Alternative Theory of Consciousness: "Fine, then How Do You Explain It?

[phoenixthoth]

How did it get there?

must have been God.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pelastration
String Theory uses vibrational strings which are not connected to each other. There is not concept behind. It claims unification but uses separating concepts. We know that in 'reality' gravity is something that connects everything with everything and string theory come up now with gravitons as closed strings which are going of the brane, thus separating from the rest! Very magic. It's contra-unification. I assure you that a Mercedes with an engine not coupled to the gasoline tank will not move, or a engine not geared/connected with the wheels, or an injection pump not connected with the rest of the engine.

I will not be able to respond to everything said, but I do have a problem with this particular point.

You, of course, realize that the "coupling" between the engine and the gasoline is actually composed of many particles, each of which are separated by space, and thus there is no absolute "coupling", right?

So what's the alternative? Try to make a cosmological concept in which all parameters are logically connected. So the essence is the mechanism of the connection. By pure logic I deducted that such a connection mechanism is a mechanical manifold._ At the start you have an unbreakable membrane that can infold and the sub-divisions are hold by a type of 'Pressure valves'. When the membrane penetrate itself = it creates an extra layering. (adding a dimension).
That's 100% logic (within the only postulate: unbreakable very stretchable membrane).

But you haven't said what the membrane is made of. You have postulated a frame, but no engine.

Now about consciousness. When you are inside your Mercedes (like we are in our body) you will react on the traffic situation (slow down your speed, turn right, etc.).

But I'm not "inside [my] body", I am my body.

That is the out-side information. But there is more! Without even understanding how the engine works you can get information about his functioning because you have on your dashboard a speedometer, you can read the oil-pressure and temperature, read how much gasoline is left, etc. So you have inside your Mercedes a number of information systems providing data by wired or wireless connections with the hidden sides of the car. That is the in-side information. Since they all are made by spacetime there is a constant interference of those layers upon each other.

But how can you "layer" information, when "layering" is itself a process...requiring it's own information to describe it?

Why should I look to what Witten, Greene, etc. say? They confirm that they have no real idea about what String Theory 'IS'!

If anyone knows what string theory is, it's them. How can you say that the people, who are actively involved in furthering the theory, don't know what it is?

Why not? If it gives a logic framework that explains everything. How much postulates the 'normal' theories have ... and do they provide a consistent answer?

But you've fallen into the same trap that you accused QM of, you are telling of the processes (the "frame") but not the engine. What is spacetime made of?

I believe I just add the new way to use GR. What I add is a general mechanism by which restructured spacetime creates both (1) large galactic (hyper)spaces, and (2) particles.

Isn't that an added assumption?

Revelation is a strange word. ;-). So what's that grander theory in your opinion?

"Revelation" means "revealing". "There was a revelation that they were all different ways of approaching the grander theory" = "it was revealed that they..."

The grander theory, in this instance, was M-Theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What right do you have to question what I'm saying with such certainty? -- or, state the opposite?

I have absolute right, since I am the other side of the debate.

Ever hear of Jesus Christ? Or the Buddha?

I don't know much of Buddha's teachings, but what does Jesus have to do with it?

This is totally illogical. If there is nothing there in the first place, except what we "assign to it" in the second place, then there is still nothing there, because you can't create something out of nothing. So either the Universe had a predisposition towards intelligence before we came along or it didn't, and if it did, then where did that intelligence come from?

I didn't say there was nothing there, I said there was no purpose there.

There is no purpose in assigning purpose to no purpose ... unless of course the purpose is to serve our "inflated egos."

Fine, maybe that's it. So what? Your constant need to assign purpose gave way to the above (quoted) sentence, which contradicts the validity of that which caused it...very paradoxical.

Yes, the question is, "Who" would have assigned purpose to the Universe -- which surely does exist -- before us puny little human folk came along?

But your being a puny human makes you think that there actually was a purpose before we came along.

Note: There may have been, and I'm not so much saying that this isn't so, as that you haven't proven it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
So? just out of curiousity, can you prove that separate minds exist? it's a no brainer that separate minds appear to exist but do they?

If they do not, then who are you talking to? Seriously, Solipsism cannot be proven or disproven, and is thus a "bad" theory, logically and scientifically.

