Can Mathematics Predict Higher Levels of Complexity?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.

There has been a time, physics was to be thought as totally deterministic , but modern science has clearly discovered this to be not the case.

Hence your argument fails, and fails only cause you imply wrong conclusions out of physical laws.

Your argument comes down to that the consciousness of human beings, since they are made of the same "stuff" as everything (protons, neutrons, electrons) could not excercise "free will" unless also protons, neutrons and electrons have that property.

This however is a nonsense statement, cause you miss the point that between the layers of atoms and that of a brain, there are many levels of complexity, each with their own properties.

You can not reduce the working of a brain downto atoms.
It doesn't work that way.

The reason these exist and indeed the separation
exists between the original 3 sciences which
I mentioned is the complexity of our Universe.
If we could explain sociology from direct
physical systems using just the laws of
physics then we wouldn't need it at all.
However, the complexity is so great that
this does not appear to be possible at a high
level even within the next few centuries from now.

Like stated before the level of complexity of societal behaviour are not reducible to that of atoms. That is the reason why psychology and sociology are separate disciplines in science. Nevertheless sociology come up with their own set of 'laws' for describing the events in their field of knowledge.

So, since we are not able to make the
connections for now because they are so
complex, we have many sciences each dealing
with different levels and types of patterns
in the Universe. You can also see that the
higher the complexity of the systems a theory
studies the less certain its laws become and
more and more statistics is being used as
the basis of the theory without clear formulated
laws.

There does not, according to modern science,
appear to be any fundumental reason why
these sciences should be separate or independent
besides the complexity issue I mentioned above.
The separation is made only due to compromise
between the usefullness and the practical
ability to make it of a scientiic field as well
as our historical semantic division of the
Universe into the relevant "parts". That's why
it's all called science - all of the observed...

Live long and prosper.

It should be stated that the laws describing reality are ultimately more complex then the large scale behaviour of matter. Even though all properties and laws we can ever witness, are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism, which is a point of view that has since long be rejected by modern physics.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
There has been a time, physics was to be thought as totally deterministic , but modern science has clearly discovered this to be not the case.

Hence your argument fails, and fails only cause you imply wrong conclusions out of physical laws.

Your argument comes down to that the consciousness of human beings, since they are made of the same "stuff" as everything (protons, neutrons, electrons) could not excercise "free will" unless also protons, neutrons and electrons have that property.

This however is a nonsense statement, cause you miss the point that between the layers of atoms and that of a brain, there are many levels of complexity, each with their own properties.

You can not reduce the working of a brain downto atoms.
It doesn't work that way.




Like stated before the level of complexity of societal behaviour are not reducible to that of atoms. That is the reason why psychology and sociology are separate disciplines in science. Nevertheless sociology come up with their own set of 'laws' for describing the events in their field of knowledge.



It should be stated that the laws describing reality are ultimately more complex then the large scale behaviour of matter. Even though all properties and laws we can ever witness, are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism, which is a point of view that has since long be rejected by modern physics.

Well, heusdens summed it up rather nicely. I would add that one specific aspect of modern physics, that allows for free will and consciousness, is Quantum Uncertainty. I know you know at least some of the Uncertainty Principle, and so it should be no difficult task for you to see that it (by postulating indeterminacy) allows for "choices", "free will", and consciousness.

 

[Alexander]

Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist. It can not even be defined. And what can't be defined simply does not exist. There is simply no object (or subject) to exist yet.

God(s), soul(s), angels, devils, ghosts, flogiston, vital matter, spirit(s), free will, etc - are from the same category of inexisting objects/subjects.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Alexander
Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist.
It can not even be defined. And what can't be
defined simply does not exist. There is simply
no object (or subject) to exist yet.

From the mouth of scientists...

heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Mentat, QM is not "Allice's wonderland", while it
does include partial uncertainty it FULLY predicts
it - so no ferry tales beyond that, I'm afraid.

Peace and long life.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.

Yeah. Well and not only can , from the point of view of physical law , consciousness not exist, but neither could the Big Bang exist.

So in fact, neither me nor you or anything can exist at all, since it is not supported by physcial law.

So, as seen from physical law, nothing whatsoever exists.

All agree?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Which seperation?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time.

