Evidence for... (consciousness, materialism)

If I asked the pro-consciousness people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

If I asked the pro-materialism people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

This thread will explore possible answers to those questions.

So here's your chance- lay out the evidence for your view.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Whodini
If I asked the pro-consciousness people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

If I asked the pro-materialism people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

This thread will explore possible answers to those questions.

So here's your chance- lay out the evidence for your view.

I don't fall into either of the above camps, but it seems fairly obvious to me that they are both axiomatic -- no support is possible if you don't already believe it.

That's why I'm a pragmatist.

Jeremy

[rwald]

I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world. Everything else is just speculation. By Occum's Razor, all this speculation which can never be proved with evidence must be discarded. Therefore, the materialistic world is the only one we need consider."

Of course, I'm pretty sure that Stimpy can argue this better than I. He has the whole argument regarding "Science assumes the world is governed by laws, and can be tested; without this axiom, than science is meaningless" argument.

[BillyJoe]

You can speculate away to your heart's content but when you want something to hang your hat on you need evidence.

[hammegk]

Conversely;

The only thing *I* have evidence for is this *I* that thinks.
Everything else is just speculation, although *I* perceives a 'bag-o-bones', *me*, and the rest of "what-is".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by rwald
[B]I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world.


We have no evidence whatsoever.



Of course, I'm pretty sure that Stimpy can argue this better than I.



And yet again you would be wrong. Stimpy is hopeless at philosophy, he should stick to science.

[Giz]

Hmmm, where to put my money?

Scientists or philosophers/theologicans. I wonder which group has provided accurate descriptions/predictions of phenonema in the past?

(Given a few more decades of neuroscientific research this non-problem will probably be just a historical curiousity, like the Church's one-time problem with Copernican theory. Of course, some people will probably still averse to accepting a indifferent 'mechanistic' universe view for psychological reasons of their own).

[rwald]

OK, there are two routes you can take:

1. The only thing which exists is myself. Everything else is just stuff that I perceive; for all I know, I'm a brain in a vat. There is proof for nothing.

2. I think it's reasonable to assert that the reality around me is a reasonable approximation of the "real" reality. Therefore, any scientific theories composed about this reality are valid within this reality. I'm a believer of materialism.

Hammegk, if you want to choose option 1, that's fine by me. Of course, if I'm just a figment of your imagination, than why do you argue? If you agree that I probably exist, than you fall into category 2.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by rwald

Hammegk, if you want to choose option 1, that's fine by me. Of course, if I'm just a figment of your imagination, than why do you argue? If you agree that I probably exist, than you fall into category 2.

Think through the alternatives under either case and you may discover that a gentlemens' agreement is the best we can do to avoid solipsism. ;)

[rwald]

I'll grant you, we have no evidence that reality exists. If one were living solely based on logic, than yes, oen would resort to solipsism. So, I think you probably are right regarding everyone's "gentleman's agreement" to assume the world exists.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by rwald
.....So, I think you probably are right regarding everyone's "gentleman's agreement" to assume the world exists.

Or, that *I* think, and that there is a *you* that also thinks. ;)

And remember, *I* do have one, incontrovertible, data point (as do *you*). :D

[rwald]

Wait, wait, wait. Where did this *you* come from? I have evidence that *I* exist; I think, therefore I am. But how do I know that *you* exist?

[hammegk]

Hmm. Should *I* conclude you are not a gentleman who abides by agreements? :(

[rwald]

Maybe you just think that you're talking with a gentleman who abides by arguments. What evidence do you have that I exist? Only what your senses tell you. Can you trust them?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hammegk
Conversely;

The only thing *I* have evidence for is this *I* that thinks.
Everything else is just speculation....Unfortunately "you" are an illusion created by your brain. If your brain uses "you" properly it will ignore your wild speculations and listen attentively to your evidence. ;)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by rwald
Where did this *you* come from? "you" are an illusion created by your brain just as "i" am an illusion created by my brain.

Originally posted by rwald
I have evidence that *I* exist; I think, therefore I am.A common fallacy.

