• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Technological singularity and Scientism

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
Any axiom that is not grounded in the physical has no relation to reality.
That is how we know if it is true or false.
Because it can be tested.

Sorry but you have no idea what an axiom is. No axiom is physical that's a non sense. No axiom can be tested or proved. Axioms are necessary truths.

You are confusing axioms with theorems. Theorems can be tested in a sense but not empirically.


What is the source of the physical and metaphysical?

The First Cause. IMHO God. I'm Catholic.


Does this not mean that the dualism does not exist?

No. Different natures.

If everything is metaphysical why not just say: metaphysical = quantum physical.

Quantum is physical would be just a pleonasm.


The feeling of justice is in the body, when acts happen that feel wrong the body tells you. Any action you feel is wrong, is a pattern of action after all. Which means justice is sensed by the actions we see as motion of bodies doing what they should not be doing because should and should not are feelings in the body. We know how thing should be by the motions bodies act out.

This is pure scientism.

We can think in hypothetical events involving justice.





To understand infinity as finite being we need only extrapolate the loops we reside in, to a never ending cycle. I know time is never ending because my cycles inside me tell me that closure is impossible. If closer cannot be met then infinity is an open system that is open beyond my encapsulation. I encounter new information all the time and this is proof of a reality beyond my awareness. Reality that is beyond you exists because you encounter new information you never had before.

Your whole notion of metaphysical comes from the understanding that there is a reality exists beyond your existence. Physicality = all reality even the reality outside of you because again: metaphysical = quantum physical.

More scientism...
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
No axiom is physical

The First Cause. IMHO God. I'm Catholic.

We can think in hypothetical events involving justice.

So to sum the metaphysical includes:

non-physical

causality

hypotheticals

From this I am thinking of the Buddhist metaphysics nature of impermanence.

Each moment is different from the next and every instance is dependent of the previous instance.

I do think death is impossible but I find it difficult to know the boundary between the physical and metaphysical.

If I can appear and disappear, if I came from nothing return to it and appear again. Then I flux in and out of existence. Yet I can feel that I am physical and not physical at the same time.

I exist and I don't exist, a paradox?

The void is present and impermanence.
 

JR_IsP

Overthinker in Chief
Local time
Today 5:41 AM
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
285
-->
Location
Venezuela, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
I think that the concepts in here are being extrapolated.

@John_Mann insists that consciousness is metaphysical because...

Basically I'm talking about metaphysics as ontology. And intuition as metaphysical perception. And things perceived by intuition as metaphysical entities. Being intuition a sense then which physical organ is responsible for the perception of intuition? And what exactly intuition perceives? Things like the undefined terms of geometry (point, line and plane), infinity, perfection, evil, justice, etc.. Things that doesn't exist anywhere in the physical world. And things perceived through intuition seems to be immutable and universally accessible among conscious beings.

The very nature of consciousness can't be physical. Because our most fundamental approach to the physical world starts in consciousness itself through intuition (axioms). You can't even have an object without a subject.

Now, this logic may be right, but he's not using the terms properly. Metaphysics can be defined by Merriam Webster as

a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
metaphysics … analyzes the generic traits manifested by existences of any kind — J. H. Randall
(2) : ontology 2
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience
steered philosophy away from metaphysics and toward the disciplines of natural science and linguistics — Time

Now, this definition can be a little ambiguous, so I checked out what Wikipedia says.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.[1]

While various views and methods have been called 'metaphysics' across history, this article approaches metaphysics first from the perspective of contemporary analytical philosophy, and then explores metaphysics in other traditions. In this vein, metaphysics seeks to answer two basic questions:[2]

Ultimately, what is there?
What is it like?

I'd like to show this extract too.

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another. Another branch is metaphysical cosmology: which seeks to understand the origin and meaning of the universe by thought alone.

A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected. In the eighteenth century, David Hume took an extreme position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding with the statement:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

This is true. If we use metaphysics to explain how the universe works, or how consciousness works by thought alone, there's a series of potential mistakes involved, specially, if someone believes something strongly, his judgement will be partial.

Philosophy may be used to ask questions that science can't explain due to their abstract nature, such as There is a God? Does the soul go anywhere after Death? There is something like a Soul? Those are questions that are beyond of our current level of scientifical understanding. In a future, these questions may be answered by science, maybe not.

But when philosophy is used to explain the nature of something alone, it becomes a pseudoscience.

Now, I think that John is calling scientism is something like this (originally posted by Kuu)

Scientism, as in, the trusting in science (or science-sounding) as a source of knowledge, is certainly a strong aspect of contemporary societies. It seems to be used often in a negative connotation, that some people trust blindly in "science" or a presumed scientific dogmatism, which is ironically un-scientific. Other people just are extremely disconnected from what science actually is and just like to turn science into a new god to worship or to justify their point of view (regardless of what the scientific consensus or lack thereof is on the matter).