1. The laws of nature, are what we observe them to be. Physcis laws are inventions of human minds, which approximate observed reality.
Physics laws don't dictate reality, but reality dictates our (observation) of reality. If our physics laws don't match reality as it is, then it's not reality that is in error, but our perception thereof (the physical laws/models/theories).

2. You seem to think here in absolute terms of freedom. But a lot of our behaviour and thinking is determined by:
- the way our brain as a material organ and in connection to our body, works. The brain, while usefull also for abstract thinking, in the first place serves as a control organ, to serve our body for survival. This is a determination from our physical nature.
- everybody has preconceived ideas about reality. From education, parents, school, society. We can become consciouss of that, and learn to overcome our preconceived and probably incorrect ideas.

3. I can very well think that I, while have all sorts of limitations and determinations, that form me and my thinking, of which I can not get rid of in total, still I experience some or other form of freedom. But most freedom comes from hard work, and consciously working on overcoming limitations and determinations, aquiring knowledge, etc. And at the same time, I can perfectly deal with the fact that apples fall to the ground according to physical laws, and not because they 'intend' to.

According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.

Then modern science is clearly in error, but I think you are just referring to 'some' modern science, which maybe claim that.

Our consciousness, is our selfdetermination, and our distinction with and towards the unconsciouss material world. Science explains this distinction as the outcome of a long and very complex historical, physical, chemical and biological process, called evolution.

 

[drag]

Greetings heusdens !

Originally posted by heusdens
So, as seen from physical law, nothing whatsoever exists.

Correction, these are slightly different things
you're talking about. It is true that science
can not explain the basic ellements it observes
and/or theorizes. However, the difference is that
real consciousness according to the definition
I personally attribute to it is not supposed
to be explained at ALL while the other basic
stuff may possibly have an explanation.

Originally posted by heusdens
Which seperation?

This separation:

Originally posted by heusdens
Like stated before the level of complexity of
societal behaviour are not reducible to that
of atoms. That is the reason why psychology
and sociology are separate disciplines in
science. Nevertheless sociology come up with
their own set of 'laws' for describing the
events in their field of knowledge.
...
It should be stated that the laws describing
reality are ultimately more complex then the
large scale behaviour of matter. Even though
all properties and laws we can ever witness,
are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism,
which is a point of view that has since long
be rejected by modern physics.

I really do not understand you here.

Originally posted by heusdens
1. The laws of nature, are what we observe them
to be. Physcis laws are inventions of human minds,
which approximate observed reality. Physics laws
don't dictate reality, but reality dictates our
(observation) of reality. If our physics laws
don't match reality as it is, then it's not
reality that is in error, but our perception
thereof (the physical laws/models/theories).

Indeed. So, have you proved the theory
of consciousness already (and defined it first) ?

Originally posted by heusdens
2. You seem to think here in absolute terms of
freedom. But a lot of our behaviour and thinking
is determined by: - the way our brain as a material
organ and in connection to our body, works. The
brain, while usefull also for abstract thinking,
in the first place serves as a control organ, to
serve our body for survival. This is a determination
from our physical nature. - everybody has
preconceived ideas about reality. From education,
parents, school, society. We can become consciouss
of that, and learn to overcome our preconceived and
probably incorrect ideas.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I do
not see where I said anything's wrong with
the above.

Originally posted by heusdens
3. I can very well think that I, while have all
sorts of limitations and determinations, that
form me and my thinking, of which I can not get
rid of in total, still I experience some or other
form of freedom. But most freedom comes from hard
work, and consciously working on overcoming
limitations and determinations, aquiring knowledge,
etc. And at the same time, I can perfectly deal with
the fact that apples fall to the ground according to
physical laws, and not because they 'intend' to.

I realize how this could be confusing and in fact
see that my own statement you quoted also
appears paradoxical. However, according to
science, for now, what you need to do
is reverse roles - your free thoughts are the
result of physical laws in action - not the
other way around. This way you also eliminate
the apparent contradiction (although some
undefinable problem may still seem to remain -
what you consider your consciousness/free will).

Originally posted by heusdens
Then modern science is clearly in error, but I
think you are just referring to 'some' modern
science, which maybe claim that.

Our consciousness, is our selfdetermination, and
our distinction with and towards the unconsciouss
material world. Science explains this distinction
as the outcome of a long and very complex
historical, physical, chemical and biological
process, called evolution.

No offense but that is clearly wrong and
clearly nonesense. Modern science accepts
probablistic physical laws. Modern science
does not accept nor even define consciousness,
nor does it recognize any fundumental difference
between us and non-living stuff.