Thinking cannot exist in empty space.
It requires a brain.
It is the brain doing the thinking not "you".
"You" are just an illusion created by your brain.

Originally posted by rwald
But how do I know that *you* exist? You don't, but "you" exist as an illusion created by your brain.

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
"you" are an illusion created by your brain just as "i" am an illusion created by my brain.

A common fallacy.

Thinking cannot exist in empty space.
It requires a brain.
It is the brain doing the thinking not "you".
"You" are just an illusion created by your brain.

You don't, but "you" exist as an illusion created by your brain.

Can you rule out the possibility that the "I" is more like a program running on a computer, something that wouldn't exist without the computer, but isn't just an illusion created by the computer? In this context the programmer would be natural selection which simultaneously evolves a program and a computer on which to run that program.

Just a thought.

--- Argo

[rwald]

How do we know that thinking can't exist in empty space? Yes, if someone messes with my brain, my *I* will be affected. But how do I know that it's not just a coincidence, or that whatever is creating my *I* has decided to play along with the whole "brain" idea? Maybe I'm just a brain in a jar. Maybe I'm just a computer program. Maybe I don't have a physical existence of any kind at all. All I know is that in some form, *I* exist.

If someone wants to revert to pure solipsism, there is no argument you can use against them.

[MRC_Hans]

MRC_Hans' sure-fire test of the usefulness of Solipsism.

Disclaimer: This is meant as a hypothetical experiment. If you decide to carry it out in practice, you do so entirely on your own responsibility ;)

1) Find a sharp object, like a knife or scissors (Lacking those, a pencil might do).

2) Take sharp object in one hand.

3) Place other hand on table.

4) Using considerable force, press sharp object aganst hand on table.

5) Repeat procedure (#1 through #4) till you are convinced that the result is consistent.

Now for evaluation: Does it hurt? Do you bleed?

If yes, Solipsism is probably wrong and definitely useless. Obviously, no matter how it is/was created, the world acts as if it exists, and you will have to threat it as if it is real.

Hans

[rwald]

But what if who/whatever it is which is running The Matrix in which I live wants me to believe that my hand and the knife is real? Just because the results are consistent now, doesn't mean that they'll always be consistent. And correlation doesn't mean causation, as we all know. You can never disprove solipsism!

For the record, I don't actually hold to solipsism. I'm just defending it so that someone less cogent than I doesn't need to fill the void.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

A point about Solipsism.

If you take Solipsism to be the position that nothing exists except your own mind, then naturally before you can assess whether it is true or not, you must have a definition of existence.

If you define existence in such a way that things which clearly affect you (like the pointy objects is Hans' example) don't exist, as you would have to in order for Solipsism to not be trivially false, then all this means is that you have invented a totally pointless, and really stupid, definition of existence.

Unfortunately, most so-called philosophers don't ever bother to define what they mean by "existence". They simply take as granted a vague, intuitive notion of "ontological existence". Solipsism fails as a coherent philosophical position for exactly the same reason any other ontological philosophy (metaphysic) does. It is incoherent because it takes as the fundamental basis for the entire framework a concept which is not, and can not be, coherently defined.

In other words, the question is not whether we can prove Solipsism is false, or even whether it is possible to prove it false. The relevant question is: does it actually mean anything at all to say that it is true?

I say it does not.

Dr. Stupid

[rwald]

For the record, I'll define existence as "The fact that something, unquestionably, has an actual analog in whatever the "real" reality is. In other words, no matter what the "real" reality is, the thing in question is there, somewhere and somehow." I guess by that definition, the knife *is* real; maybe it's just a figment of my imagination, but doesn't that count as real? It might be more complicated than I've implied.

And yes, I would agree that pure solipsism can tell us nothing useful. Saying that "nothing exists" sure doesn't help us gain a greater understanding of the universe.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
Can you rule out the possibility that the "I" is more like a program running on a computer, something that wouldn't exist without the computer, but isn't just an illusion created by the computer? In this context the programmer would be natural selection which simultaneously evolves a program and a computer on which to run that program.
I like it. :)

Except for the bit about ithe "I" not being an illusion.
It is as much of an illusion as those "buttons" that you see on your computer screen.

