synchronicity of meta-reflective artificial intelligence

[redbaron]

I'm presuming to you metaphysicality is the science of that beyond, or preceding, physicality (immateriality?). In which case it seems the essence of the argument comes down to whether there is such thing as metaphysicality, or whether that can be reasonably assumed to be the case.

Gold star for you. Xoxoxo.

Unsure if you would agree, but if metaphysicality could be demonstrated it would logically follow to me that if one's object of interest was physics (physis-nature) then the study of metaphysics would clarify that object in a way much greater than a study of purely physics in-of-itself, because you would be studying that which physics originated from. You'd be attaining towards a meta-perspective of physics.

It's a very big if and even then I'd have to question whether or not the logical follow-on you're talking about is indeed the logical follow-on. It would help (maybe) but we'd have the problem that the originator may bear little to no resemblance to the outcome.

If an alien were able to study our origins on Earth in a primordial soup (sorry anti-Evolutionists, this discussion is going to assume Evolution is real) would that at all assist them in understanding our present day civilizations? Not rhetorical, I actually wonder.

Your argument makes sense from the position that metaphysicality can be presumed to not exist, or that, occam's razor, any phenomena one might claim in defence of metaphysicality could better be explained in terms of physics, or natural phenomena.

That's a close enough approximation. I notice that people tend to object to me taking a starkly naturalistic view of the universe. As though I'm limiting myself by only considering "mere" naturalistic phenomena. The scope of what is naturalistic could easily encompass a universal god (shock horror), it's just that I tend to not be so quick as to assume the significance of some concepts on the natural world.

The conflict naturally comes as a result of some people thinking that we should presume the existence of spooky haunty things, whereas I don't see any reason to presume them. It's not a matter of should or shouldn't for me.

A more interesting question to this discussion would be what kind of evidence could one present in favour of metaphysicality?

I'm trying to get Sinny or computerhxr to do that, but they don't want to. I've tried hundreds of times really because I agree that's the most interesting question.

The answer though is apparently off-limits and not able to be discussed.

This statement interests me. I would be interested to know what "spiritual" is to you?

I personally hate the word because no matter how you define it, someone else will disagree.

What I suppose most people could agree on, is that a large part of spirituality involves attaining a greater understanding of our place in the cosmos and a greater understanding of ourselves by extension - or vice versa.

If we can agree on that, then naturalistic* science can indeed be profoundly spiritual in and of itself.

*Referring to science as naturalistic is awfully redundant because science is obviously naturalistic but it's impossible to know what other people consider to be science that actually isn't.

 

[redbaron]

Ideas exist but not in the physical form that you imagine them.

Today I learned that electricity doesn't exist in the physical world.

Lightning isn't physics, it's metaphysics!

:>

 

[redbaron]

I would have to say language is much more complex than ecology. Without language, we wouldn't be able to discuss what 'ecology' is in the first place.

We (as in humanity) probably would have never gone past the Iron Age without (written) language either. Without the legal codes which the kings and chieftains employed, we most likely would have not provided the order that existed then, to allow the life we have today.

Language is a part of ecology. Ecology still exists without language, whether there's an intelligent species to describe it or not.

It's actually language that can't exist without ecology, because you first need the ecological mechanisms for language to exist in the first place.

 

[computerhxr]

Today I learned that electricity doesn't exist in the physical world.

Lightning isn't physics, it's metaphysics!

:>

... Do you just make shit up?

Non sequitur! Non sequitur!

*Referring to science as naturalistic is awfully redundant because science is obviously naturalistic but it's impossible to know what other people consider to be science that actually isn't.

Obviously? You are using the word naturalistic to avoid making salient arguments.

Haha! I just Googled science and naturalism. Lots of creationist BS. It sounds like your version of naturalism is pseudo-scientific at best. Why not just call it metaphysics instead of naturalism?

 

[redbaron]

Do you just make shit up?

Do you?

The basis of biology is electromagnetism. It's entirely plausible that ideas are an emergent property of that, meaning there's no reason to simply assume that ideas are metaphysical.

If you're going to make that argument, you should at the very least provide some kind of evidence or reasonable argument that demonstrates why you believe ideas are not an emergent phenomena of naturalistic properties.

Not doing at least that is very much a perfect example of, "just making shit up."

Haha! I just Googled science and naturalism.

Not too long ago I recall someone sardonically posting something along the lines of, "Why learn when you can Google?"

Why indeed? Congratulations, you Googled two words and it came up with creationist links full of BS. You got me. I suppose that means if I Google, "Evolution" and some creationist BS comes up, I'll have proven that evolution is pseudoscience. Checkmate biologists!

Sarcasm aside, what is your actual point?

