Are You Conscious? - Page 50

AlBell · 15th February 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Then why are we talking about it at all?

Because that's what critters possessing a language do?

Quote:

If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning.

A noble quest; doomed to failure apparently.

Quote:

I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word.

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

Quote:

You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term.

So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it.

So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand".

Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by.

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

Robin · 15th February 2010, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look.

Quote:

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant.

Robin · 15th February 2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by.

But in this discussion we struggle, but don't struggle by.

For the precise reason I am saying.

AlBell · 15th February 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Originally Posted by AlBell

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look.

We are certainly talking past one another.

Quote:

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant.

You have introduced it previously.

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

Robin · 16th February 2010, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

You have introduced it previously.

Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney.

Quote:

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection.

Just don't see the connection.

Quote:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.

AlBell · 16th February 2010, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney.

Just don't see the connection.

No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language? I suspect at least a few other posters will 'see the connection'. And if not, again, no matter.

Quote:

I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.

That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh.

You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter.

Robin · 16th February 2010, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language?

Sure. I have never, ever heard that pun before.

Quote:

That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh.

You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter.

What are you talking about?

You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics.

I asked you to go ahead and provide the demonstration.

And you answer with the above non-sequitur.

AlBell · 16th February 2010, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics.

No, I didn't. Read it again.

Robin · 16th February 2010, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

No, I didn't. Read it again.

Here it is in full:

Quote:

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

So you are saying:

Quote:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

Yes?

So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere?

Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so.

AlBell · 16th February 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Originally Posted by AlBell

No, I didn't. Read it again.

So you are saying:

Quote:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere?

Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now. And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism.

Quote:

Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so.

To meet the current medical definition of consciousness, of course I can demonstrate that objectively when physically present for analysis by doctors and equipment.

For example http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../consciousness

Quote:

consciousness
[kon′shəsnes]
a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
consciousness,
n a state in which the individual is capable of rational response to questioning and has all protective reflexes intact, including the ability to maintain a patent airway.
Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
consciousness
the state of being conscious; responsiveness of the brain to impressions made by the senses. Altered states range from the normal, complete alertness to depression, confusion, delirium and finally loss of consciousness.

I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'?

Robin · 16th February 2010, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now.

And if this is all that you mean, then I agree.

Quote:

And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism.

I recall it well - but I don't recall introducing the term "material world" in it.

Quote:

I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'?

As I said before, "material world" is a chain of fabric shops in Sydney, other than that I don't know what the term means.

I certainly don't think that language occupies a realm of it's own.

AlBell · 17th February 2010, 09:59 AM

From a post of yours in an older thread:

Quote:

Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model?

If so then it is physical.

Is language physical?

Robin · 17th February 2010, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Is language physical?

In my opinion, yes.

westprog · 17th February 2010, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Then why are we talking about it at all?

If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning.

I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word.

You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term.

So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it.

So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand".

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

AlBell · 17th February 2010, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Originally Posted by AlBell

Is language physical?

In my opinion, yes.

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

Robin · 17th February 2010, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

And sometimes we misunderstand. And sometimes we think we understand, but don't. So what is the criteria that we use to determine, "I understand" or "you understand"?

Robin · 17th February 2010, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself.

Materialist

Quote:

Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

Yes.

Quote:

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

I think the questions you are asking are definitely relevent to the thread.

And you are beginning to ask the right questions.

Dancing David · 18th February 2010, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

From a post of yours in an older thread:

Is language physical?

Um, what part isn't?

Dancing David · 18th February 2010, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

They are desciption of relations of physical objects. (As created in mental verbal constructs in self referencing symbolic transfer between apparent physical objects.)

Dancing David · 18th February 2010, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

Yup and we end up with 'Kill the witch" and "African or European swallow."

AlBell · 18th February 2010, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yup and we end up with 'Kill the witch" and "African or European swallow."

Do you suggest that we will eventually just run all these semantic (but iyo physical) constructs through the system:

"Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model?

If so then it is physical."

and answer all questions "correctly" with the logical systems of math and physics?