What do you think?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by rwald
How do we know that thinking can't exist in empty space? Maybe I'm just a brain in a jar. A "brain in a jar" is not "empty space".

Originally posted by rwald
Maybe I'm just a computer program. A "computer program" is not "empty space"

Originally posted by rwald
Maybe I don't have a physical existence of any kind at all. Maybe, but we are doing metaphysics here not science.

Originally posted by rwald
All I know is that in some form, *I* exist.Maybe that's all you know for sure but to get any further you may need to make some assumptions.

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I like it. :)

Except for the bit about ithe "I" not being an illusion.
It is as much of an illusion as those "buttons" that you see on your computer screen.

What do you think?

The buttons on your computer screen are an illusion if they appear to be three-dimenional objects when they are actually just drawings on a flat screen. If we agree to avoid solipsism, then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen. The issue is whether facts we claim to know about the "I" are true or just misinterpretations.

The point of my computer program analogy was to question whether saying "the brain creates an illusion" makes anymore sense than saying "my computer creates a screen display". My computer makes it possible for a process running on it to create the screen display, but the computer does not create the display.

--- Argo

[rwald]

Actually, BillyJoe, you're sort of making sense. I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*. So, I'll agree that both my *I* and some physical object can be said to definitely exist.

Beyond that, however...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by rwald
Actually, BillyJoe, you're sort of making sense. I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*.

Are you able to justify this belief?

[rwald]

Interesting. As long as I support your belief, you don't feel the need to speak, but as soon as I say one thing against you, it's over. Well, I knew there was a reason I was arguing for solipsism.

Anyway, the point brought out by BillyJoe is that somewhere, somehow, there needs to be something physical which is where my *I* resides. I'm not suggesting that it's my brain, in the commonly accepted meaning of that. Maybe it's a computer. Maybe it's something more esoteric than I can conceive. I don't know. The question is, how can there not be something where my *I* "lives"? Where is my *I*, if there is nothing? What iis creating all these perceptions that I have?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by rwald
[B]Interesting. As long as I support your belief, you don't feel the need to speak, but as soon as I say one thing against you, it's over. Well, I knew there was a reason I was arguing for solipsism.


Do not be silly, I haven't even read the thread!



Anyway, the point brought out by BillyJoe is that somewhere, somehow, there needs to be something physical which is where my *I* resides.



Why?


I'm not suggesting that it's my brain, in the commonly accepted meaning of that. Maybe it's a computer. Maybe it's something more esoteric than I can conceive. I don't know. The question is, how can there not be something where my *I* "lives"? Where is my *I*, if there is nothing?



Your I is not anywhere. It doesn't have a location. How can something nonphysical have a location?





What iis creating all these perceptions that I have?

What perceptions? You mean your sensory perceptions? The external world and your mind create your sensory perceptions.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The buttons on your computer screen are an illusion if they appear to be three-dimenional objects when they are actually just drawings on a flat screen. Even the drawings are an illusion.

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons. Similarly, if you open your word processor and open an old document you are given the illusion of pages in file but there are no actual pages in there.

(When I say illusion, I do not mean delusion.
An illusion has a representation in the mind AND an existence "out there" that everyone can attest to.
A delusion has a representation in some minds but no existence "out there" that everyone can attest to.)

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
If we agree to avoid solipsism.... :)

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
.....then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen. I would say that they have an illusory existence.

Another example is an optical illusion.
The effect is there for all to see (unlike a delusion which is only there for the mental patient) but it is not really there as a bit of experimentation will demonstrate (see checker board illusion)

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The issue is whether facts we claim to know about the "I" are true or just misinterpretations. But I think the issue is whether you think the "i" is an illusion or if you think there is a
real person in there separate from the algorithm running in your brain.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by rwald
I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*. Well I would say that some physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* must exist somewhere.