And why that posture?

The First Cause. IMHO God. I'm Catholic.

Voilà! That's were the whole theory falls into pieces. Being catholic (or believing there is a God in general) can't just be a wall for people to think. Or even worse, a justification for denying scientific facts, such as the Earth's age.

I personally think that there is a God, but my God is like a watchmaker, some kind of deity that defined a series of complex rules for the universe to work, setting the basis for the appearence of life (but not exactly creating it), and now he's watching how his universe is evolving, and how a species from a palid blue dot in the middle of nowhere is beggining to understand how that rules work, calling them physics. We should be proud of that.

My own vision of God may even be compatible with us being part of a simulated universe.

But beyond that, how I perceive God mustn't stop my need for knowledge, my need to know why, my crusade for the truth. And if someone proofs, by the scientific method, how consciousness work, I'll accept it, because if it's either physical or not, at least it will be proven. And when a theory it's proven, that knowledge can be used to answer several more questions, for example, why animals don't have consciousness?

Or they do have it and we don't realize it?

And being not-physical doesn't mean that it's beyond physics.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
Each moment is different from the next and every instance is dependent of the previous instance.

Try to read about the concept of duration created by Bergson (the most complex concept I know). "I change but I don't cease".

I do think death is impossible

Yes, it's a logical conclusion.
but I find it difficult to know the boundary between the physical and metaphysical.

Yes.


From this I am thinking of the Buddhist metaphysics nature of impermanence.

I like Buddhism. Actually the premises of Buddhism and Catholicism are very similar. The difference is Buddhism stops in Shunyata. Buddhism is agnostic in relation the nature and/or origin of Shunyata. Catholicism says that Shunyata (Nihil) is the first creation of God (probably through the Jewish concept of TzimTzum).

Buddhism is not clear if Buddha-nature is Shunyata itself or is something from (or beyond) Shunyata.

In Catholicism the souls are created directly by God from Nihil (creatio ex nihilo). Because soul is created perfect and is a simple structure without parts it can't disintegrate so it's immortal. The soul is the cause of consciousness.
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today 2:41 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,298
-->
It's very hard for me to debate this further, given the starting assumptions you have.

Would you be receptive to the idea that intuition is indeed physical?
Like, if I showed you videos confirming it, do you think you'd consider it?
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
It's very hard for me to debate this further, given the starting assumptions you have.

Would you be receptive to the idea that intuition is indeed physical?
Like, if I showed you videos confirming it, do you think you'd consider it?

Sure!

I'm very open-minded. I know people now have the relativism (and Scientism: "everything is physical") as thought default and are very angry if someone does not share these worldviews.

Sometimes people seems to forget the contributions of Christians in our civilization. Jung was a Christian for instance. I think people mistake Christians as being only Pentecostals. Pentecostals are completely crazy indeed.

We Catholics were being around for a couple of centuries. We can say we have seen a lot of things. Relativism appeared after WWII as a popular worldview. Let's us see how long it will last...
 

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today 2:41 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,298
-->
Cool!

Yea. I think I understand where you're coming from now, and it makes sense in its own way. I've nothing against Christians personally, despite our differing perspectives.

But so, I wanted to show you this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGTZrmRCzEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUbqykXVx0A

On March 15th, 2016 AlphaGo defeated the world champion at Go, after having also defeated the European champion a few months prior. The significance in this accomplishment is captured by the narrator as:
"Because unlike chess, Go is a game that requires human intuition and creativity"
There are more possible moves in the game than there are atoms in the universe. So you can think of Go as a very abstract, intuitive game where you can't use brute calculation to win. You need to rely on a more organic/intuitive processing methodology.

So AlphaGo doesn't just show intuition, it shows intuition beyond the level of the world's master at the world's most intuitive game. How is this possible through just programming?

Ultimately, AlphaGo is just a program running on a server. It is transistors and circuit boards with electricity running through it. But yet it proves that intuition can be generated by this physical object.

I wonder how you would respond to this?
Or how would you explain AlphaGo's accomplishments from your perspective?
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
Very good argument!

Of course, as an INTP, I'm aware of AlphaGo, Deep blue and Watson.

And as a Catholic I follow the thomistic philosophy.

St. Thomas Aquinas said human beings have three souls (Jews talk about five souls). Two are mortal and probably are products of natural evolution.

These two souls (vegetative and animal) made pre-conscious humans just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

In a recent point in history, somewhere in Mesopotamia, God gave a spiritual soul to these unconscious men.