If not, why not?

Dancing David · 18th February 2010, 01:06 PM

I am not sure I got the question, I will read it again. Sorry. There is a hoarde of third graders in the lab on my break.

Woolgatherer · 18th February 2010, 01:16 PM

I'm a legend when I'm not conscious. When I'm conscious I have to work really fast because I know the snack from break will soon render me unconscious.

Robin · 18th February 2010, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am not sure I got the question, I will read it again. Sorry. There is a hoarde of third graders in the lab on my break.

He is quoting something I said a while back and maintaining the typo in it.

I asked (of something, I forget what) :

"Is it consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model?

If so, then it is physical."

I am not sure why he is asking you.

Dancing David · 19th February 2010, 04:15 AM

AlBell, I don't get your point. Wether people like it or not some of us disagree with the kantian meta-space. There is no 'abstract' as a 'real' place. All abstractions are conceptual shorthand for physical events.

Now there are many different flavors of the alternative, those who argue that patterns in systems are not 'physical' up to full blown imaterialists.

My POV is that I am a 'methodological naturalist' (philosophical label) while I would currently label myself as a 'pragmatic nihilist'. I firmly believe that ontology has no bearing on anything. If we are matter/energy, butterfly dreams, godthought or BIVs does not make any difference. The world and reality would be exactly the same.

Immaterialism and materialism will behave exactly the same and both reduce to the same end result.

Beth · 19th February 2010, 07:44 PM

[quote=Robin]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Quote:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.

This is an interesting idea to contemplate. What form could such a mathematical description take? How would you go about demonstrating that it isn't possible? Hmmm. Maybe using the uncertainty principle? Maybe using the incompleteness theorem?

More on this later.

Originally Posted by AlBell

Is language physical?

I think this is a key question.

Originally Posted by Robin

In my opinion, yes.

While I think not. Why do I feel that way? Basically because I think it's simply too much of a stretch of the term physical. What about numbers? Will you call numbers physical too? I just can't do it. Such things are not physical to me. Things less substantial than rainbows and sunshine don't count as physical to me. Think of it as a cultural bias on my part. One I am unable or unwilling to discard.

Originally Posted by AlBell

Do you suggest that we will eventually just run all these semantic (but iyo physical) constructs through the system:

"Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model?

If so then it is physical."

and answer all questions "correctly" with the logical systems of math and physics?

If not, why not?

The problem isn't that we can't do that, the problem is that we can't do so satisfactorily.
I could define consciousness = 1 and dead = 0 and asleep = .5. That's a mathematical model of consciousness. It's just a very poor one.

We should eventually be able to get what engineers call "close enough". Right now, only folks like RD and Pixy think we're there. We're certainly developing better and more useful artificial intelligences.

On the other hand, I find it quite plausible that we'll never get all the way there. It might be possible to prove it mathematically. It's an interesting question. If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely.

rocketdodger · 20th February 2010, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Beth

This is an interesting idea to contemplate. What form could such a mathematical description take? How would you go about demonstrating that it isn't possible? Hmmm. Maybe using the uncertainty principle? Maybe using the incompleteness theorem?

I think it would be very difficult to provide a mathematical proof that mathematics is insufficient to describe consciousness.

Maybe providing a non-mathematical proof would be easier. But that just brings up the question of -- who cares about a non-mathematical proof? I certainly don't.

Robin · 20th February 2010, 02:44 AM

[quote=Beth;5636930I think this is a key question. [/quote]
You need to be explicit about why.

Quote:

While I think not.

That might be an interesting debate, but first you or Albell need to tell me your point.

I was stating that definitions should be, wherever possible, clear, precise and non-circular and that most words in consciousness debates tend to have definitions that are none of the above.

So Albell brought in the question about the ontology of language, but has not made the connection clear.

Is language excused from clarity if it is not physical?

Robin · 20th February 2010, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beth

The problem isn't that we can't do that, the problem is that we can't do so satisfactorily.
I could define consciousness = 1 and dead = 0 and asleep = .5. That's a mathematical model of consciousness. It's just a very poor one.