Originally posted by rwald
So, I'll agree that both my *I* and some physical object can be said to definitely exist.I would say that both your illusional *I* and the physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* definitely exist.
(When I say that an illusion exists, I mean it exists in a way that a delusion does not)

Originally posted by rwald
Beyond that, however... Agreed.
But I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the "physical object" that creates the illusion of your *I* is actually your brain. ;)

[MRC_Hans]

All good points.

The idea about my test is not to disprove Solipsism, since as some mentioned, that can't really be done (and it would be proving a negative). My point was to prove that it is irrelevant: If the world insists on acting real, we need to threat it as real, otherwise we are going to get hurt.

And, that said, of course, it becomes difficult to defend Solipsism as a parsimonious theory.

Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
.

Another example is an optical illusion.
The effect is there for all to see (unlike a delusion which is only there for the mental patient) but it is not really there as a bit of experimentation will demonstrate (see checker board illusion)

[/B]

Oh don't be so absurd! Why can't anyone understand that so called "optical illusions" are not distinct from any other sensory perceptions? If optical illusions are an illusion then so is everything we ever perceptually perceive. Hardly useful to describe everything we ever see as being an illusion.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian, the term optical illusion has a specific definition. You can't just define it any way you feel like, or you make conversation difficult.

The term is defined relative to normal optical perception. It doesn't matter what the philosophy du jour is about normal optical perception.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Well I would say that some physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* must exist somewhere.


As a materialist/atheist, what else could you say? Please define "energy".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian, the term optical illusion has a specific definition. You can't just define it any way you feel like, or you make conversation difficult.

The term is defined relative to normal optical perception. It doesn't matter what the philosophy du jour is about normal optical perception.

~~ Paul

The point is they are named inappropriately. If they are illusions why aren't all our sensory perceptions labelled illusions?

[MRC_Hans]

II:

They are called optical illusions because they make us SEE something that isn't there. But there are other sensory illusions; I forget the details, but if you hold a certain grid of sharp edges against the skin, they feel cold, regardless of their actual temperature. Or try and cross your index and long finger. Now rub the V they form along the ridge of your nose: To most people, it will feel like you have two noses.

Hans

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Even the drawings are an illusion.

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons.


This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion. This makes just enough sense to keep an argument going at the pub for several hours, but in the end we would either have to say that anything named by a collective noun is an illusion or else we would have to accept that a beard is not an illusion. Take your pick.


Originally posted by BillyJoe

Similarly, if you open your word processor and open an old document you are given the illusion of pages in file but there are no actual pages in there.


I would say instead that when I open my word processor, what I am given is an image displaying a page of data, much as it would look if it was printed on paper. If there is no chance that I would confuse the screen image with a sheet of paper, then there is no illusion. The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen. It is no more of an illusion than the paintings hanging in an art gallery.



Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
.....then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I would say that they have an illusory existence.


That sounds very profound and I'm sure that there is also a sense in which a man's beard has only an illusory existence.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
But I think the issue is whether you think the "i" is an illusion or if you think there is a real person in there separate from the algorithm running in your brain.


No, I don't believe there is anything "in there" separate from the process running in my brain. However, I believe that the process exists and is not an illusion. The whole point of calling the "I" an "illusion" is to be able to say that there is nothing in your head that is real except your brain. However, my computer seems to provide a perfect counter-example to that sort of argument in that it contains not only the hardware that makes a program possible, i.e. the brain, it contains something else that makes all screen displays possible, i.e. a process.

--- Argo

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh don't be so absurd! :(

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why can't anyone understand that so called "optical illusions" are not distinct from any other sensory perceptions? Okay, there is a limited sense in which this is true.

There are things out there that we do not see at all because our retinas don't respond to the wavelength of light reflected by them into our eyes. Other things we see "accurately" because there are no confusing/conflicting sense data presented to our brains. However, when there are confusing/conflicting sense data presented to our brains, we see things other than as they "really" are. We can even see things that are not there at all. These we refer to as optical illusions. There is a sense in which many/all other optical phenomena are "optical illusions" but they differ in degree to what we refer to as optical illusions.