Thomistic philosophy is vast and I know for sure consciousness and free will are exclusive properties of the spiritual soul (psyche) and an enhancer of the properties of animal soul (anima). The spiritual soul it's not the human mind but a part of it. And consciousness is a property of the spiritual soul.

Now I'm not sure if Aquinas told about this animal soul possessing intuition or not. I'll research better about this. Here's some material about this:

http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1790&context=luc_theses
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,691
-->
If you're Catholic you should study Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's idea of the Omega point. He was a Jesuit priest who tried to reconcile evolution and theology, in doing so developed this concept. If you see a similarity with the Singularity it shouldn't be surprising, as that is a concept rooted in evolution, technology just being the latest handmaiden.
 

Kuu

>>Loading
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
3,409
-->
Location
The wired
It does seem like your understanding of metaphysics is skewed.

Of course science it's not concerned with metaphysics, that's why scientism is BS.

But science is built upon metaphysics.

I did not say science is not concerned with metaphysics, I said it is not concerned with metaphysics that deals with the super-natural.

All theories of knowledge require metaphysics. Natural philosophers rallied around the metaphysical theory of materialistic monism and built the discipline known as Science upon it because only through empiricism did they seem to make any significant progress in actually acquiring knowledge they could apply and share, since empiricism approximates objectivity (which is inherent to the materialist view). Science undeniably makes actual 'miracles', but where are all your omnipotent gods?

Arguing about things that cannot be disproved or even comprehended like most dualisms propose is an exercise in frustration since it becomes a subjective matter about faith (certainty without proof), that nobody can agree on, and faith is not knowledge.

The beauty of the scientific method is that it works even if you don't believe in it. Even if a bunch of scientists are christian (which requires considerable cognitive dissonance), to science it doesn't matter what they personally believe. With a properly designed experiment, their subjective beliefs are entirely irrelevant.

I don't know how this following can be a natural view.

If you understand that science is built upon materialist monism, it makes perfect sense and is entirely self-consistent as a world-view. For science, everything is physical. If we can observe a complex phenomena we call consciousness, so that consciousness = real, then it *must* be physical, because everything is. There can't be non-physical things, from their view.

You're just failing to get it because you're seeing it through a dualist lens. You can believe that materialistic monism is wrong, but you can't say from any logical view that science is incoherent with its own conception of metaphysics.

Why animals with super brains like dolphins and whales don't have a similar or better minds than us?

How are you so sure they don't? They certainly have complex communication which only until recently has been able to be recorded properly for study because of the wide range of frequencies involved and the difficulty of doing so in the wild (specially the issue of language and cultural transmission... if you raise a human child in a captive environment you end up with a savage, animal-like behaviour, so studying cetacean intelligence in captive environments is questionable). The issue of animal intelligence overall is still poorly studied.

On the other hand (or lack of): Lack of hands means little capacity of complex manipulation and tool-making. Without tool-making you can't record knowledge or culture, be it artifacts, architecture, writing... you can only relay it orally. Without those things its hard to have a historical memory and a significant cultural advancement since you're perpetually starting over.

I think it will be extremely interesting when science improves brain-computer interfaces and can give animals robotic hands or other sorts of tools. A few experiments have been done with this but the BCIs still need more work...

I'm Catholic.

Of course. Only the very religious question science thusly. The obnoxious "scientism" is generally a feature of people raised without religion (they didn't give things a deep philosophical thought, they just defaulted to atheism, and science is their "religion") or with weak religion (unlike many of the strongly religious, they lack a clear philosophical position, so they don't really know what to believe in, so they sort of believe in religion and sort of believe in science and likely understand neither).

I was raised catholic, and I gladly abandoned it a very long time ago.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
If you're Catholic you should study Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's idea of the Omega point. He was a Jesuit priest who tried to reconcile evolution and theology, in doing so developed this concept. If you see a similarity with the Singularity it shouldn't be surprising, as that is a concept rooted in evolution, technology just being the latest handmaiden.

Thank you for the tip. I'll read about it.

I'm not sure but I think the concept of physical singularity was invented by Father Georges Lemaître when he created the Big-Bang theory.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Metaphysics is a linguistic construct, nothing more.
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
-->
JR_IsP said:
Science is why, if Earth is supposed to have only 6 thousand years old, the radioactive decays of the isotopes in rocks show a 4.5 billion years old one?

Pfft, we didn't even KNOW about radioactive decay 4.5 billion years ago! Extrapolation much!

Not that, y'know, the world really is 6000 years old. It was made last tuesday. Or maybe it was monday. Look at that, I've already forgotten.

John_Mann said:
they say consciousness does not exist at all

They WHAT lol? xD

Are they robots or something?