We should eventually be able to get what engineers call "close enough". Right now, only folks like RD and Pixy think we're there. We're certainly developing better and more useful artificial intelligences.

On the other hand, I find it quite plausible that we'll never get all the way there. It might be possible to prove it mathematically. It's an interesting question. If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely.

That is rather confusing. Since our neural system are build from the fundamental particles then they do use quantum theory.

How would that establish as fact that there can't be a mathematical model of consciousness?

Darat · 20th February 2010, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Beth

...snip.... If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely.

That seems to be contradictory? What you are saying is that if our neural system can be accurately modeled by a mathematical theory (i.e. quantum mechanics) that would prove that consciousness can't be mathematically described?

Beth · 20th February 2010, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

You need to be explicit about why.

I think it's key because I think that is the question that delineates people who are materialists from those who do not consider themselves to be materialists. Why do you consider language physical?

Quote:

That might be an interesting debate, but first you or Albell need to tell me your point.

I was stating that definitions should be, wherever possible, clear, precise and non-circular and that most words in consciousness debates tend to have definitions that are none of the above.

So Albell brought in the question about the ontology of language, but has not made the connection clear.

Is language excused from clarity if it is not physical?

I wouldn't say 'excused'. It's more like inherent. It's part of the whole subjective/objective debate. Can something that is inherently subjective ever be described as clearly as something that can be objectively measured? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Robin

That is rather confusing. Since our neural system are build from the fundamental particles then they do use quantum theory.

How would that establish as fact that there can't be a mathematical model of consciousness?

I should have been more precise about what I was saying. Clearly there can be mathematical models of consciousness. I gave one in my previous post. But if quantum effects are used by our neural system in constructing consciousness, then I don't think it can ever be perfectly described by a mathematical model. We will only be able to make mathematical models that approximately represent consciousness. Much like we can never have a complete decimal representation of pi or the square root of two. We can only approximate irrational numbers with the decimal system.

westprog · 20th February 2010, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

And sometimes we misunderstand. And sometimes we think we understand, but don't. So what is the criteria that we use to determine, "I understand" or "you understand"?

We carry on the conversation. That's why we don't spend long talking to the Chinese guy who doesn't speak English. We don't understand him and he doesn't understand us.

This is not esoteric - this is how we live.

Robin · 20th February 2010, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

I think it's key because I think that is the question that delineates people who are materialists from those who do not consider themselves to be materialists.

No, I mean what does it have to do with the point that AlBell was responding to about words and definitions.

Quote:

Why do you consider language physical?

If you are really interested, please start a new thread and I will respond there. For the moment I am more interested in the point I was making - the one that AlBell was responding to.

Quote:

I wouldn't say 'excused'. It's more like inherent. It's part of the whole subjective/objective debate. Can something that is inherently subjective ever be described as clearly as something that can be objectively measured? I don't think so.

The words I was using for an example were "understand" and "sensation". Are these things inherently subjective? Could these things never have an objective definition?

Quote:

I should have been more precise about what I was saying. Clearly there can be mathematical models of consciousness. I gave one in my previous post. But if quantum effects are used by our neural system in constructing consciousness, then I don't think it can ever be perfectly described by a mathematical model. We will only be able to make mathematical models that approximately represent consciousness. Much like we can never have a complete decimal representation of pi or the square root of two. We can only approximate irrational numbers with the decimal system.

But everthing else works by quantum mechanism - the Sun, the Moon, plants etc. None of these things will ever be perfectly described by mathematical models.

And even if this were a Newtonian Universe we could still never describe anything perfectly using mathematical models - not even in principle.

But the Sun is still physical by my definition. My definition did not exclude probability as a branch of mathematics.

Robin · 20th February 2010, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

We carry on the conversation. That's why we don't spend long talking to the Chinese guy who doesn't speak English. We don't understand him and he doesn't understand us.

So you're criterion for deciding if somebody understands you is that they continue the conversation with you?

Has nobody ever misunderstood something you said and yet continued the conversation?