"In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

Science's scope is necessarily "limited" to only the study of natural phenomena. It's naturalistic by design.

But hey I don't know, I hope you don't arbitrarily decide to Google two more words because that could really ruin that idea.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Language is a part of ecology. Ecology still exists without language, whether there's an intelligent species to describe it or not.

It's actually language that can't exist without ecology, because you first need the ecological mechanisms for language to exist in the first place.

I agree with the first part, but as for the bolded, what are you exactly encompassing when you say 'ecological mechanism'?

 

[Black Rose]

I agree with the first part, but as for the bolded, what are you exactly encompassing when you say 'ecological mechanism'?

I think any biped species can develop language if it evolved on another planet.

A question to ask is do non bipeds ever developed philosophy which I think is required for language to become technology?

 

[computerhxr]

Do you?

The basis of biology is electromagnetism. It's entirely plausible that ideas are an emergent property of that, meaning there's no reason to simply assume that ideas are metaphysical.

Well, no one here said electricity is metaphysics. Only YOU. Then you post it as if you are mocking me like I believe or said electricity is metaphysical. Where did you get this idea?

Not only that, but you are using electromagnetism and calling it the basis of biology. You were talking about electricity and now it's the same as electromagnetism?

Ideas exist in a physical sense, but if I'm thinking of a horse, there's no reason to assume that the horse exists physically somewhere. It exists in the form of brain-matter, and not as a horse. Metaphysically, there is a horse running around in my mind.

If you're going to make that argument, you should at the very least provide some kind of evidence or reasonable argument that demonstrates why you believe ideas are not an emergent phenomena of naturalistic properties.

Not doing at least that is very much a perfect example of, "just making shit up."

What argument am I making?

You expect me to refute your arguments that are totally non sequitur. I haven't made any arguments that you've addressed in any meaningful way. You just go off an a tangent and call it "obviously related" when you are just bringing up random unrelated ideas as if they were related.

They aren't related so I'm not going to make arguments for something that I'm not even talking about. You are making huge leaps and putting words in my mouth.

 

[computerhxr]

I'd contend that dedicating one's life to exploring naturalistic phenomena (e.g. the study of ecology) is as profoundly spiritual as dedicating one's life to exploring metaphysical phenomena.

Let me ask you this... You are talking about spirituality here. The spirit is not in the realm of naturalism. So do you believe in naturalism or do you believe in a spirit?

Do you believe in a god, or are you religious?

 

[redbaron]

I agree with the first part, but as for the bolded, what are you exactly encompassing when you say 'ecological mechanism'?

Ecology encompasses all interactions among organisms and their environment.

 

[Sinny91]

I'm trying to get Sinny or computerhxr to do that, but they don't want to. I've tried hundreds of times really because I agree that's the most interesting question.

The answer though is apparently off-limits and not able to be discussed.
.

Metaphysics is a whole sub branch of philosophy, that has been explored by many philosophers, I've suggested Jung as an example.
We are not proverbial laps dogs, going to jump at your command.
I see you've shifted the burden of blame from you proving your own point, to Computer and I having to prove the existence of the concept of metaphysics. I'm sure many people here would agree that the concept of metaphysics is a strong and valid one, albeit highly abstract.

I'm not wasting my time jumping through your hoops, when I don't even hold your opinion in high regard.

 

[Sinny91]

Well, no one here said electricity is metaphysics. Only YOU. Then you post it as if you are mocking me like I believe or said electricity is metaphysical. Where did you get this idea?

Oh that's an art form around these parts, putting words into people's mouths.

 

[onesteptwostep]

'Ecology encompasses all interactions among organisms and their environment.'

I see.

 

[computerhxr]

Not too long ago I recall someone sardonically posting something along the lines of, "Why learn when you can Google?"

Someone said... Okay... ?

Why indeed? Congratulations, you Googled two words and it came up with creationist links full of BS. You got me. I suppose that means if I Google, "Evolution" and some creationist BS comes up, I'll have proven that evolution is pseudoscience. Checkmate biologists!

Sarcasm aside, what is your actual point?

There was no point, just that I thought it was funny... My actual point was something you skipped over entirely by paraphrasing.

"It sounds like your version of naturalism is pseudo-scientific at best. Why not just call it metaphysics instead of naturalism?"

If your version of naturalism is the same as metaphysics, then why not use metaphysics? You go back and forth between making arguments about the spirit and then you point out naturalism, just like a creationist would do.

I have no problem with naturalism. Metaphysics exists outside the realm of naturalism. It's an abstraction or alternate model of reality. Metaphysics does not have any problems with naturalism, science, or physics. In fact, they are part of metaphysics.