(1) that matters how, exactly?

It only matters if you care about Science, obviously.

(2) what's the justification for "never?"

Deductive and Inductive reasoning...

Deductive:
Solipsism postulates something.
The thing that Solipsism postulates precludes outside testing.
Therefore, Solipsism can never be tested/proven.

Inductive:
Well, basically, nobody's done it before.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
must have been God.

Which god?

 

[FZ+]

Unless of course his statements have been adopted by the status quo ...

That makes no difference. There is no wrongness because something is the status quo. You state again and again things like how you believe there is an unifying purpose, how thing cannot arbitarily exist. Why? Because they are the status quo of thought? If being widely believed is somehow a flaw, then the sword of damascus hangs over all of our heads, not just mine.

It is a waste of time. We cannot say something as true without justification, or simply recognise that there is always uncertainty. To you, you have created your tautology - if you believe in the existence of primal intelligence, you would have to believe in its power and significance. If you believe in its power and significance, you have to believe in its existence. That is what your words amount to. No doubt I have made other tautologies myself.

So no, no one has the right of certainty, even to say that which is above. I simply say I reject your assertions. I think we don't need your assertions. I think we can say that Dennett makes the best web of tautologies because his is one made of silk that we can pick away at to see if it falls apart - that is what science is really about.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by FZ+
... the sword of damascus hangs over all of our heads, not just mine.

Damascus? Some political unconsciousness FZ+ ? Wurmser?
Damocles is OK to me ;-)

 

[phoenixthoth]

If they do not, then who are you talking to? Seriously, Solipsism cannot be proven or disproven, and is thus a "bad" theory, logically and scientifically.

i'm not talking to anyone. I'm writing. ;) that I'm writing is an illusion and in this illusion I'm writing to an illusion. and i am writing but I'm writing to a part of myself that i don't have full awareness of. :) just out of curiousity, is any axiomatic-based theory (for example, solipsim, math, or GR) bad because it cannot be proven or disproven or just the ones that rub you the wrong way? it's fine with me if you think solipsism, math, and GR (just to name a few) are bad theories. i think they're bad because they're incredibly boring, being the capricious creature that i am.

It only matters if you care about Science, obviously.

i care a lot about science but i don't see what that has to do with a philosophical claim.

Deductive and Inductive reasoning...

Deductive:
1. Solipsism postulates something.
2. The thing that Solipsism postulates precludes outside testing.
3. Therefore, Solipsism can never be tested/proven.

Inductive:
4. Well, basically, nobody's done it before.

the problem with 2 is that in solipsim, the word "outside" has no meaning whatsoever. therefore, outside testing is not necessary and impossible. although one could say, in a sense, inside=outside=self and so inside testing is outside testing. though i think 2 is incorrect, i do agree with 3. i think you're assuming that outside testing is necessary for proof. i disagree but we're all free to decide what we think is a proof pertinant to a particular theory. in 4, are you actually saying that since nobody has done it before that no one ever will?

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

-Albert Einstein

excuse me, but it seems to me that you joyfully march in the rank and file of scientists.

Which god?

the christian one as mentioned in the bible, of course. it's obvious! must be! i can't imagine any other way! ;)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't know much of Buddha's teachings, but what does Jesus have to do with it?

As I said to FZ+, it helps to illustrate that there is an alternative view, which is in many ways at odds with "your" empirical scientific approach ... namely, that the Universe is merely mechanistic, with no motive, ryhme or reason (i.e., sense of purpose) behind its operation.

Fine, maybe that's it. So what? Your constant need to assign purpose gave way to the above (quoted) sentence, which contradicts the validity of that which caused it...very paradoxical.

It's only paradoxical to the extent that you are unable/unwilling to look beyond your materialistic "three dimensional" view.

Ever consider the fact that matter is merely energy in its "visible form?" Which is to say that the energy was there first, in a form beyond our ability to see with the naked eye, before it consolidated itself in material form?

Indeed, at what point is the "determination made," before the energy begins to assume physical form? Certainly long before the physical form came about!

But your being a puny human makes you think that there actually was a purpose before we came along.