Quote:

This is not esoteric - this is how we live

It is also completely in line with my definition of "understand".

Beth · 20th February 2010, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

No, I mean what does it have to do with the point that AlBell was responding to about words and definitions.

If you are really interested, please start a new thread and I will respond there. For the moment I am more interested in the point I was making - the one that AlBell was responding to.

Fair nuff, but I'm not able to spend much time posting at the moment. Perhaps some other time.

Quote:

The words I was using for an example were "understand" and "sensation". Are these things inherently subjective? Could these things never have an objective definition?

I think so. We can get close with consensus regarding the definitions, but the current consensus is not objective. I see no reason to presume that someday there will be such a definition

Quote:

But everthing else works by quantum mechanism - the Sun, the Moon, plants etc. None of these things will ever be perfectly described by mathematical models.

Right. Which is way, as I said, I am comfortable with that conclusion.

Quote:

And even if this were a Newtonian Universe we could still never describe anything perfectly using mathematical models - not even in principle.

But the Sun is still physical by my definition. My definition did not exclude probability as a branch of mathematics.

Probability is a way to make approximate models. I'm comfortable accepting that nothing in our universe can be perfectly described by mathematical models. The only thing mathematical models describe perfectly are mathematical realms.

This doesn't mean that I can't make a distinction between things like the sun - a large material object - and language, which isn't material IMO. Basically, I think we have mathematical models are sufficiently accurate in predicting things like planetary orbits that the difference between reality and the predictions are not worth niggling over. Sure, there are very low probability events that we are unable to predict at this time, but it's close enough to satisfy me.

On the other hand, the mathematical models we have describing more ethereal subjects such as music and language are not. The question then becomes do we wish to presume that we will be able to develop better and better models until the accuracy approaches that of calculating planetary orbits? Or do we presume otherwise? I see no reason to prefer one presumption to the other. Maybe someday, but I don't expect to see anything like that in my lifetime. It is a leap of faith to accept either presumption as true.

Robin · 20th February 2010, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

Probability is a way to make approximate models.

No, if it is a probabilistic model and the underlying system is random then it is not an approximate model, it is an accurate model.

If a model of a dynamic system does not give an exact prediction and according to the model we should not be able to get an exact prediction then that is also an accurate model.

If the model says that we should only be able to get a prediction within a certain error margin and our prediction is correct within that error margin then it is an accurate model.

Now there are things, like the weather, which we can only model approximately, not because our model is wrong but because of the complexity of the system. The human brain is also massively complex.

Quote:

This doesn't mean that I can't make a distinction between things like the sun - a large material object - and language, which isn't material

I can make that distinction too. Language is not an object, it is a process.

Beth · 21st February 2010, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

No, if it is a probabilistic model and the underlying system is random then it is not an approximate model, it is an accurate model.

If it is random, then it cannot be modeled perfectly. Probabilistic models are the best we can do, but they are approximations by their very nature. Accuracy is another issue. Approximations can be very accurate. For example, the value of pi cannot be expressed an a decimal. Although we can use a decimal value that has whatever level of precision we want, it remains an approximation.

Quote:

If a model of a dynamic system does not give an exact prediction and according to the model we should not be able to get an exact prediction then that is also an accurate model.

If the model says that we should only be able to get a prediction within a certain error margin and our prediction is correct within that error margin then it is an accurate model.

Now there are things, like the weather, which we can only model approximately, not because our model is wrong but because of the complexity of the system. The human brain is also massively complex.

"All models are wrong. Some models are useful" - Dr. George W. Box.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. I agree that some models make approximations that are very accurate and the more complex the system the more difficult it is to create models with a useful level of accuracy.

Whether or not subjective 'things' like language or consciousness can ever be modeled to the degree of accuracy that we can obtain for more material things is an unanswered question. One not likely to be answered in my lifetime.

You didn't respond to this part of my previous post and I'm still curious to know your opinion.

Originally Posted by Beth

The question then becomes do we wish to presume that we will be able to develop better and better models [of subjective things? processes?] until the accuracy approaches that of calculating planetary orbits? Or do we presume otherwise?