"In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

Science's scope is necessarily "limited" to only the study of natural phenomena. It's naturalistic by design.

But hey I don't know, I hope you don't arbitrarily decide to Google two more words because that could really ruin that idea.

By design? Who is the designer?

You keep wanting people to give you evidence but you don't answer my questions so why bother answering yours?

My point was "It sounds like your version of naturalism is pseudo-scientific at best. Why not just call it metaphysics instead of naturalism?"

 

[redbaron]

Not only that, but you are using electromagnetism and calling it the basis of biology. You were talking about electricity and now it's the same as electromagnetism?

Lmao this is so embarrassing to read.

Electricity is predicated upon the electromagnetic force - one of the four fundamental forces (interactions) in the universe. It's what enables things like electrical fields, magnetic fields etc. to exist in the first place and it's what binds molecules together.

So naturally, when we see that thoughts are expressed as an electrical signal, then the electromagnetic force is involved. As the force that binds molecules, governs electrical fields and therefore all biochemical interactions it forms the basis of biology, which again incorporates a wide variety of things.

Metaphysically, there is a horse running around in my mind.

That's the debatable leap. There's nothing to say that this isn't an emergent phenomena of biochemistry and entirely natural. So I don't make the leap to either one, though I'm confident it will eventually be understood physically.

 

[computerhxr]

Oh that's an art form around these parts, putting words into people's mouths.

Yeah, I have never seen so much selective attention and non sequiturs from one person in a long time. It's like he is creating his own confirmation bias by plucking random ideas and forcing us to make new arguments against his ideas rather than making a real argument himself.

It's not that we are trying to crush you Red, and keep you from contributing. We are just tired of trying to make arguments against something you inferred from our conversation.

 

[computerhxr]

Lmao this is so embarrassing to read.

Electricity is predicated upon the electromagnetic force - one of the four fundamental forces (interactions) in the universe. It's what enables things like electrical fields, magnetic fields etc. to exist in the first place and it's what binds molecules together.

So naturally, when we see that thoughts are expressed as an electrical signal, then the electromagnetic force is involved. It's the basis of biology, which incorporates a wide variety of things.

That's the debatable leap. There's nothing to say that this isn't an emergent phenomena of electrical signals and brain chemistry. There's no point in claiming it either way, though I'm confident the mechanisms will eventually be understood in naturalistic terms.

Again, you select what you want to hear...

 

[redbaron]

Let me ask you this... You are talking about spirituality here. The spirit is not in the realm of naturalism. So do you believe in naturalism or do you believe in a spirit?

For someone who cries Non Sequitir at everything, you sure bring a lot of it to the discussion.

Firstly as Puffy has so easily managed to discern, my point is to do with whether or not metaphysics can even be said to exist. If spirits are real and they affect the natural world, they're not metaphysical but natural.

Naturalism and spirits aren't mutually exclusive concepts. It doesn't logically follow from the points I've made that I think someone has to make a distinction between spiritual and natural occurrences.

The term spiritual is a convenient word for describing certain modes of living or being, however it doesn't necessitate some other-worldly phenomena that can't be physically understood. If it were up to me I'd do away with the word entirely, but it remains situationally convenient to use.

Someone taking an interest in the understanding of themselves, the cosmos and their place in the cosmos is undertaking what I would desribe as a spiritual journey. Whether they do it scientifically or some other way is irrelevant.

 

[computerhxr]

Here's a quote from good old Wikipedia

Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.

 

[computerhxr]

That's the debatable leap. There's nothing to say that this isn't an emergent phenomena of biochemistry and entirely natural. So I don't make the leap to either one, though I'm confident it will eventually be understood physically.

I never said that it wasn't natural or a result of biochemistry.

The actual horse is metaphysical. Some formation of natural reality equals the horse that I'm thinking of. The physical representation of the horse can be understood through a naturalistic approach, and interpreted so that we could reproduce the horse as a model.

The actual horse exists. I can imagine it, so it exists in my mind already interpreted from the physical formation of matter and the state of electromagnetism. That existence is abstract because the reality is that there is no physical horse running in my head. So how do we deal with this concept? Metaphysics.

You can use naturalism to determine that I am thinking of a horse, but you can never locate the horse in the same form that it exists metaphysically.

Again, metaphysics is beyond the scope of naturalism.

A computer example would be a photo of a horse. The horse photo exists, and it's represented as 1's and 0's, or pixels, or many other forms the data can take. The actual physical representation might be some material with an electromagnetic state that represents the horse photo. They are equal to each other but require an interpreter to make sense of the data. The metaphysical horse exists, along with many other metaphysical forms of the data. Some forms make sense, some forms do not.

 

[redbaron]

I'd expect that it's not really that hard to see how my post and that quote from Wikipedia are easily reconciled into an understanding of the point I'm making.