These "optical illusions" occur because our brains do not handle the sensory inputs totally accurately.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If optical illusions are an illusion then so is everything we ever perceptually perceive. This is only true if you can say with a straight face that an "optical illusion" for which there is a corresponding object out there is no different from an optical illusion for which there is no corresponding object out there.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hardly useful to describe everything we ever see as being an illusion. And I think it is also not useful and certainly confusing to not distinguish between different meanings of the word illusion.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hammegk
As a materialist/atheist....Materialist/nontheist, but this response takes hardly any effort on your part

Originally posted by hammegk
.....what else could you say? What else can YOU say?

Originally posted by hammegk
Please define "energy". "Off topic" until you show me relevance.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion.
This is a classic false analogy.
I didn't say "ones" and "zeros" analogous to your "individual hairs", I said "string of ones and zeros" analogous to your "beard"

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
I would say instead that when I open my word processor, what I am given is an image displaying a page of data, much as it would look if it was printed on paper. If there is no chance that I would confuse the screen image with a sheet of paper, then there is no illusion. All you are saying is that you have seen through the illusion.

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen. Is it really?
Perhaps it's a string-of-zeros-and-ones instructing a stream of electrons where to land on a screen?

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
That sounds very profound and I'm sure that there is also a sense in which a man's beard has only an illusory existence.Not as illusory as those buttons on the screen or your mind's "I".

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
No, I don't believe there is anything "in there" separate from the process running in my brain...I must have misunderstood you then.

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
However, I believe that the process exists and is not an illusion...The process is not an illusion, the process creates an illusion.


Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The whole point of calling the "I" an "illusion" is to be able to say that there is nothing in your head that is real except your brain..No, notg just your brain, your brain AND your brain's processes (that create your "I" illusion).


Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
However, my computer seems to provide a perfect counter-example to that sort of argument in that it contains not only the hardware that makes a program possible, i.e. the brain, it contains something else that makes all screen displays possible, i.e. a process..Agreed.

Perhaps I should have used the analogy of "Deep Blue", the program that beat the chess master, Kasparov.
Kasparov was convinced that the program was being augmented by input from a chess master. He was wrong. There was no "I" in there. It was just an illusion created by a very clever, complex, heuristic chess program.

Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyJoe


Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".

So you say, with -nil- data points. Whereas, *I* think; and for discussion purposes agree *you* are also aware.

Energy? Maybe elan-vital?

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
This is a classic false analogy.
I didn't say "ones" and "zeros" analogous to your "individual hairs", I said "string of ones and zeros" analogous to your "beard"


This makes no sense at all. You should stick with what you originally said, "There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons." Here "zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons" could mean, as I understood you to mean, the individual pixels that make up the simulated buttons, analogous to the individual hairs that make up the beard. In that case, your denial that there are no buttons "real or simulated" is still false, but at least I can see the analogy.



Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Is it really?
Perhaps it's a string-of-zeros-and-ones instructing a stream of electrons where to land on a screen?


You're confusing cause with effect. Sure, the cause of the "simulated buttons" is a stream of electrons landing on a screen. However, the effect is a real drawing. Both the cause and the effect are real.


Originally posted by BillyJoe
Just as the very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I".


I would be a lot more sympathetic to this idea if you would explain who it is that is fooling whom and how the trick is accomplished. For example, it is easy to see that a program could create a illusion that fools sentient bystanders, such as you and me. But the point of saying that the "I" is an illusion is not that we are fooled by it, but that the program is fooled by it. How is this accomplished?

--- Argo

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian




Your I is not anywhere. It doesn't have a location. How can something nonphysical have a location?



What perceptions? You mean your sensory perceptions? The external world and your mind create your sensory perceptions.

To the first statement. Seeing as you've made a positive assertion, please provide evidence.

As to your second, that would seem a clear concession to the apparent fact that the "I" is solely the result of wetware, i.e. chemestry operating along purely physical lines.

I think the only opposing argument to that, given current understanding, would be ultimate solipcism. I'd like to see you support that :) with evidence.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


As a materialist/atheist, what else could you say? Please define "energy".

e=mc^2 :)

Yes, I realize you're asking something different, but I think it's merely an avoidance mechanism.