Quote:

I can make that distinction too. Language is not an object, it is a process.

Do you consider a process to be a material thing? If so, what material components is it made of? If it isn't a material thing, doesn't that make it a non-material thing? I tend to favor the latter POV. Whether you describe it as a process, a pattern, or an idea, such things seems wholly immaterial to me. Consider the quote in my sig: What are we if we are not the stuff we are made of?

westprog · 21st February 2010, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

So you're criterion for deciding if somebody understands you is that they continue the conversation with you?

Yes. I suspect that it's approximately your criterion as well.

Quote:

Has nobody ever misunderstood something you said and yet continued the conversation?

As you've pointed out, all systems work to a degree of accuracy.

Quote:

It is also completely in line with my definition of "understand".

Robin · 21st February 2010, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

If it is random, then it cannot be modeled perfectly. Probabilistic models are the best we can do, but they are approximations by their very nature.

No, if it is random then a probabilistic model describes it perfectly.

Quote:

Accuracy is another issue. Approximations can be very accurate. For example, the value of pi cannot be expressed an a decimal. Although we can use a decimal value that has whatever level of precision we want, it remains an approximation.

You are confusing a random system with a continuous deterministic system.

Quote:

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

That is what I am trying to find out from you. My point is about language and definitions. You and AlBell keep dragging ontology into it and you will never tell me what it has to do with my original point

Quote:

I agree that some models make approximations that are very accurate and the more complex the system the more difficult it is to create models with a useful level of accuracy.

Whether or not subjective 'things' like language or consciousness can ever be modeled to the degree of accuracy that we can obtain for more material things is an unanswered question. One not likely to be answered in my lifetime.

You didn't respond to this part of my previous post and I'm still curious to know your opinion.

I said already - if you want to argue the toss about whether language is physical - start a new thread.

The point I made was that, as in all consciousness debates, we are talking across each other because we have no agreed definition of the key term.

So I have suggested that we focus on looking at the meaning of the word and seeing if we can agree a definition.

If we can't agree a definition for the key term of the debate then it is probably time to stop talking.

But then you and AlBell start dragging ontology into it without saying what it has to do with my point.

Robin · 21st February 2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes. I suspect that it's approximately your criterion as well.

Yes, I defined understanding behaviourally, but merely talking back at someone is not sufficient.

If I make a point and someone comes back talking gibberish about how I must believe in angelic unicorns that travel faster than light then I don't even consider that this person has even the faintest glimmering of comprehension about what I was saying. Or what they are saying, for that matter.

Quote:

As you've pointed out, all systems work to a degree of accuracy.

And the accuracy of just about any system can be improved.

Of course, what a stupid question	89	61.81%
Maybe	40	27.78%
No	15	10.42%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

15th February 2010, 12:15 PM	#1961
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin Then why are we talking about it at all? Because that's what critters possessing a language do? Quote: If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning. A noble quest; doomed to failure apparently. Quote: I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word. I think you assume facts not in evidence. Quote: You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term. So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it. So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand". Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by. This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487

15th February 2010, 01:23 PM	#1962
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell I think you assume facts not in evidence. The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look. Quote: This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'. That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

15th February 2010, 01:25 PM	#1963
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by. But in this discussion we struggle, but don't struggle by. For the precise reason I am saying.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

15th February 2010, 01:37 PM	#1964
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin Originally Posted by AlBell I think you assume facts not in evidence. The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look. We are certainly talking past one another. Quote: Quote: This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'. That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant. You have introduced it previously. And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487

16th February 2010, 01:57 AM	#1965
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell You have introduced it previously. Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney. Quote: And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. Just don't see the connection. Quote: And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter. I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

16th February 2010, 05:32 AM	#1966
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney. Just don't see the connection. No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language? I suspect at least a few other posters will 'see the connection'. And if not, again, no matter. Quote: I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it. That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh. You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487

16th February 2010, 10:28 AM	#1967
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language? Sure. I have never, ever heard that pun before. Quote: That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh. You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter. What are you talking about? You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics. I asked you to go ahead and provide the demonstration. And you answer with the above non-sequitur.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

16th February 2010, 11:56 AM	#1968
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics. No, I didn't. Read it again.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

16th February 2010, 12:42 PM	#1969
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell No, I didn't. Read it again. Here it is in full: Quote: And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter. So you are saying: Quote: And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter. Yes? So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere? Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 16th February 2010 at 12:52 PM.