As mentioned, I'd throw away the word "spirituality" if there were a better one for what I refer to when I talk about, "Someone taking an interest in the understanding of themselves, the cosmos and their place in the cosmos is undertaking what I would desribe as a spiritual journey. Whether they do it scientifically or some other way is irrelevant."(sic).

Such a view of "spirituality" doesn't necessarily entail belief in anything metaphysical and I do indeed believe that there's not any need to even presuppose the existence of such a thing as, "metaphysics" because:

"Anything that actually impacts on the nature of reality, is by defnition, naturalistic."(sic).

 

[onesteptwostep]

There's just a difference in what the definitions are, but it's important to note the difference and why they are so.

 

[computerhxr]

I'd expect that it's not really that hard to see how my post and that quote from Wikipedia are easily reconciled into an understanding of the point I'm making.

As mentioned, I'd throw away the word "spirituality" if there were a better one for what I refer to when I talk about, "Someone taking an interest in the understanding of themselves, the cosmos and their place in the cosmos is undertaking what I would desribe as a spiritual journey. Whether they do it scientifically or some other way is irrelevant."(sic).

Such a view of "spirituality" doesn't necessarily entail belief in anything metaphysical and I do indeed believe that there's not any need to even presuppose the existence of such a thing as, "metaphysics" because:

"Anything that actually impacts on the nature of reality, is by defnition, naturalistic."(sic).

You could have simply answered any of my questions rather than making more arguments. I got your point the first time.

Do you believe in a god? Are you religious? If you say, no, you're an atheist, then I might agree that you believe in naturalism.

Your example of this spiritual journey tells me nothing. I'm not sure why you brought it up to begin with. Do you believe in a soul? Do you believe in heaven or a hell?

Again, you ignore questions that could clarify things.

 

[redbaron]

I never said that it wasn't natural or a result of biochemistry.

The actual horse is metaphysical. Some formation of natural reality equals the horse that I'm thinking of. The physical representation of the horse can be understood through a naturalistic approach, and interpreted so that we could reproduce the horse as a model.

The actual horse exists. I can imagine it, so it exists in my mind already interpreted from the physical formation of matter and the state of electromagnetism. That existence is abstract because the reality is that there is no physical horse running in my head. So how do we deal with this concept? Metaphysics.

The argument actually breaks down at this point. The fact that the horse is abstract doesn't necessitate that it's metaphysical and not natural. That's a leap you're choosing to make - it's not the logical endpoint.

~

And yes, I'm an atheist. I'm not in the habit of answering loaded questions however. As was made clear, the way in which I used the term spiritual isn't mutually exclusive with being a naturalist.

Therefore if you're asking the question, "So do you believe in naturalism or do you believe in a spirit?" then no matter how much you might insist otherwise, you didn't get my point the first time. Sorry.

 

[computerhxr]

The argument actually breaks down at this point. The fact that the horse is abstract doesn't necessitate that it's metaphysical and not natural. That's a leap you're choosing to make - it's not the logical endpoint.

~

And yes, I'm an atheist. I'm not in the habit of answering loaded questions however.

It wasn't a loaded question. It helps me understand what your version of naturalism is.

Again, you are ignoring the fact. I am saying something is metaphysical, and you tell me I'm saying it's not natural. YOU are the one saying that it's natural and not metaphysical.

Let's reverse it and say... The fact that the horse is abstract doesn't necessitate that it's natural and not metaphysical.

See the problem here?

Therefore if you're asking the question, "So do you believe in naturalism or do you believe in a spirit?" then no matter how much you might insist otherwise, you didn't get my point the first time. Sorry.

No, I get it. Poor choice of words. Your version of a spirit is naturalistic. Some people would call the universe God. It doesn't really change what it is by calling it a confusing name. If your version of spirit is an emotion or a feeling, and you get some sort of fulfillment from naturalism, then why do you assume anyone would argue?

You're the one making a claim and expecting us to provide evidence to support your counter argument that you make for us. Why would we support your made up counter arguments that no one made?

 

[redbaron]

There's no problem, you just haven't understood my point.

"There's nothing to say that this isn't an emergent phenomena of biochemistry and entirely natural. So I don't make the leap to either one, though I'm confident it will eventually be understood physically."

"Anything that actually impacts on the nature of reality, is by defnition, naturalistic."(sic)."

So here's the thing. Let's say I agree the horse is metaphysical. What changes? Nothing. It does give me a feeling of having, "understood" something and lessens the urge to search for and find a resolution. It promotes bad thinking habits and diminishes the need for further critical thought. That is as far as I'm concerned, unacceptable.