The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear. We can argue if it has any real application to the universe, but if it doesn't, we're going to have to get into why it predicts so many things.

[jj]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Materialist/nontheist, but this response takes hardly any effort on your part

What else can YOU say?

"Off topic" until you show me relevance.

You'll find that's the kind of response you get from Hammegk unless he thinks he can manipulate it to his favour.

I'm still waiting for a solid, meaningful response to his assertions in the "Bull Curve" thread. Given his apparent unwillingness to do anything besides catcall, insult, and avoid answering his own assertions, I'll probably be waiting a while.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


You'll find that's the kind of response you get from Hammegk unless he thinks he can manipulate it to his favour.

...

Temper, temper. Are you referring to earlier sword-crossing we had in the Intelligence thread, or in the the I Can't Believe I Used To Believe That thread?

Or somewhere else? I haven't found and don't recall a Bell (or Bull) Curve thread. :confused:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


e=mc^2 :)


Cute.

To define mass, would you say m=F/a? Both are equally meaningless as a definition.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Cute.

To define mass, would you say m=F/a? Both are equally meaningless as a definition.

You did, of course, avoid the rest of the article, which had the meat of the reply in it.

I will say that energy seems well-defined to me. Mass, though, while it is defined, is harder to explain, as in "why does mass in fact have mass", so to speak.

Energy, however, is not in quite that situation.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


You did, of course, avoid the rest of the article, which had the meat of the reply in it.

Okey-dokey, I'll bite. You said, "The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear."

Which equation(s) do you prefer to cite that define energy?

I will say that energy seems well-defined to me. Mass, though, while it is defined, is harder to explain, as in "why does mass in fact have mass", so to speak.


At least Einstein "explained" why inertial mass = gravitational mass.

But "what is mass" is also a toughy .. Higgs field at least tries to answer.

For "energy", as I see it that also seems to flow directly from the "gravitational attraction" of that "mass", taking into account the actual pressure-temperature-spatial regime we want to examine. ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Okey-dokey, I'll bite. You said, "The mathematical physics definition of energy is pretty clear."

Which equation(s) do you prefer to cite that define energy?
Those that relate it to heat and work. Yes, I know, that seems rather circular, HOWEVER there has proven to be a fair amount of predictive value in the arrangement, so I'm not so concerned. Is it exact? Is anything exact?


At least Einstein "explained" why inertial mass = gravitational mass.[\B] Yes. We've gotten that far.

But "what is mass" is also a toughy .. Higgs field at least tries to answer.

For "energy", as I see it that also seems to flow directly from the "gravitational attraction" of that "mass", taking into account the actual pressure-temperature-spatial regime we want to examine. ;) [/B]

But "what is mass" is as yet unanswered. Higgs fields haven't gotten to the point where they have been very predictive. Other attempts have predicted and burned...

Energy, though, does not flow just from gravitational attraction, but also frm the MC^2 component of QM that gives us chemical energy, etc. You've got to include quite a few "forms", all of which can be interchanged with some loss of this or that sort according to thermo, with rather a great lot of predictive accuracy.

As opposed to "why is a gram a gram"... :)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
All good points.

The idea about my test is not to disprove Solipsism, since as some mentioned, that can't really be done (and it would be proving a negative). My point was to prove that it is irrelevant: If the world insists on acting real, we need to threat it as real, otherwise we are going to get hurt.

And, that said, of course, it becomes difficult to defend Solipsism as a parsimonious theory.

Hans

Why do you keep spelling 'treat' as 'threat'? :D

Although I like the idea of threatening the real world! :D

*shakes fist at world*

"You better be real or I'm gonna......"

Adam

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


Energy, though, does not flow just from gravitational attraction, but also frm the MC^2 component of QM that gives us chemical energy, etc. ...
And your nomination of the source for mc^^2 energy? I still like gravitational attaction as the heart of the "matter". ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

And your nomination of the source for mc^^2 energy? I still like gravitational attaction as the heart of the "matter". ;)

Workable, perhaps. Has some interesting effects on black holes, though, then.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hammegk
So you say, with -nil- data points. Ditto.