16th February 2010, 02:34 PM	#1970
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin Originally Posted by AlBell No, I didn't. Read it again. So you are saying: Quote: And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter. So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere? Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now. And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism. Quote: Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so. To meet the current medical definition of consciousness, of course I can demonstrate that objectively when physically present for analysis by doctors and equipment. For example http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../consciousness Quote: consciousness [kon′shəsnes] a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. consciousness, n a state in which the individual is capable of rational response to questioning and has all protective reflexes intact, including the ability to maintain a patent airway. Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. consciousness the state of being conscious; responsiveness of the brain to impressions made by the senses. Altered states range from the normal, complete alertness to depression, confusion, delirium and finally loss of consciousness. I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487

16th February 2010, 03:22 PM	#1971
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now. And if this is all that you mean, then I agree. Quote: And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism. I recall it well - but I don't recall introducing the term "material world" in it. Quote: I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'? As I said before, "material world" is a chain of fabric shops in Sydney, other than that I don't know what the term means. I certainly don't think that language occupies a realm of it's own.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

17th February 2010, 09:59 AM	#1972
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	From a post of yours in an older thread: Quote: Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model? If so then it is physical. Is language physical?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

17th February 2010, 12:24 PM	#1973
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell Is language physical? In my opinion, yes.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

17th February 2010, 12:44 PM	#1974
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Robin Then why are we talking about it at all? If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning. I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word. You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term. So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it. So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand". My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

17th February 2010, 02:25 PM	#1975
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Robin Originally Posted by AlBell Is language physical? In my opinion, yes. Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms. So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical? No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

17th February 2010, 02:38 PM	#1976
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by westprog My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means. And sometimes we misunderstand. And sometimes we think we understand, but don't. So what is the criteria that we use to determine, "I understand" or "you understand"?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

17th February 2010, 02:39 PM	#1977
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by AlBell Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Materialist Quote: Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms. So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical? Yes. Quote: No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail. I think the questions you are asking are definitely relevent to the thread. And you are beginning to ask the right questions.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 17th February 2010 at 02:41 PM.

18th February 2010, 04:50 AM	#1978
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by AlBell From a post of yours in an older thread: Is language physical? Um, what part isn't?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

18th February 2010, 04:52 AM	#1979
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by AlBell Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms. So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical? No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail. They are desciption of relations of physical objects. (As created in mental verbal constructs in self referencing symbolic transfer between apparent physical objects.)
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

18th February 2010, 04:54 AM	#1980
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by westprog My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means. Yup and we end up with 'Kill the witch" and "African or European swallow."
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

18th February 2010, 06:08 AM	#1981
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487	Originally Posted by Dancing David Yup and we end up with 'Kill the witch" and "African or European swallow." Do you suggest that we will eventually just run all these semantic (but iyo physical) constructs through the system: "Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model? If so then it is physical." and answer all questions "correctly" with the logical systems of math and physics? If not, why not?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,487

18th February 2010, 01:06 PM	#1982
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	I am not sure I got the question, I will read it again. Sorry. There is a hoarde of third graders in the lab on my break.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 18th February 2010 at 01:07 PM.