You're right about one thing in that regard. As a person of science, I will never uncover the mysteries of the universe. The reason for this is, I think, adequately expressed in this quote:

"Even if I stumble on to the absolute truth of any aspect of the universe, I will not realise my luck and instead will spend my life trying to find flaws in this understanding - such is the role of a scientist." - Brian Schmidt

Naturalism is the only worldview compatible with true intellectual honesty and dedication to finding truth.

 

[computerhxr]

There's no problem, you just haven't understood my point.

Okay, if you say so... I guess because we have a difference of opinions, then I must not understand or I would agree with you. Right?

So here's the thing. Let's say I agree the horse is metaphysical. What changes? Nothing. It does give me a feeling of having, "understood" something and lessens the urge to search for and find a resolution. It promotes bad thinking habits and diminishes the need for further critical thought. That is as far as I'm concerned, unacceptable.

As far as you're concerned... Okay, I see you basically summed up what I've been saying the whole time. You only concern yourself with a limited scope of ideas that are acceptable to you.

[bimgx=350]http://i1375.photobucket.com/albums/ag448/computerhxr/INTP_zpshyxuujxl.png[/bimgx]​

The black area is what an INTP would consider a waste of time to learn because they believe it's BS.

So, we're talking about metaphysics and you interject with naturalism. Naturalism does not help us in the realm of metaphysics. Rather than discuss metaphysics, you stick to arguing that it's impossible.

It shows that you don't really understand what it is to begin with.

Naturalism is the only worldview compatible with true intellectual honesty and dedication to finding truth.

Haha! Again, it shows you know next to nothing about metaphysics.

why would an INTP dedicate themselves to the systemically inferior realm of metaphysics?

You're comparing apples to oranges and calling oranges inferior. Good job!

 

[redbaron]

It shows that you don't really understand what it is to begin with.

Apparently no one does.

Puffy: A more interesting question to this discussion would be what kind of evidence could one present in favour of metaphysicality?

Computerhxr:Metaphysics is an abstract version of reality. Stuff that is beyond the scope of science.

You then went on to talk about the concept of ideas. There's two glaring problems with this:

1. If metaphysics is simply abstraction, then the term is redundant. We already have a word for abstract, it's spelled, "abstract".
2. Further to that, abstractions of reality don't exist outside the realm of science
3. The mechanisms of what constitutes an idea is also not beyond the scope of scientific research.

So by your own definitions and examples, metaphysics doesn't even fall outside the scope of science. Either you don't understand your own definitions of metaphysics or you don't understand the scope of science.

I'll allow for the fact that you might have made a mistake in your definition of metaphysics. Do you care to redefine it?

 

[computerhxr]

So by your own definitions and examples, metaphysics doesn't even fall outside the scope of science. Either you don't understand your own definitions of metaphysics or you don't understand the scope of science.

I'll allow for the fact that you might have made a mistake in your definition of metaphysics. Do you care to redefine it?

By your definition. No, I just wanted to talk about synchronicities, AI, and metaphysics. You derailed the thread.

And abstractions are not limited to science.

 

[computerhxr]

The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that have certain properties, but any physically possible object having those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws, properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic framework.

https://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html

 

[redbaron]

No, I just wanted to talk about synchronicities, AI, and metaphysics. You derailed the thread.

I was responding to Sinny and Puffy. I ignored like 4 of your posts since I already knew where the discussion was headed and only responded because you seemed very insistent on getting my attention. Takes two people to derail a thread.

And abstractions are not limited to science. They precede science.

Who said they're limited to science? I said they fall within the scope of science. Doesn't mean they fall only within that scope.

Abstractions can be applied in many ways, including science. The point here isn't that they are only scientific, but that they don't exist outside the scope of the scientific.

Either your definition is wrong, your understanding of science is wrong or you've defined poorly.

 

[redbaron]

From the same link you posted.

It would be a mistake to think that a theory postulating abstract objects is incompatible with our theories of natural science, which seem to presuppose that the only things that exist are the things governed by our true scientific theories. To see that the theory of abstract objects is compatible with natural scientific theories, we only have to think of abstract objects as possible and actual property-patterns. These patterns of properties objectify a group of properties that satisfy a certain pattern. For example, it will turn out that the real number π can be thought of as the pattern of properties satisfying the open sentence "According to the axioms of real number theory, π has the property F" (where "F" is a variable ranging over properties). There are an infinite number of properties satisfying this pattern (and an infinite number that don't). Our theory of abstract objects will "objectify" or "reify" the group of properties satisfying this pattern. So, on this view of what abstract objects are, we need not think of them as some ghostly, imperceptible kind of nonspatiotemporal substances. Instead, they are possible and actual patterns that are grounded in the arrangement of particles in the natural world and in the systematic behavior and linguistic usage of mathematicians and scientists as they discover, state, and apply theories of the natural world.