JR_IsP said:
For thousands of years we thought that lightnings were product of the Gods rage, because we didn't know them. Now we know they're product of electrical charges of storm clouds.

And electrical charges of storm clouds are, of course, a result of ... GOD'S RAGE!!!1
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Crazy isn't? That's exactly what new atheists believe: consciousness (self) is just an illusion. God is an illusion and you is an illusion too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

https://youtu.be/fajfkO_X0l0

If the body is not the self and experience is impermanent then what is is that contains the experience? Why must experience be contained? You claim that more than the physical exists, is this just spiritual materialism. A spirit made of stuff. If I am not material. If my soul is immaterial. Then my soul is not stuff (spiritual stuff nor material stuff). Again we return to the void. States are impermanent. And if the soul is not made of stuff and what we know is that the only constant is that we are the person experiencing these experiences. What connects the experiences is me because I remember having past experiences. Moment to moment it is still me even if the state(experience) has a different quality. The constant is the me because the me experiences states. But I am not stuff exactly. I am not water because that changes every 7 day. My bones change every 12 years. In one year every atom is different. Yet a year ago it was me that experienced the experiences. The stuff is not containing the experiences because the stuff is gone in about a year. So the self is not stuff. The experiences are gone but it was me that had them.

The observer is not stuff, stuff does not contain the observer. The body can completely change, memories can completely change but the observer is what had the experiences. Soul means solely. My experiences are solely mine. They are not contained by stuff. They happen and are impermanent but the observer experienced all phenomena. I am the same person even though I had a different body one year ago. There is no ghost, just a soul. An observer.
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
-->
Only the universal soul is not made from stuff; all else is modification upon the infinite point of unity.

And so, we are all one, differentiated through variation of the basic formula, that which is is not that which is not.

Worth mentioning too, that the subject and object are but dual components of the intersubjective, the unification of reality.

The body may be but a vessel, but the mind is not necessarily discrete; who amongst us knows the truth?
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Since I have a body quantum physics must be involved and affect consciousness. The quantum is discrete at Planck scale (pixelation). Brainwaves could be enhanced by quantum effects and genetic engineering.
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
-->
Since I have a body quantum physics must be involved and affect consciousness. The quantum is discrete at Planck scale (pixelation). Brainwaves could be enhanced by quantum effects and genetic engineering.

An interesting thought is that mind is dispersed throughout the whole of the environment, and it is due to the highly complex electrical impulses propagating through the brain that the mind is formed as the most significant part of its environment.

Whatever occurs below the Planck scale, we shall never know (barring divine revelation) but what we do know is that time is non-linear; rather, at each moment, strengthened by the uncertainty of decisions breaking apart in vastly different directions, the universe diverges into an infinitude of directions; it is through the free will from which we are constructed that we isolate one direction amongst the many. And so, we exist in more spatial dimensions than 3, more temporal dimensions than 1, and space folds in on itself in a fractal manner. Yet, also we are not extended in any dimension, and also only one - the path through which we walk, undefined both forwards and backwards.

Thus we know that there is Will and that Will is Free; we know that we can effect the quantum through our thoughts, and indeed the two are one, as merely a particular perspective held for analysis. We know also, that knowledge has the power to shape reality, and so as we learn more of what constitutes physical reality on the fundamental level, we gain power to effect its outcome. As we knew much before, now we have forgotten much and learnt much more; on our way we rise, further and further, towards higher states of reality.

It is a story that has been written and yet not been written - for we are the actors of our own stories, and at the time we live, we have the potential for uncovering great secrets and shaping the path of our lives for aeons to come, even if such future states never come to fruition through our linear path. It is an exciting time we live in, as much is changing, and what we must do is but to listen to our own core being, to break free from the shackles of which society imprisons us, and whilst our potential never runs dry and thus we reach greater states whateverso happens, our heart cries out that we become who we may become as we so Will, for the sake of our soul's life.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
If the body is not the self and experience is impermanent then what is is that contains the experience?

The spiritual soul.

Why must experience be contained?

Because it does not exist by itself. It's a contingency.

You claim that more than the physical exists, is this just spiritual materialism. A spirit made of stuff.

Spiritual materialism is non sense.

But a spirit is something, in Catholicism is adopted the aristotelian theory of substance (in the dogma of transubstantiation). Spirit is a metaphysical substance. Kant defined as thing-in-itself.

An explanation about what a metaphysical substance is think about the letter A. You can recognise an A in almost infinite kinds of letter fonts. There's no official font for the A. You never saw an A as substance (with your physical eyes) but only the accidents of A (fonts).