No, by my being a puny little human only allows me to acknowledge that I'm not the one who created it.

Note: There may have been, and I'm not so much saying that this isn't so, as that you haven't proven it.

Are you saying the burden of proof should be placed fully on my shoulders? If so, why? This is an age-old argument that goes all the way back to antiquity, and only helps to reiterate that you or some of these other people may be missing the point.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
That makes no difference. There is no wrongness because something is the status quo. You state again and again things like how you believe there is an unifying purpose, how thing cannot arbitarily exist. Why? Because they are the status quo of thought? If being widely believed is somehow a flaw, then the sword of damascus hangs over all of our heads, not just mine.

We can't help but be predisposed to the culture we are born into, and yet, all that conveys is prejudice. So yes, in order to establish an "original thought," we must question what makes us prejudiced ...

It is a waste of time. We cannot say something as true without justification, or simply recognise that there is always uncertainty. To you, you have created your tautology - if you believe in the existence of primal intelligence, you would have to believe in its power and significance. If you believe in its power and significance, you have to believe in its existence. That is what your words amount to. No doubt I have made other tautologies myself.

Now isn't that strange? When I say I don't believe things happen arbitrarily, it's almost as if the justification is "assigned" automatically ... as if justification and lack of arbitrariness were one and the same. Indeed. And doesn't it also suggest that justification and a sense of purpose coincide as well? So, what was it that you were trying to justify?

So no, no one has the right of certainty, even to say that which is above. I simply say I reject your assertions. I think we don't need your assertions. I think we can say that Dennett makes the best web of tautologies because his is one made of silk that we can pick away at to see if it falls apart - that is what science is really about.

So, are you saying I have no right to assert that the sky is blue? When in fact everyone else I know is capable of making the same assertion?

 

[FZ+]

Damascus? Some political unconsciousness FZ+ ? Wurmser?
Damocles is OK to me ;-)

Damn... almost uncovered my plans to rule syria... I mean... er... nothing.

When I say I don't believe things happen arbitrarily, it's almost as if the justification is "assigned" automatically ... as if justification and lack of arbitrariness were one and the same. Indeed. And doesn't it also suggest that justification and a sense of purpose coincide as well?

Er... no it doesn't. My justification was referring to a justification, or lack of for certainty here. All this says, all any of this says is what you think, the way you think. Which, as you have observed, can just be a case of personal influences from society/experiences than anything. The best we can say about this is that it is a self-consistent tautology. Doesn't make it right, or wrong.

So, are you saying I have no right to assert that the sky is blue? When in fact everyone else I know is capable of making the same assertion?

What is blue? Ignoring Alexanderite appears to universal reality, colours have a strong psychological component. In such a case, the sky is defined to be blue. When someone says, what colour is blue, it is easy to point to the sky - the colour as signals we see may be different, but we have assigned meaning to the signals from our retina, so blue is placed by our mental definition. No one asserts the sky is blue - blue is defined in terms of what we see. Blue is colour of the sky, and to disprove it is nonsense, like disagreeing with a dictionary.

(Unless you live in the UK, where grey is the colour of the sky and blue is purely hypothetical )

The only cases come in comparing colours. When I say, the sky is blue, without using definitions, then I say the sky is the same colour as x, which is also blue. In that case, we cannot assert on absolute certainty, because this was made with possible flaws. If I was traveling fast away, the red shift could make it red. I could be colourblind. But what I call picking the tautology apart is then to test it, such as by sticking more people in the same position to tell me the colour. But that can never give absolute certainty. But as an idea, the assertion that the sky is blue is easier to attack than to say the sky is fnarr colour, which is a colour I know by divine right and cannot be recognised by anyone else. A vulnerable claim is better than an invulnerable one.

In short, truth as a concept is only useful if you bear in mind, implicitly or explicitly, the flaws in which it is conceived.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm not talking to anyone. I'm writing. ;) that I'm writing is an illusion and in this illusion I'm writing to an illusion. and i am writing but I'm writing to a part of myself that i don't have full awareness of. :) just out of curiousity, is any axiomatic-based theory (for example, solipsim, math, or GR) bad because it cannot be proven or disproven or just the ones that rub you the wrong way?