And so here we see, that these abstract concepts you define as metaphysical still exist within the scope of natural science. This is your link too.

So either your definition is wrong and the metaphysical concepts you're talking about don't exist outside the realm of science, or your understanding of science is wrong. Still not changing your definition?

Also the article you linked makes a point that the concept of dividing natural science from the metaphysical is what causes this silly confusion in the first place.

My viewpoint that metaphysics isn't even a thing, because if it's something that affects the natural world it is then by definition, not metaphysical doesn't denigrate the study of abstraction in any way.

It prevents this kind of confusion in the first place and is an excellent reminder of our own limitations. It's simultaneously the most honest and efficient worldview to adopt in relation to metaphysics vs. naturalism.

Good link, I've read it before though.

 

[Black Rose]

natural numbers are not physical.
they are a meta expression in the hierarchy of numbers.
number hierarchy is called cardinality.
layers of hierarchy is what meta refers to in addition to numbers being non-physical.

 

[computerhxr]

Who said they're limited to science? I said they fall within the scope of science. Doesn't mean they fall only within that scope.

You did...

2. Further to that, abstractions of reality don't exist outside the realm of science .

Really? I can paint an abstraction of reality so I must be a scientist!

Abstractions can be applied in many ways, including science. The point here isn't that they are only scientific, but that they don't exist outside the scope of the scientific.

Okay, so you're saying again... Abstractions don't exist outside the scope of the scientific. (unless by using the word "scientific" instead of science, you are just trying to claim you meant something different than what you said?)

Either your definition is wrong, your understanding of science is wrong or you've defined poorly.

What?! Your definitions and understandings have been inaccurate or wrong without any evidence to back your claims.

electricity !== electromagnetism
electromagnetism !== the basis of biology

Or maybe you're right! Electricity is the basis of biology. You can't even talk about biology without talking about electricity.

I sure hope you're not working in any field related to science and this is just a hobby for you.

 

[Sinny91]

OmfrigginGod, there is no fixed definition of metaphysics, Redbaron is arguing a redundant point, and I believe your ramblings have thoroughly confused Computerhxr.

Metaphysics deals with aspects of reality which cant be measured empirically, (this is what seperates Metaphysics from natural science). Metaphysics can be defined in numerous ways, from different perspectives. (As the first fooking online dictionary to appear in google informs you).

Arguing over none points. As per usual.

For an example of reality which can't be measured empirically, Anime gave you a good example, consciousness. The fact that you are living and breathing, besides being much to my disdain, is proof enough of the Metaphsyical.

 

[computerhxr]

natural numbers are not physical.
they are a meta expression in the hierarchy of numbers.
number hierarchy is called cardinality.
layers of hierarchy is what meta refers to in addition to numbers being non-physical.

Good points!

Also, numbers are meant to represent metaphysical objects. We like to think things are whole and one, but we are made up of atoms. Atoms are everywhere, so who's to say where we start and end? Atoms bond by forces but there's space between them. We say that some coagulation of mass is a singular object. If I hold someones hand, do we become one?

 

[Black Rose]

Science is latin for knowledge.
Godel proved the limits of knowledge / science.
Of course math is not science but we do use symbols as arbitrary intermediaries for knowledge. Knowledge is impossible without consciousness.

psy - chology
sci - ence
con - sci - ence

Ψ

phi - losophy
phy - sics

φ - ratio

 

[computerhxr]

OmfrigginGod, there is no fixed definition of metaphysics, Redbaron is arguing a redundant point, and I believe your ramblings have thoroughly confused Computerhxr.

Haha, yeah you're right!

Okay, so here's the problem.

1. Some of us want to discuss metaphysics, astrology, synchronicities, and other topics.

2. Rather than discussing the aspects metaphysics, we end up debating with someone who thinks it's BS.

3. Thread derails and everyone loses. No one gets to talk about the actual topic, because we all have to talk about science, and how it's superior to EVERYTHING!

LOL. Then all the interesting people leave the forum or they just don't get to talk about what they want.

It would be akin to someone talking about evolution and end up debating the existence of God.

 

[computerhxr]

con - sci - ence

Better yet...

con - science

 

[Sinny91]

Aye I know. I also know there are at least 15 -20 members interested in the metaphysical and conspiratorial on these boards; I know this because they have opened up dialogues with me. But the attitudes of the more dominant posters would mislead you all into believing otherwise, a few of them even having called for me to censor myself. Eat my shorts arseholes. There's more in heaven and earth than what is dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[redbaron]

electromagnetism !== the basis of biology

Yes it's only the force responsible for binding atoms and molecules together and that governs the electrical fields that power our entire nervous system.