If I am not material. If my soul is immaterial. Then my soul is not stuff (spiritual stuff nor material stuff).
In Catholicism you're not a spirit and neither a body. You have a spiritual soul and you have a physical body. Human nature is the peculiar union of these contrasting natures. That's why Christians believe in resurrection of the body at the Last Judgment.

Animals are purely physical and angels purely spiritual (their vision is knowledge itself). We are the middle way between them.

Again we return to the void. States are impermanent.

The spiritual soul is made from the void. In Catholicism this void/nihil is the very opposite of God and is defined as infinite potential. God is infinite potentials infinitely fulfilled.

But you're clearly talking about Buddhism and here's where Buddhism logically collapses in its own premises.

Everything is impermanent, but the impermanence itself is permanent?

There's no Self but then what reaches the enlightenment?

You only reach Nirvana by ceasing desire, but what about the desire to reach Nirvana?

What is an enlighted person? If you compare the Catholic goal of becoming a saint you'll notice that a saint is a well defined concept. The very goal of Buddhism is pure vagueness.


And if the soul is not made of stuff and what we know is that the only constant is that we are the person experiencing these experiences. What connects the experiences is me because I remember having past experiences. Moment to moment it is still me even if the state(experience) has a different quality. The constant is the me because the me experiences states. But I am not stuff exactly. I am not water because that changes every 7 day. My bones change every 12 years. In one year every atom is different. Yet a year ago it was me that experienced the experiences. The stuff is not containing the experiences because the stuff is gone in about a year. So the self is not stuff. The experiences are gone but it was me that had them.

The observer is not stuff, stuff does not contain the observer. The body can completely change, memories can completely change but the observer is what had the experiences. Soul means solely. My experiences are solely mine. They are not contained by stuff. They happen and are impermanent but the observer experienced all phenomena. I am the same person even though I had a different body one year ago. There is no ghost, just a soul. An observer.

Bergson explained these subjective experiences as the being perceiving reality itself.

He said this perception is duration. Because one endures against change.

This duration has a property called qualitative multiplicity.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
The body may be but a vessel, but the mind is not necessarily discrete;

The mind can't be discrete. Read Bergson.

who amongst us knows the truth?

Someone at least.

Because if someone says "nobody knows the truth" then this statement is the ultimate truth. And in this case if someone knows the truth then it's a contradiction. But truth cant be contradictory. And so on...

I think a lot of people knows the truth.

And truth can be reached by eliminating the self-contradictory systems of thought.

That's why I made this topic about TS being based solely on scientism. Because I can't accept something based on pure nonsense as scientism.

The Architect reminded me about the Omega point being a philosophical fundament to TS too. I'd already knew that concept through Kurzweil but I'd completely forgot about it. My OP goal is finished.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Because if someone says "nobody knows the truth" then this statement is the ultimate truth. And in this case if someone knows the truth then it's a contradiction. But truth cant be contradictory. And so on...

I think a lot of people knows the truth.

And truth can be reached by eliminating the self-contradictory systems of thought.

I like pyrhonnian skepticism(or was it fallibilism?). You can't know the truth and you can't know if this statement is true. Accepting the seemingly unavoidable contradiction and/or lack of certainty rather than relying on random dogma or faith.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Animals are purely physical and angels purely spiritual (their vision is knowledge itself). We are the middle way between them.

This is incorrect because this would mean feral children don't have consciousness. Even frog and fish feel pain and pleasure. Or you must deny that consciousness exists at all. Animals are conscious, this denial that they are is blasphemy :rolleyes:
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
You can't know the truth and you can't know if this statement is true.

This is not fallibilism.

Accepting the seemingly unavoidable contradiction and/or lack of certainty rather than relying on random dogma or faith.

The example I mentioned (there's no truth) is a very well defined logical contradiction/paradox it's not just a "seemingly".

Accepting logical contradictions as truth is (bad) faith.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Accepting logical contradictions is (bad) faith.

Why? In this choice between any number of random dogmas and accepting that I just don't/can't know with certainty the later seems like a much better option to me. Otherwise I'd just be lying to myself to appease my uncertainty.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil

You must believe in me because I'm a liar.

If you accept logical contradictions as truth then what's the point of asking why?

" Why" imply meaning.

In this choice between any number of random dogmas and accepting that I just don't/can't know with certainty the later seems like a much better option to me. Otherwise I'd just be lying to myself to appease my uncertainty.

You can't talk about "better" in your scenario because is pure nihilism and not fallibilism as you proposed.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
You must believe in me because I'm a liar.

If you accept logical contradictions as truth what's the point of asking why?

" Why" imply meaning.



You can't talk about "better" in your scenario because is pure nihilism.