18th February 2010, 01:16 PM	#1983
Woolgatherer Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 875	I'm a legend when I'm not conscious. When I'm conscious I have to work really fast because I know the snack from break will soon render me unconscious.
Woolgatherer Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 875

18th February 2010, 07:10 PM	#1984
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Dancing David I am not sure I got the question, I will read it again. Sorry. There is a hoarde of third graders in the lab on my break. He is quoting something I said a while back and maintaining the typo in it. I asked (of something, I forget what) : "Is it consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model? If so, then it is physical." I am not sure why he is asking you.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

19th February 2010, 04:15 AM	#1985
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	AlBell, I don't get your point. Wether people like it or not some of us disagree with the kantian meta-space. There is no 'abstract' as a 'real' place. All abstractions are conceptual shorthand for physical events. Now there are many different flavors of the alternative, those who argue that patterns in systems are not 'physical' up to full blown imaterialists. My POV is that I am a 'methodological naturalist' (philosophical label) while I would currently label myself as a 'pragmatic nihilist'. I firmly believe that ontology has no bearing on anything. If we are matter/energy, butterfly dreams, godthought or BIVs does not make any difference. The world and reality would be exactly the same. Immaterialism and materialism will behave exactly the same and both reduce to the same end result.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 19th February 2010 at 04:34 AM.

19th February 2010, 07:44 PM	#1986
Beth Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Flatland Posts: 5,307	[quote=Robin] Originally Posted by AlBell Quote: And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter. I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it. This is an interesting idea to contemplate. What form could such a mathematical description take? How would you go about demonstrating that it isn't possible? Hmmm. Maybe using the uncertainty principle? Maybe using the incompleteness theorem? More on this later. Originally Posted by AlBell Is language physical? I think this is a key question. Originally Posted by Robin In my opinion, yes. While I think not. Why do I feel that way? Basically because I think it's simply too much of a stretch of the term physical. What about numbers? Will you call numbers physical too? I just can't do it. Such things are not physical to me. Things less substantial than rainbows and sunshine don't count as physical to me. Think of it as a cultural bias on my part. One I am unable or unwilling to discard. Originally Posted by AlBell Do you suggest that we will eventually just run all these semantic (but iyo physical) constructs through the system: "Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model? If so then it is physical." and answer all questions "correctly" with the logical systems of math and physics? If not, why not? The problem isn't that we can't do that, the problem is that we can't do so satisfactorily. I could define consciousness = 1 and dead = 0 and asleep = .5. That's a mathematical model of consciousness. It's just a very poor one. We should eventually be able to get what engineers call "close enough". Right now, only folks like RD and Pixy think we're there. We're certainly developing better and more useful artificial intelligences. On the other hand, I find it quite plausible that we'll never get all the way there. It might be possible to prove it mathematically. It's an interesting question. If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely.
	__________________ Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html

20th February 2010, 01:56 AM	#1987
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,668	Originally Posted by Beth This is an interesting idea to contemplate. What form could such a mathematical description take? How would you go about demonstrating that it isn't possible? Hmmm. Maybe using the uncertainty principle? Maybe using the incompleteness theorem? I think it would be very difficult to provide a mathematical proof that mathematics is insufficient to describe consciousness. Maybe providing a non-mathematical proof would be easier. But that just brings up the question of -- who cares about a non-mathematical proof? I certainly don't.

20th February 2010, 02:44 AM	#1988
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	[quote=Beth;5636930I think this is a key question. [/quote] You need to be explicit about why. Quote: While I think not. That might be an interesting debate, but first you or Albell need to tell me your point. I was stating that definitions should be, wherever possible, clear, precise and non-circular and that most words in consciousness debates tend to have definitions that are none of the above. So Albell brought in the question about the ontology of language, but has not made the connection clear. Is language excused from clarity if it is not physical?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

20th February 2010, 02:50 AM	#1989
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Beth The problem isn't that we can't do that, the problem is that we can't do so satisfactorily. I could define consciousness = 1 and dead = 0 and asleep = .5. That's a mathematical model of consciousness. It's just a very poor one. We should eventually be able to get what engineers call "close enough". Right now, only folks like RD and Pixy think we're there. We're certainly developing better and more useful artificial intelligences. On the other hand, I find it quite plausible that we'll never get all the way there. It might be possible to prove it mathematically. It's an interesting question. If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely. That is rather confusing. Since our neural system are build from the fundamental particles then they do use quantum theory. How would that establish as fact that there can't be a mathematical model of consciousness?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 20th February 2010 at 02:52 AM.