Originally posted by hammegk
Whereas, *I* think; and for discussion purposes agree *you* are also aware.Feel free to expand on your point. Failing that I'm going to find it hard to comment on what you've written here.

Originally posted by hammegk
Energy? Maybe elan-vital? Elan vital??? :cool:

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by argus nimbus
You should stick with what you originally said, "There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons." This is a selective quote. The full quote appears below......

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
Here "zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons" could mean, as I understood you to mean, the individual pixels that make up the simulated buttons, analogous to the individual hairs that make up the beard.. You understood incorrectly.
The "string of ones and zeros" is the machine level computer program which codes for everything that appears on the screen (apart from the input from the user).

Originally posted by argo nimbus
In that case, your denial that there are no buttons "real or simulated" is still false..... All I am saying here is that there are no real buttons and no simulated buttons in the program. There are only representations of the simulated buttons that appear on the screen.
It is in this sense that the simulated buttons are an illusion.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
You're confusing cause with effect. Sure, the cause of the "simulated buttons" is a stream of electrons landing on a screen. However, the effect is a real drawing. Both the cause and the effect are real. There is a whole series of causes and effects actually.....

The program causes the effect of electronic switches turning on and off.
The electronic switches turning on and off causes the effect of electrons streaming onto a screen.
Electrons streaming onto a screen causes the effect of buttons appearing on the screen.

Ultimately it is the combination of software and hardware that produces the "illusion" of buttons on the screen.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
I would be a lot more sympathetic to this idea (that a very clever, complex, heuristic program running in your brain creates the illusion of your "I") if you would explain who it is that is fooling whom and how the trick is accomplished. There is no-one or nothing fooling or tricking anyone or anything. It has nothing to do with "fooling" or "tricking".

The effect evolved by random mutation and natural selection. The brain evolved to contain a representation of itself as a survival mechanism. This representation of itself evolved to such a degree that the *I* felt itself to be a separate entity from the brain rather than a consequence/correlation of brain function.

Again, it is in this sense that the *I* is an illusion.

Originally posted by argo nimbus
For example, it is easy to see that a program could create a illusion that fools sentient bystanders, such as you and me. But the point of saying that the "I" is an illusion is not that we are fooled by it, but that the program is fooled by it. How is this accomplished?Illusions are not tom-foolery.

We really do see the squares in the checker board illusion as being of very different shades of grey. It is only when we perform some manipulations that we realize that the shades of grey are actually identical.

Illusions are not tricks.

They are real phenomena. They are a consequence of the imperfect way in which our brains deal with sensory input. Our brains are more interested in distinguishing contrasts in shades of grey between adjacent areas than between non adjacent or distant areas. Those two squares in question look to be diferent shades of grey because they have different representations in the brain. However "out there" these squares have indentical shades of grey.

It is in this sense that everything is an illusion (yes, Ian)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ditto.
You are wrong. *I* do have one incontrovertible data point -- thought.

Elan vital??? :cool:

Question is where. String level? Higgs itself? "what-is"?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hammegk
Question is where. String level? Higgs itself? "what-is"? Question is is it anywhere? What is "what-is"?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


Why do you keep spelling 'treat' as 'threat'? :D

Although I like the idea of threatening the real world! :D

*shakes fist at world*

"You better be real or I'm gonna......"

Adam :o Oops. Checked dictionary now, sorry. Well, that comes from writing too fast in a foreign language. :rolleyes:

How is it with Halloween? You are threatening tricks to get treats? :p

Hans

Originally posted by rwald
I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world. Everything else is just speculation.

Which is of course, backwards.

The only thing you ACTUALLY have any evidence for is your own qualia i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS. Everything else really is just speculation.....but we have been here before....yawn.

;)

[BillyJoe]

Ian has a TRICK COIN that comes up HEADS everytime. This is easy because his trick coin is DOUBLE-HEADED.
But there is also a MAGIC COIN. It has THREE SIDES, all different, and any one of them can come up whenever you wish.