Why is it better to believe a dogma? Why is it worse to accept your inability to solve this contradiction? And I don't see it being nihilistic as a problem(I personally go by a version of nihilistic hedonism for my reason to live and question things.)

Also I never said I accept logical contradictions as truth I said I can't/don't know truth(if such a thing even exists in this context).
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
pure nihilism

Pure nihilism claims there is no insintric meaning to life, which is also an absolute statement, which is why I no longer claim it(and I don't believe I did in this instance). I don't know with certainty if there is no insintric meaning to life [^.^].
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
I said I can't/don't know truth.

There's a fundamental difference between can't and don't in this statement.

If you can't know truth, do you consider this statement as true?
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
If you can't know truth, do you consider this statement as true?

I probably wouldn't know. It's precisely because I don't know if I can't know truth that I said it like that.

Though out of practicality I'd use some form of fallibillism(or something similar) to say things like 1+1=2 is emperically true.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Animals are conscious


This is what I don't like about Rene Descartes Cathlics.

They are perfectly fine with animal torture because animal to them lack consciousness.

If you ask me it is not O.K. to kick dogs like he did.

This all goes into religion being very very evil about who is human and who has a soul.

Animals have souls even if the church says they don't.

What they lack is higher reasoning, they do not lack souls.

Only an evil person would say otherwise.

It would show how religion must be rejected if that belief must be part of the dogma.

Even in some eastern religions it is wrong to harm a bug or vegetable because all beings are sentient.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
A lot of animals can display higher reasoning equivalent to the average 15 year old, so even that argument doesn't hold up.

Petty dogma rooted in make believe stories.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Pure nihilism claims there is no insintric meaning to life, which is also an absolute statement, which is why I no longer claim it(and I don't believe I did in this instance). I don't know with certainty if there is no insintric meaning to life [^.^].
When a blacksmith creates a sword he does so with a purpose in mind and the meaning of that sword's existence would depend upon the blacksmith's intent. He may have created it to be decorative, made of cheap iron and impractically weighted because it's just supposed to look good, that is the meaning of its existence.

Likewise when talking about the meaning of life we're assuming there's a creator whose intent gives meaning to our existence, but even if that were true that meaning is not inherent. It is dependent upon the intent of the creator, the buyer, the owner, the wielder, a sword may have many different meanings to many different people and a people can also decide for themselves what their own existence means.

In any case the meaning is not inherent.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
In Christianity worldview animals have only the vegetative and sensitive soul, both souls are mortal.

They dont have the immortal soul that's why they don't have consciousness.

This is not a permission to animal torture. But we need some of them as food. Our biological evolution is based upon protein consumption.

Consciousness is a very subtle feature of human mind and most of the time we're not conscious at all. Most of our daily routine is done in automatic mode.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Lol, dualism
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
In Christianity worldview animals have only the vegetative and sensitive soul, both souls are mortal.

They dont have the immortal soul that's why they don't have consciousness.

The premise of this statement is that animals will not be resurrected on judgment day because resurrection makes us humans immortal. But this is in conflict with reincarnation that states your soul is immortal and even animals come back but in different form. A dog that dies can reincarnate as a different dog.

If you cease having experiences you are dead forever and don't exit. The soul is immortal as long as you can continue having experiences. Hence the soul cannot be dead when you resurrect or reincarnate or enter the spirit world. Where do we and animals go when we die? The premise must be that experience continues for immortality in this world or the spirit world. It cannot be proven that animals do not enter the spirit world and continue experience.
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 8:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
-->
John_Mann said:
The mind can't be discrete. Read Bergson.

It might be easier if you were to summarise it.

Did you understand what I meant by the assertion?
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
The premise of this statement is that animals will not be resurrected on judgment day because resurrection makes us humans immortal. But this is in conflict with reincarnation that states your soul is immortal and even animals come back but in different form. A dog that dies can reincarnate as a different dog.

If you cease having experiences you are dead forever and don't exit. The soul is immortal as long as you can continue having experiences. Hence the soul cannot be dead when you resurrect or reincarnate or enter the spirit world. Where do we and animals go when we die? The premise must be that experience continues for immortality in this world or the spirit world. It cannot be proven that animals do not enter the spirit world and continue experience.

When I mentioned "in Christianity", reincarnation was automatically excluded. Christianity doesn't accept reincarnation of the immortal soul (this is dogma). The immortal soul of every human is created directly by God at the moment of conception.

St. Thomas Aquinas said animals and plants will not enter Heaven or Hell. It's not oblivion to them because they will always be kept by God's memory. But the case is not closed, ultimately there's no dogmatic/axiomatic position about this.