In conclusion, again - this purpose stuff is
pointless in my opinion. Unless of course
you want a more "shallow" - just sociology
level discussion.

Peace and long life.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings heusdens !

Correction, these are slightly different things
you're talking about. It is true that science
can not explain the basic ellements it observes
and/or theorizes. However, the difference is that
real consciousness according to the definition
I personally attribute to it is not supposed
to be explained at ALL while the other basic
stuff may possibly have an explanation.

I was just stating these things, cause your line of reasoning is clearly in error.

Your arguments goes like: "Science can not explain X.. Therefore X does not exist".

It is obviously wrong. When science can not explain consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness does not exist, since we still observe and state people to have consciousness, it just means we have not evolved a complete and scientific theory on consciousness yet.

This separation:

I really do not understand you here.

Indeed. So, have you proved the theory
of consciousness already (and defined it first) ?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I do
not see where I said anything's wrong with
the above.

I realize how this could be confusing and in fact
see that my own statement you quoted also
appears paradoxical. However, according to
science, for now, what you need to do
is reverse roles - your free thoughts are the
result of physical laws in action - not the
other way around. This way you also eliminate
the apparent contradiction (although some
undefinable problem may still seem to remain -
what you consider your consciousness/free will).

No offense but that is clearly wrong and
clearly nonesense. Modern science accepts
probablistic physical laws. Modern science
does not accept nor even define consciousness,
nor does it recognize any fundumental difference
between us and non-living stuff.

In conclusion, again - this purpose stuff is
pointless in my opinion. Unless of course
you want a more "shallow" - just sociology
level discussion.

You limit modern science to only the physics theory?

That is not a definition of modern science, and modern science clearly recognizes that humans have consciousness, and also animals to some extent.
And even if there is a separation between lifeless and living matter, this does not mean that living matter is not determined by the same laws as ordinary matter, but just means there are qualitative differences. Organisms have a level of complexity in which they can interact with the environment in order to sustain themselves and the species. This is a qualitative difference with ordinary - lifeless - matter.

Modern science has no problem in explaining anything material, so why should consciousness be left out from that?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by heusdens
I was just stating these things, cause your
line of reasoning is clearly in error.

Your arguments goes like: "Science can not
explain X.. Therefore X does not exist".

It is obviously wrong. When science can not
explain consciousness, this does not mean
that consciousness does not exist, since we
still observe and state people to have
consciousness, it just means we have not
evolved a complete and scientific theory on
consciousness yet.

I see no error in my line of reasoning.

First of all consciousness is NOT a scientific
assumption attributed to/theorized from observation,
and thus also has no clear definition.

Second, there is a fundumental quality to
the concept of consciousness (even in its
undefined state) that if an explanation, along
the lines of any reasoning system included in
science so far, is found - it will NOT be in fact
an explanation of consciousness. That is,
consciosness, as I see it, implies the lack
of any laws to explain it - at least in the
conventional meaning of the term explanation
as far as we understand it for now.

Originally posted by heusdens
You limit modern science to only the physics theory?

Yes, physics is the corner-stone of science -
observation. The other sciences are based
upon it's laws and indeed exist only due to
our semantic separation (like chemistry dealing
with atoms and anything larger) on the one hand
and the limmits of practical use due to our
limmitation in fully deciphering the complexity
of observation down to the basic level of physics
(like sociology). The so-called "laws" of sociology
or biology or even chemistry are eventually
the result of basic physical laws and are only
necessary for now because we find it difficult
to simplify the systems appropriatly. An additional
point to notice is that the "development" of
physical laws in complex systems is the
development of very complex patterns and thus
our ability of fully simplified explanation is
limmited further, for now and for current systems
in these additional sciences, by our limmited
knowledge of the theory of patterns - mathematics
which, so far, appears to be capable of discribing
all of the patterns we observe.

Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a definition of modern science, and
modern science clearly recognizes that humans
have consciousness, and also animals to some extent.