20th February 2010, 03:33 AM	#1990
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by Beth ...snip.... If our neural system turns out to make use of quantum theory in some way (which is possible - I read an article a week or so ago about how plants were making use of it to extract energy from the sun) I think that would establish it as fact quite nicely. That seems to be contradictory? What you are saying is that if our neural system can be accurately modeled by a mathematical theory (i.e. quantum mechanics) that would prove that consciousness can't be mathematically described?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

20th February 2010, 05:02 AM	#1991
Beth Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Flatland Posts: 5,307	Originally Posted by Robin You need to be explicit about why. I think it's key because I think that is the question that delineates people who are materialists from those who do not consider themselves to be materialists. Why do you consider language physical? Quote: That might be an interesting debate, but first you or Albell need to tell me your point. I was stating that definitions should be, wherever possible, clear, precise and non-circular and that most words in consciousness debates tend to have definitions that are none of the above. So Albell brought in the question about the ontology of language, but has not made the connection clear. Is language excused from clarity if it is not physical? I wouldn't say 'excused'. It's more like inherent. It's part of the whole subjective/objective debate. Can something that is inherently subjective ever be described as clearly as something that can be objectively measured? I don't think so. Originally Posted by Robin That is rather confusing. Since our neural system are build from the fundamental particles then they do use quantum theory. How would that establish as fact that there can't be a mathematical model of consciousness? I should have been more precise about what I was saying. Clearly there can be mathematical models of consciousness. I gave one in my previous post. But if quantum effects are used by our neural system in constructing consciousness, then I don't think it can ever be perfectly described by a mathematical model. We will only be able to make mathematical models that approximately represent consciousness. Much like we can never have a complete decimal representation of pi or the square root of two. We can only approximate irrational numbers with the decimal system.
	__________________ Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html

20th February 2010, 08:01 AM	#1992
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Robin And sometimes we misunderstand. And sometimes we think we understand, but don't. So what is the criteria that we use to determine, "I understand" or "you understand"? We carry on the conversation. That's why we don't spend long talking to the Chinese guy who doesn't speak English. We don't understand him and he doesn't understand us. This is not esoteric - this is how we live.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

20th February 2010, 05:54 PM	#1993
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Beth I think it's key because I think that is the question that delineates people who are materialists from those who do not consider themselves to be materialists. No, I mean what does it have to do with the point that AlBell was responding to about words and definitions. Quote: Why do you consider language physical? If you are really interested, please start a new thread and I will respond there. For the moment I am more interested in the point I was making - the one that AlBell was responding to. Quote: I wouldn't say 'excused'. It's more like inherent. It's part of the whole subjective/objective debate. Can something that is inherently subjective ever be described as clearly as something that can be objectively measured? I don't think so. The words I was using for an example were "understand" and "sensation". Are these things inherently subjective? Could these things never have an objective definition? Quote: I should have been more precise about what I was saying. Clearly there can be mathematical models of consciousness. I gave one in my previous post. But if quantum effects are used by our neural system in constructing consciousness, then I don't think it can ever be perfectly described by a mathematical model. We will only be able to make mathematical models that approximately represent consciousness. Much like we can never have a complete decimal representation of pi or the square root of two. We can only approximate irrational numbers with the decimal system. But everthing else works by quantum mechanism - the Sun, the Moon, plants etc. None of these things will ever be perfectly described by mathematical models. And even if this were a Newtonian Universe we could still never describe anything perfectly using mathematical models - not even in principle. But the Sun is still physical by my definition. My definition did not exclude probability as a branch of mathematics.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 20th February 2010 at 05:58 PM.

20th February 2010, 05:57 PM	#1994
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by westprog We carry on the conversation. That's why we don't spend long talking to the Chinese guy who doesn't speak English. We don't understand him and he doesn't understand us. So you're criterion for deciding if somebody understands you is that they continue the conversation with you? Has nobody ever misunderstood something you said and yet continued the conversation? Quote: This is not esoteric - this is how we live It is also completely in line with my definition of "understand".
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 20th February 2010 at 06:08 PM.