But yeah I guess you're right, it's not the basis of biology.

The fact that you are living and breathing, besides being much to my disdain, is proof enough of the Metaphsyical.

You could just say, "kill yourself" instead of being a cowardly cunt.

Also that doesn't constitute proof of the metaphysical. You still can't discount consciousness as an emergent phenomena of physical properties of the brain.

In any case I've finished my work day, this thread kept me mildly amused during. We can argue again next time I'm bored and have nothing better to do than argue with idiots.

Keep on keeping on.

 

[computerhxr]

But the attitudes of the more dominant posters would mislead you all into believing otherwise

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

I've tried going to other forums to talk about these topics. I like people here because they don't treat metaphysics, syncronicities, socionics, or otherwise like it's magic.

For example, I'm fascinated by Astrology. I look at it from a metaphysical perspective, which is not the same as most astrologers. The Sun and the Moon do affect behavior and psychology. But then you go to a forum on astrology and people are asking if their birth sign means that they should marry someone or invest in a business.

It's the same thing for many other topics.

Oh, I even have ideas about conspiracies that I would love to chat about with some of you but I don't see any way to have a meaningful public conversation in this forum about them.

I just get tired of science. I used to think a lot more like Red but I grew up and learned better. Honestly, I used to think he was a really smart 12y/o but now I am thinking he's just a lonely closed minded adult.

 

[Sinny91]

Actually, there are a number of people who have attested to the fact they have been conscious whilst clinically brain dead.. perhaps you're one of them haha. @aimed at Z black cat.

@Computerhxr, Yea there are coo coo's at the extreme ends of either side, is all about balance, as I believe you mentioned earlier.

 

[Black Rose]

Also that doesn't constitute proof of the metaphysical. You still can't discount consciousness as an emergent phenomena of physical properties of the brain.

I think that the abstraction layers of the brain allow it to model layers of cardinality. If in fact the brain as a pattern is metaphysical the representations of the cardinality of brain patterns could be a way of defining a proof of such that it represents itself. Fractal self similarity of the meta layers that define the process of consciousness. Awareness of your own self transfigured cardinality.

 

[computerhxr]

@Sinny, yeah but there are non-locos in this forum!

@Anime, Red is asking for proof. He wants metaphysics to fit his scientific model of reality, rather than try to understand it in itself.

Proof is another word for confidence. Nothing is ever truly proven or provable (in science). You have to create a set of assumptions or the proof falls apart. You can prove things that aren't real by setting the assumptions. Just like we have to assume that we're not in the Matrix.

I like the quote from Einstein: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I'm sure he means that literally everything is an illusion. We assume that the illusion is the baseline for reality. The persistence of the illusion gives us confidence that it's real. I mean, you can clap your hands together and at some point if you look deep enough, your hands never actually touch.

 

[Seteleechete]

The word metaphysical is to annoyingly broad.
Rational/somewhat defined "metaphysical" topics like "(edit: actually a bad example)Is consciousness(define conciousness) an illusion?(define illusion)" or "how does the sun and moon affect psychology and behavior" seem interesting enough because they still maintain an analytical logical system.
Irrational/ill-defined ones like "how nature spirits affect us" less so.

Maybe if you reword such questions so as to make them rational(note, not necessary scientific) they would gain more traction. "How natural phenomena affect the behaviour of people" or "assuming x(clear definition) is a nature spirit and it exists, how would it affect us?" Without clearly defined terms it's very hard to discuss something and reach conclusions as the conclusions depend on the definitions.

Case in point: "Define metaphysical"

I hate when a topic devolves to arguing definitions instead of content.

Edit: Before you can even hope to answer a question like "is reality an illusion?" you have to define "reality" and "illusion" or alternatively(and in practical sense necessary) answer the question assuming certain definitions of the terms beforehand.

On the other hand questions like "is reality a computer game?" is more easily defined but also impossible to answer and is as such irrational(it requires a strict yes or no answer, which cannot be given). The question "how likely is it that reality is a computer simulation?" is on the other hand possible if not to answer at least make a hypothesis about and is as such more rational.

 

[redbaron]

Okay, so you're saying again... Abstractions don't exist outside the scope of the scientific.

Actually going to apologise for my bad wording, because there's at least 3 different ways to read that sentence I wrote. The intention of its meaning is to say that abstractions are not beyond the scope of science to study. I didn't at all mean that you can only study them with science.

 

[Puffy]

Well, I think this could be a very interesting discussion (hence posting), and that the issue is more to do with defensiveness preventing exchange. I responded to RB to clarify his position because it seems he makes a good point. To respond to the challenge of defining metaphysics in contrast to and its relationship to physics clarifies the study, why its worth studying, and makes discussion possible.