If you're talking about sciences like
sociology or psychology then they are
nothing more than rough statistical
approximations of the operation of complex
physical systems. They do NOT assume consciosness
exists, but they might use it as an "assisting
temporary assumption" to help explain
the great amounts of missing knowledge they
statisticly constitute. That is, despite the
complexity of such systems some general
correlation between basic physical laws
and the behavior of these complex systems
does exist(I "want" to eat because I need
energy from molecular interactions) - but since
it's so complex and as yet not clearly defined
and explained some may choose to veil this with
this "assisting temporary assumption" - since
they need a word for it (perhpaps such people
should've chosen a different word). There is
nothing "clear" in such "definitions".

Originally posted by heusdens
Modern science has no problem in explaining
anything material, so why should consciousness
be left out from that?

Hmm... I'd think you know my answer to that...
First of all, I have no idea what you mean
by "material", I just know - "observed".
Second, consciousness does not appear to be observed.

Live long and prosper.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I see no error in my line of reasoning.

First of all consciousness is NOT a scientific
assumption attributed to/theorized from observation,
and thus also has no clear definition.

Second, there is a fundumental quality to
the concept of consciousness (even in its
undefined state) that if an explanation, along
the lines of any reasoning system included in
science so far, is found - it will NOT be in fact
an explanation of consciousness. That is,
consciosness, as I see it, implies the lack
of any laws to explain it - at least in the
conventional meaning of the term explanation
as far as we understand it for now.

Yes, physics is the corner-stone of science -
observation. The other sciences are based
upon it's laws and indeed exist only due to
our semantic separation (like chemistry dealing
with atoms and anything larger) on the one hand
and the limmits of practical use due to our
limmitation in fully deciphering the complexity
of observation down to the basic level of physics
(like sociology). The so-called "laws" of sociology
or biology or even chemistry are eventually
the result of basic physical laws and are only
necessary for now because we find it difficult
to simplify the systems appropriatly. An additional
point to notice is that the "development" of
physical laws in complex systems is the
development of very complex patterns and thus
our ability of fully simplified explanation is
limmited further, for now and for current systems
in these additional sciences, by our limmited
knowledge of the theory of patterns - mathematics
which, so far, appears to be capable of discribing
all of the patterns we observe.

If you're talking about sciences like
sociology or psychology then they are
nothing more than rough statistical
approximations of the operation of complex
physical systems. They do NOT assume consciosness
exists, but they might use it as an "assisting
temporary assumption" to help explain
the great amounts of missing knowledge they
statisticly constitute. That is, despite the
complexity of such systems some general
correlation between basic physical laws
and the behavior of these complex systems
does exist(I "want" to eat because I need
energy from molecular interactions) - but since
it's so complex and as yet not clearly defined
and explained some may choose to veil this with
this "assisting temporary assumption" - since
they need a word for it (perhpaps such people
should've chosen a different word). There is
nothing "clear" in such "definitions".

Hmm... I'd think you know my answer to that...
First of all, I have no idea what you mean
by "material", I just know - "observed".
Second, consciousness does not appear to be observed.

Live long and prosper.

Consciousness we DO observe, at least the EFFECTS of consciousness, which is behaviour. We can study apes, people, we can even plug euipments in brains and scan brains, and make theories about which part of the brain is repsonsible for which/what behaviour and awareness, etc.

Remember that consciousness is just a term for large scale complex behaviour of matter, like that of humans. We "know" it exists, cause we witness the effects of it. But we should not be surprised that, when analyzing and studying it, the "thing" involved will completely dissolve and melt, and has at the same time the property of "not being there", cause it seems just an illusion.

In the same way, the computer screen I am looking at, is completely an illusion. If we carefully study it, it will dissolve into pixels with 3 basic colours, and nothing of the total picture we had before, will remain. That seems just an illusion.

Still if we look back again from a distance to the screen, it seems it still is some entity of it's own, and merits a form of existence.
Even though the image is't the "real thing", but composed of smaller things "pixels".

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
Remember that consciousness is just a term for
large scale complex behaviour of matter, like
that of humans.

Then this definition of yours matches
what I said about vague "assisting term"
for relativly higher complexity level stuff
sciences. And yet, it is clear then that it
has no precise definition or bounderies.

I'm glad we cleared this up because I
enitially assumed you were talking about
some super-natural stuff or something.

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

From the mouth of scientists...

heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Mentat, QM is not "Allice's wonderland", while it
does include partial uncertainty it FULLY predicts
it - so no ferry tales beyond that, I'm afraid.

Peace and long life.

Yes, it fully predicts it, thus limiting the amount of "free will" that one can have.