SIDE 1: Everything is an Illusion
The idea that light comes out of your eyes so that you can see what's out there is dead.
The idea that there is a "theatre" in the brain where you can see exactly what's out there is dead.
Light enters your eyes and a cascade of processes results in a representation in your brain of what's out there.
It is in this sense that "everything is an illusion".

SIDE 2: The Optical Illusion.
Different features are represented in different areas of the brain and sometimes this results in totally inaccurate representations.
Sometimes we "see" two different shades of grey where the shades are actually identical.
Sometimes we "see" a coloured square where there is actually no square at all.

SIDE 3: The User Illusion (The Mind's I)
In it's interaction with the outside world, it became a survival advantage for the brain to have a representation of itself. The brain's "I" became the most important feature of the brain and became so highly developed that if seemed as if the "I" had become separate from the brain using the brain for it's own ends.
This is the user illusion.

What takes your fancy?
Ian's double-headed trick coin or BillyJoe's triple-sided magic coin?

regards,
BillyJoe

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Which is of course, backwards.

The only thing you ACTUALLY have any evidence for is your own qualia i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS. Everything else really is just speculation.....but we have been here before....yawn.

;)


So we have no observation?

Can I have evidence for my personality? Is personality part of conciousness?

Can conciousness exist if whatever has it cannot think?

[jj]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Which is of course, backwards.

The only thing you ACTUALLY have any evidence for is your own qualia i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS. Everything else really is just speculation.....but we have been here before....yawn.

;)

Yes, and since everything doesn't go the way I would prefer, I can easily reject that ultimate solipcism, which leaves me with, of course, the conclusion that external reality exists. The alternative would be to accept that Hammegk was my evil id. :D

Next, please.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj
The alternative would be to accept that Hammegk was my evil id. :D

Next, please.

I think it more likely you are my anima.

However, again, the only certain way to avoid solipsism under any metaphysic is by gentlemens' agreement. :(

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


I think it more likely you are my anima.

However, again, the only certain way to avoid solipsism under any metaphysic is by gentlemens' agreement. :(

Could we both be Win's superego? :cool:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
[B]


So we have no observation?


Observation is consciousness!


Can conciousness exist if whatever has it cannot think?


Don't understand the question. Does a fish "think"?

Originally posted by jj


Yes, and since everything doesn't go the way I would prefer, I can easily reject that ultimate solipcism, which leaves me with, of course, the conclusion that external reality exists. The alternative would be to accept that Hammegk was my evil id. :D

Next, please.

Solipsism is not the same thing as idealism.

Next Please. :)

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Observation is consciousness!



Don't understand the question. Does a fish "think"?


1. So how can a plant have conciousness, if it has no brain or nervous system of sorts to allow it to observe things?

What about thinking? Is that conciousness, a part of conciousness, or a product of conciousness?

Or, is conciousness a product of thinking, or being able to think?

2. The question is, "Can conciousness exist in something which cannot think?"

DC:


So how can a plant have conciousness, if it has no brain or nervous system of sorts to allow it to observe things?

What about thinking? Is that conciousness, a part of conciousness, or a product of conciousness?

Or, is conciousness a product of thinking, or being able to think?

2. The question is, "Can conciousness exist in something which cannot think?"


What is meant by "think"?

The calculations?
The qualia?
Both?
Does a silcon-based neural net "think"?
Can you "think" without language?

I would say the answer is yes - a fish is conscious but does not "think".

[jj]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Solipsism is not the same thing as idealism.

Next Please. :)

Irrelevant and misleading.

We were discussing the "proof" of external entities to ourselves.

You're further proof. I could never imagine you.:D

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
DC:



What is meant by "think"?

The calculations?
The qualia?
Both?
Does a silcon-based neural net "think"?
Can you "think" without language?

I would say the answer is yes - a fish is conscious but does not "think".

Think, as in, ideas and thought-processes...

[Lord Kenneth]

And I would say a fish does think, although primitively, and not nearly to the level of a human does.

However, a Jellyfish, I think does not.