(sorry if this is a derail kitty)

My understanding of metaphysics is that it was a very stable scholastic tradition up until the enlightenment period, based upon the study of:
1) "being as such" (now ontology)
2) "the first cause of things" (God typically)
3) "that which does not change"

Post enlightenment the study went into complete disarray. My impression of contemporary philosophy, and the critical theory departments of the humanities, from my experience as a post-grad, is that it's still in a crises state. Everyone and their grandmother has their own version of metaphysics, but there is no scientific methodology by which we make definite claims about metaphysics, and thereby produce testable knowledge. So we have post-structuralist thinkers going around saying "everything is relative, there is no knowledge", while two departments over you have physicists shrugging their shoulders and continuing their experiments, ignoring any contribution from the humanities as practically worthless.

Post-structuralism is a reflection of the crises state of critical theory, not of knowledge, and imo unless it is resolved I think it will die as a discipline as it's for the most part self-indulgent wankery.

 

[Puffy]

While Aristotle coined it, I've always thought of metaphysics inseparably to Platonism, which is a form of metaphysical idealism. This is the position that all that exists is mind, or consciousness, so that matter is mental in nature. Metaphysical, because Plato (and most metaphysical idealists) hold that the reality we perceive now is an appearance or emanation of a deeper level of mind/consciousness that is termed metaphysical reality (allegory of the cave.) The object of philosophy to them then being to contemplate and attain to a direct experience of metaphysical reality, as they hold that if such was the source of our world that attaining to it would lead to a greater capacity for understanding it.

My understanding is that this kind of position is at the root of the original tradition of metaphysics -- which, after all, would have been maintained by colleges of a theological background -- as metaphysical reality is A) "being as such" (primordial being), B) "the first cause of things", and C) "that which does not change." The existence of metaphysical reality came into question with the enlightenment period, and hence the field's current disarray as it is appropriated to defend all kinds of positions it was not originally intended for.

Spoiler

Metaphysical idealism is also the essence of most esoteric branches of the world's religions -- Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, et al -- metaphysical reality being considered divine in nature (and deity the first cause we are pantheistic emanations of); the aim being to approach a direct experience of it by various meditative, yogic, ritual, or other means, with the ultimate aim being to re-unify with that mind's first cause.

Metaphysicality is intrinsically mental because if it was not there would be no means by which philosophers, mystics, whoever, could experience it. So, of course, a challenge to metaphysicality is the possibility that it could be explained in terms of neurology, or some other field, and that it is an elaborate illusion.

The essential intellectual challenge of metaphysicists then is to find some means by which they can demonstrate the reality of metaphysicality outside of the experience of metaphysicality. If they cannot do this, they cannot have true intellectual integrity imo. In this respect, I think I hold RB's view: if this was the case the study of it would become an extension of the natural sciences, and the term metaphysicality would simply be a convenient means by which we categorise one order of experience/ forces from another.

(The only physical theory approaching it I recall is the implicate order theory of David Bohm, in which appearance = explicate, metaphysics = implicate, but I'm not a physicist and am guessing he's considered fringe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order)

 

[computerhxr]

Actually going to apologise for my bad wording, because there's at least 3 different ways to read that sentence I wrote. The intention of its meaning is to say that abstractions are not beyond the scope of science to study. I didn't at all mean that you can only study them with science.

Okay... I just think you're a dick and I have a reflective personality so don't expect me to be nice to you, when you have no respect for others. Calling everyone idiots shows that you have no respect and deserve none.

The word metaphysical is to annoyingly broad.

Yes, the more broad the better! LOL. It makes metaphysics flexible but it should maintain some structure. At some point you're not talking about any form of reality if you don't.

Case in point: "Define metaphysical"

I hate when a topic devolves to arguing definitions instead of content.

Yes, I hate that too! That is what happens when people come to debate rather than have a discussion on the topic.

You could asks people to define anything and you will get all sorts of answers. People have their own model which is logically sound in their mind, but words are not precise enough to make the definition stable.

Science is too ridged to be practical in every context. Sometimes psychology is better explained metaphysically. This is why Astrology is fascinating to me.

When you look at corporations, they are metaphysical giants. They have a similar psychology as an individual. So with that in mind you can start thinking of corporations using the MBTI for example. Does a corporation have some mental disorder? Can you use therapy to help a bi-polar entity?

Plus, people are very compatible with narratives. Astrology or the Bible would be a narrative. There is a really powerful form of therapy called narrative therapy that Astrology and the Bible fall under IMO. Unfortunately, people go to nutty extremes...