GR isn't axiomatic, it's scientifically valid. The nature of math bothers me, but its usefulness overcomes this. Solipsism has no usefulness (to my knowledge), and it is based on an unprovable premise.

the problem with 2 is that in solipsim, the word "outside" has no meaning whatsoever. therefore, outside testing is not necessary and impossible. although one could say, in a sense, inside=outside=self and so inside testing is outside testing.

Yes, they could. Beside that, you agreed with 3, and 2 was just one proposition leading to 3. I honestly get the feeling you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, since we've left the topic of the thread, to examine a philosophy that you don't even believe in.

in 4, are you actually saying that since nobody has done it before that no one ever will?

I was just giving you the inductive logic on the matter, obviously.

 

[phoenixthoth]

GR isn't axiomatic, it's scientifically valid. The nature of math bothers me, but its usefulness overcomes this. Solipsism has no usefulness (to my knowledge), and it is based on an unprovable premise.

i thought the principle of equivalence was an axiom. shows you what i know about GR. and the postulate of the speed of light appearing the same in all reference frames. and there are others, i think. or maybe that was SR. but something can be axiomatic and scientifically valid at the same time. to mention that solipsism is based on unprovable assumptions is redundant. logic, as well as any theory I'm aware of, is also based on unprovable assumptions. it seems that whether or not a theory is considered good by some people depends on whether or not it's useful wheras to others a theory is good as long as its consistent. it reminds me of the two approaches by physicists in the movie "me and isaac Newton." one of them was working on water purification and said that a theory that doesn't have a practical use (say, in 10 years) is useless and then one of them was woking on a theory of hyperspace which probably ain't going to feed the hungry any time soon. to the latter, investigating the nature of the universe is a use in itself. if that investigator realized that the nature of the universe was that there was only one person and the rest was somehow created in his mind, would investigating the nature of the universe suddenly become pointless?

 

[FZ+]

i thought the principle of equivalence was an axiom.

It's a postulate. A postulate is different from an axiom in that a postulate can be disproved.

something can be axiomatic and scientifically valid at the same time.

Yes, but its scientific validity does not come from its axiomatic nature... Indeed, to put it strictly, axioms aren't "scientifically" valid or invalid - they can be useful, or non-useful in helping to continue the study. (Not in terms of technologically useful.)

Logic isn't a science, it is a set of core assumptions, which we have found no good alternative for. Solipsism similarly is not scientific, and it typically conflicts with a set of assumptions we find very useful (in terms of basing other actions on, that bring worthwhile results), such as the idea there is some point to conversing and talking about solipsism...

 

[phoenixthoth]

speaking of solipsism, i found this on nonduality which may or may not be equivalent to solipsism (you decide):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9052

the first link leads one to a place where one supposedly has obervations that don't contradict the solipsitic point of view.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
It's a postulate. A postulate is different from an axiom in that a postulate can be disproved.

Thanks, FZ+. I was about to post the same thing, but then I read your post. You covered my points better than I would have .

 

[phoenixthoth]

one can show that an axiom can violate the law of noncontradiction which to some would constitute its disproof.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
one can show that an axiom can violate the law of noncontradiction which to some would constitute its disproof.

What do you mean? The law of noncontradiction - which I guess I'm not familiar with, at least not by that name - would be a "valid" law, if it's a law of Logic. It would not be inherently "true", and could thus not be used to disprove an axiom (which is supposed to be inherently true).

 

[phoenixthoth]

law of noncontradiction in two forms:
let A and B be well formed formulas and ~ be negation:
~(A&~A)
(B-->(A&~A))-->~B

axioms are not (considered) inherintly true or false though when they violate the law of noncontradiction in some sense they tend to not be adopted. if S is a set of axioms, it is said to be consistant if it is not possible to derive the statement A&~A for any wff A. whether or not a set of consistent axioms are true is another matter.

for example, the axioms of euclidean geometry is, in some sense, not mathematically more or less true than the axioms of noneuclidian geometry.

some people accept the axiom of choice and others don't.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
law of noncontradiction in two forms:
let A and B be well formed formulas and ~ be negation:
~(A&~A)
(B-->(A&~A))-->~B

axioms are not (considered) inherintly true or false though when they violate the law of noncontradiction in some sense they tend to not be adopted. if S is a set of axioms, it is said to be consistant if it is not possible to derive the statement A&~A for any wff A. whether or not a set of consistent axioms are true is another matter.

for example, the axioms of euclidean geometry is, in some sense, not mathematically more or less true than the axioms of noneuclidian geometry.

some people accept the axiom of choice and others don't.