I know there are some interpretations say maybe the sensitive mortal soul can be recycled by nature into others beings (just like their dead bodies are). That's would explain the popularity of the concept of reincarnation and physicality of mind. Maybe the mortal souls are always recycling their meme's substrate.

This would be very similar to the Buddhist concept of rebirth (is not reincarnation because doesn't involve an immortal soul). But if so then this mortal soul "rebirth" would end at the Last Judgment.

Basically Christianity denies reincarnation because it's not in harmony with the principle of justice. Reincarnation means that you're are being punished or rewarded without you being aware of why. Because nobody has vivid memories about past lives like passwords and secrets for instance. Reincarnation demands very simple empirical evidences and there's none.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Matter and Memory (French: Matière et mémoire, 1896) is a book by the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941). Its subtitle is Essay on the relation of body and spirit (Essai sur la relation du corps à l’esprit), and the work presents an analysis of the classical philosophical problems concerning this relation. Within that frame the analysis of memory serves the purpose of clarifying the problem. Matter and Memory was written in reaction to the book The Maladies of Memory by Théodule Ribot, which appeared in 1881. Ribot claimed that the findings of brain science proved that memory is lodged within a particular part of the nervous system; localized within the brain and thus being of a material nature. Bergson was opposed to this reduction of spirit to matter. Defending a clear anti-reductionist position, he considered memory to be of a deeply spiritual nature, the brain serving the need of orienting present action by inserting relevant memories. The brain thus being of a practical nature, certain lesions tend to perturb this practical function, but without erasing memory as such. The memories are, instead, simply not 'incarnated', and cannot serve their purpose.
The thing is there's no evidence to support this hypothesis nor is there any need for it, no reason to think that memories aren't stored as synaptic connections, it's simply willful ignorance for the sake of preserving his beliefs.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
It might be easier if you were to summarise it.

Did you understand what I meant by the assertion?

I think you mean something like Buddhism. There's void between one thought (mental state) to another.

Bergson said that mental states have no empty spaces between. Thr present mental state is a kind of an eternal moment that encompasses the entire past mental states without rupture of any kind. Basically this is his concept of duration.

This is the Christianity view too. That's another difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

The concept of duration is very complex and was the center of a debate between Bergson and Einstein. Here's an interesting short documentary about this debate:

https://vimeo.com/13235559
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Basically Christianity denies reincarnation because it's not in harmony with the principle of justice. Reincarnation means that you're are being punished or rewarded without you being aware of why.

Your confusing reincarnation with some form of karmic belief.

Reincarnation has nothing to do with punishment but simply the continuation of experience.

Because nobody has vivid memories about past lives like passwords and secrets for instance. Reincarnation demands very simple empirical evidences and there's none.

By empirical you are appealing to materialism to prove spiritual matters. Many people in India claim to remember past lives. Why would the belief exist if no one had these past life experiences. Reincarnation is just as provable as heaven or the resurrection. Your belief in catholicism dogma has no bearing on the actuality of the truth of eastern spiritual belief. If we are to give equal weight to all metaphysical systems them Christianity is one system that has no more proof than the eastern regions based on the fuzziness of both metaphysics involved. Again how do you account for people that say they remember past lives? Spiritual experience are not empirical because empiricism is materialism and you reject the fact that only the physical exists.

If more than the physical exists all we have is our own experiences of the spiritual realm and the testimony of other spiritual experiences. All spiritual experiences are valid. Thus reincarnation needs no empirical (materialistic) evidence but simply the testimony of those who have had past life memories. Dogma cannot invalidate an experience because dogma is made up by man. Man is not the authority. Experience is the authority. All spirituality is experience of the metaphysical realm not empirical materialism and not dogma. Dogma is made up and man-made. Dogma pretends to be truth because it gives authority to others and not the experience each person has in themselves. No dogma can claim authority over me but only my own spiritual experience.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
The thing is there's no evidence to support this hypothesis nor is there any need for it, no reason to think that memories aren't stored as synaptic connections, it's simply willful ignorance for the sake of preserving his beliefs.

Do you really believe that we can retrieve the memory of your first kiss by scanning your brain?
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
Your confusing reincarnation with some form of karmic belief.

Reincarnation has nothing to do with punishment but simply the continuation of experience.



By empirical you are appealing to materialism to prove spiritual matters. Many people in India claim to remember past lives. Why would the belief exist if no one had these past life experiences. Reincarnation is just as provable as heaven or the resurrection. Your belief in catholicism dogma has no bearing on the actuality of the truth of eastern spiritual belief. If we are to give equal weight to all metaphysical systems them Christianity is one system that has no more proof than the eastern regions based on the fuzziness of both metaphysics involved. Again how do you account for people that say they remember past lives? Spiritual experience are not empirical because empiricism is materialism and you reject the fact that only the physical exists.

