps to complete the picture as I see it.

0 Replies

JLN,

Yes ...but investigate whether "properties" is still a coherent concept without evoking an ultimate observer.

0 Replies

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know