So, axioms are all a matter of belief, yes? In that case, they are either inherently true, or inherently false, but cannot be validated by logic, right?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think axioms are the attempt to capture the essence of some concept in a minimal set of self consistent statements. If a concept lends itself to such description, it is called well-defined. Belief and truth have nothing to do with it; the axioms may well describe a concept that could never be instantiated in our collectively agreed upon reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think axioms are the attempt to capture the essence of some concept in a minimal set of self consistent statements. If a concept lends itself to such description, it is called well-defined. Belief and truth have nothing to do with it; the axioms may well describe a concept that could never be instantiated in our collectively agreed upon reality.

Is that a fact?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ever heard that they said that whatever the other guy said was total gibberish?

They did? Whoa! How did the historians miss that?!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
As far as I am aware, Dennett has never stated that ... the rest of the population are somehow foolish fish for not understanding, and coming to the same understanding as he has. He has never said that the truth of his statements are self-evident, and so there is no purpose for questioning.

No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat

Deductive and Inductive reasoning...

Deductive:
Solipsism postulates something.
The thing that Solipsism postulates precludes outside testing.
Therefore, Solipsism can never be tested/proven.

Inductive:
Well, basically, nobody's done it before.

How is it that this unprovable philosophical idea can be given the boot and called bad philosophy when "materialism", an equally unprovable and contrary idea, is so passionately defended? Especially when the practice of science doesn't necessarily require either?

 

[FZ+]

They did? Whoa! How did the historians miss that?!

Ok, ok, excuse a little hyperbole... I just mean that there is glaring inconsistencies between what each says, and so compromises must be made to unite them - compromises which a majority of believers reject.

No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

Heh. Ok, then alert me when anyone says anything that sound absolutist... Consciousness in my humble opinion, is a very fuzzy subject, but I feel that a materialist approach is currently most productive in exploring it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

Hey! [b(] I never said that, I was just presenting reason why his is a good conclusion (maybe the best conclusion), but not the only logical conclusion.

[edit] I changed a smilie[/edit]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
How is it that this unprovable philosophical idea can be given the boot and called bad philosophy when "materialism", an equally unprovable and contrary idea, is so passionately defended?

I guess Materialism can't be tested either, but what about the skeptic argument against Solipsism (namely, that, if nothing existed except for what was in my mind, then the very distinction between "things that exist in my mind" and "those other things, which don't exist" is non-sensical). Besides, doesn't Solipsism challenge Russell's paradox (at least I think it was "Russell's"), which states that no set can contain intself, and thus the set of all things that exist in the mind could not be contained in the mind, and would thus not exist?

Especially when the practice of science doesn't necessarily require either?

Well, the Scientific Method assumes Materialism (since you make observations about a part of the objective reality before forming hypotheses as to how it works).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I guess Materialism can't be tested either, but what about the skeptic argument against Solipsism (namely, that, if nothing existed except for what was in my mind, then the very distinction between "things that exist in my mind" and "those other things, which don't exist" is non-sensical). Besides, doesn't Solipsism challenge Russell's paradox (at least I think it was "Russell's"), which states that no set can contain intself, and thus the set of all things that exist in the mind could not be contained in the mind, and would thus not exist?



Well, the Scientific Method assumes Materialism (since you make observations about a part of the objective reality before forming hypotheses as to how it works).

You're saying that science assumes a non testable philosophical idea? Actually, I think I agree with Tom on this one. I recall that LifeGazer used to always claim that science was biased and limited itself by assuming that materialism was true. On one particular thread Tom spent a good amount of time explaining to him that science assumed no such thing. Science can be practiced in the Matrix as well.

 

[FZ+]

Well, more accurately science at the minimum assumes a sort of functional materialism - ie. the material aspect is worthwhile, though it may not be the only thing.