If more than the physical exists all we have is our own experiences of the spiritual realm and the testimony of other spiritual experiences. All spiritual experiences are valid. Thus reincarnation needs no empirical (materialistic) evidence but simply the testimony of those who have had past life memories. Dogma cannot invalidate an experience because dogma is made up by man. Man is not the authority. Experience is the authority. All spirituality is experience of the metaphysical realm not empirical materialism and not dogma. Dogma is made up and man-made. Dogma pretends to be truth because it give authority to others and not the experience each person has in themselves. No dogma can claim authority over me but only my own spiritual experience.

Catholicism is an Eastern religion that also encompasses Judaism and mesopotamian lost religions. The account of creation is entirely from Mesopotamia for instance.

I don't know any concept of reincarnation without karma (as cause and effect) being involved.

Reincarnation itself can't be empirically tested but the implications can. That's why Houdini left a password to his wife to test any claim of spiritism and/or reincarnation about him. In this sense reincarnation can be empirically tested.

Catholicism denies reincarnation and contact with the dead (except rare and special occasions like the visions of Mary) and claims the dead are not wandering around but "locked" in heaven, purgatory or hell.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 10:41 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
To understand even the basics of how the brain maintains the human intellect, we might need to know not just the current state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, not just the varying strengths with which they are connected, and not just the states of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point, but how the moment-to-moment activity of the brain contributes to the integrity of the system.

It doesn't make the brain any less computer-like. It just makes it a very complex computer.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Well yeah a brain isn't made of transistors and logic gates but rather neurons and synapses, a better comparison would be the analogue circuit boards used in BEAM robotics which do utilize the same principles as neurons and synapses but with ICs and modulating feedback loops.

BEAM robots can exhibit complex behaviors, even mental behaviors like learning, memory and behavioral adaptation, without ANY software.

Humans are just like BEAM robots but if you tried to replicate the brain that way the resulting we be... very large and extremely inefficient. Our technology just didn't develop that way, we know it's possible but if you try to make something that does what the brain does in the same way the brain does it you end up having to make more or less a brain and soldering a brain together is, although totally possible, also totally impractical/infeasible.

In this way humans are very special, we're carbon chemistry based machines of sublime sophistication, but I'd prefer to be made of metal.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:41 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
376
-->
Location
Brazil
If consciousness is physical then we could reach it without trying to replicate the human brain.

Nature already has brains with the same complexity (or very similar or more complex) of human brain but there's no similar mind.

If consciousness is so trivial to physical world why the internet still has no (even sign of) consciousness? The complexity of internet at this point could be ready for consciousness.

I believe computers will increase a lot in restricted intelligence but they will never be conscious.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today 3:41 AM
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,691
-->
I believe computers will increase a lot in restricted intelligence but they will never be conscious.

Shrug, OK, you're a consciousness fundamentalist. People who ascribe to this belief come up with various reasons on occasion, Quantum Mechanics, existence of the Soul, or whatever but it boils down to some form of not seriously entertaining the idea. Meanwhile those of us in the business are 24/7 trying to achieve it.

Like all such progress, discussing the negative doesn't go anywhere, so why bring it up? That is, a negative can't be proved, where as a positive can. So therefore, why waste your time? Go spend it on something you can make a difference in .... taking the negative hypothesis of any issue accomplishes nothing other than wasting our time.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:41 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Nature already has brains with the same complexity (or very similar or more complex) of human brain but there's no similar mind.
Sure there are, chimps use tools, dolphins recreationally get intoxicated, whales compose music, heck some parrots and gorillas can manage a conversation (the gorillas use sign language) although their intelligence is equivalent to that of a small child so the choice of topics is limited. Animals aren't exactly stupid they've just evolved to thrive/survive a certain way which usually doesn't require much abstract thought. For instance we're technically capable echolocation so a dolphin might think we're stupid since it's so difficult for us but it's not a fair comparison because it's a skill we have no need for so our brains aren't really set up for it.

If consciousness is so trivial to physical world why the internet still has no (even sign of) consciousness? The complexity of internet at this point could be ready for consciousness.
Google Now, Cortana, Siri, Watson, Deep Blue, take your pick.
Keep in mind "the internet" isn't a single entity, it doesn't have needs like we do and isn't really embodied in any cohesive way so even if it was self aware we probably wouldn't recognize it, or maybe this actual conversation we're having now is the internet being introspective?

I believe computers will increase a lot in restricted intelligence but they will never be conscious.
Some already are, AGI is being developed now, it's just not very useful at the moment but y'know how useful can you expect an infant to be?
 
Top Bottom