Note: I'm not saying that I believe in Free Will (I happen to believe that it's unprovable, and therefore about as useful as Solipsism). I'm just making a case for it's also not being disprovable.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist. It can not even be defined. And what can't be defined simply does not exist. There is simply no object (or subject) to exist yet.

Consciouness can, indeed, be defined. Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Consciouness can, indeed, be defined.

Please do, then.

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Drag - I see in some of your posts you continuously ask that once a person say X can be defined, you demand of them to define it.

You need to realize that one can prove that X can be defined without defining it.

Furthermore you continuously assume one means X has an ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE DEFINITION. We aren't making this assumption, you are.

Please look into this.

2. To the cat comment, the origon of this post. I will disregard your word PURPOSE, for the sake of an ecological answer.

The "purpose" of a cat in an ecological environment is extremely complex. But to see the basics, one must look at what the cat gives out that others take in. that's it's purpose. Simply put.

If you're not looking for an ecological answer, sorry purpose doesn't exist.

If you're looking for one in terms of HUMAN ecology, and the human based domesticated cat.

It's still the same answer as a template, but specifcs are so different.

The cat gives "out" something the human recieves.

1. attention from another organism
2. Pleasing sensations, licking, purring, warmth, furriness
3. etc...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

Why do you need to use this semanticly complicated
word to define something so simple that can
just be called that. btw, is that an official
scientific definition ?
Also, you do realize of course that consciousness
is then also, for example, the nerve from my
little finger connected to two active electrodes.
Not a great thing it is then, is it ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

To be fed by humans.

What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

 

[Alexander]

No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Adam
What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

Originally posted by Alexander
No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

I really like both !

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Please do, then.

Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

That means that I needn't define it, in order for it to exist, right?

Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.


If you'd like an example, how about the fact that you are aware of my question right now?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.

If you'd like an example, how about the fact
that you are aware of my question right now?

Then explain "aware"...
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation. And, the
simple fact is that because you only have
this singular unexplainable thing - which you
might consider your consciousness or the result
of physical processes as explained by science,
you can not make use of it due to lack of definition.
That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement ), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness or
we do not have the appropriate reasoning system,
for now, to incorporate consciosness into
science. So, it may exist and it may not, but
at the absense of a system in which to put it
we probably can't deal with such a separate
and singular concept. And if we can't deal with it
or draw any data from it - we can't make use of
it and might just as well ignore it, until purhaps
it does appear in context with something else or
is discovered to have a structure we can deal with.

This is like receiving data input from the
Universe on totally different unconnected levels.
So, either one of the levels is not real at all
but a mere assumption and a result of the other
level, or - we're the connection but we have
not yet succeeded in fomalizing it. (Or, maybe
it's something comletly different...)


Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

Exactly what is the difference?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex. See the difference between these two statements...

Betty = Alex
Betty produces Alex

COme on now, it' sobvious!

BTW - active neurons don't produce "consciousness" unless your definition of "consciousness" is "the active state of neurons". Get it?

Define terms...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly what is the difference?

The difference is that the active state of neurons is a physical phenomenon, while consciousness is a metaphysical consequence of that physical phenomenon.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Then explain "aware"...
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation.

No, it does so because language is dependent on it's own definitions. I could take any word, and follow the "define that new term" road forever, if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement ), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness

Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons, which happens during "conscious thought".

BTW, I think you should see some of my responses to Manuel_Silvio about his Uncertainty idea (that nothing is really certain), in the thread "I think therefore I am", because I clearly explained that it is a paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.

 

[drag]

Greetings once again, Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
No, it does so because language is dependent
on it's own definitions. I could take any word,
and follow the "define that new term" road forever,
if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the
use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.

Originally posted by Mentat
Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons,
which happens during "conscious thought".

Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?

Originally posted by Mentat
because I clearly explained that it is a
paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.

It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense.

Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.

A scientific explanation for what term?

Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?

By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no different, at the subatomic level, than any other physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am no different altogether.

It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense.

No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable. A paradox is the end of a rational path. When one comes to paradox, one either abandons the path they are on, or resorts to complacency and acceptance.

Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?

See "I think therefore I am" for a detailed debate on the matter.

Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything must include doubting the premise that tells you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for granted that you should do so. But, the reason you cannot take for granted that you should do so is that you have already taken it for granted.

This is much like the paradox of limitlessness, and I think wuliheron would probably be better at explaining it than I.