Nothing makes sense
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  It looks like we pretty much agree - the part about the law of contradiction not applying to individual states (of quantum particles) but to the system state I also agree.
However I don't think the law of contradiction is violated for the individual states - because the 'individual states' don't actually exist independently (its only our naïve perception that there are 'independent' individual states)
IT IS A SYSTEM STATE ONLY only and hence there is no violation of the universal law of contradiction.

No, that's so, and states of individual particles within ensembles exist discretely only insofar as they are separable measurement outcomes...

But the impetus for constructing such a theoretical framework in the first place was to come up with something wherein non-contradiction wouldn't be violated.

So again it's a matter of whether "things shouldn't contradict, let us construct our models accordingly" is a better paradigm than "our models as best fit experimental data affirm non-contradiction".

To the extent that such simplistic statements (ie, a consideration from opposing sides of a feedback loop) apply, of course.
(how's that for a contradiction? Tongue )

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  eg I can use naïve language and say 'an up quark exists' and someone will think its 'something you can look for'. However the notion of an individual independent up quark does not make any sense - it only exists as part of a combined system eg two up quarks + down quark = proton.

Until, of course, we build a powerful enough particle accelerator to produce energy levels such that quarks do exist independently, however briefly...

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  This is counter intuitive in terms of our intuitive notions of mereology (part/whole relations) eg and atom independently exists but can also be part of a molecule.

Doesn't part of you love mereology.

Yup.

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  There is also a sense that everything is a system and nothing exists 'independently' and can be isolated without effecting the whole system. Clearly this is the case in quantum mechanics when de-coherence occurs due to influences from other particles 'outside' the superposition.

Yup.

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  However what about humans ? Can a mind exist 'independently' of a body like Descartes thought experiment that we can have a disembodied mind ? I don't think so for similar reasons - we don't often realize the extent of embodied cognition and the idea of a 'separate mind' makes no sense.

I would agree with the statement insofar as 'body' is poorly defined. A theoretical brain-in-a-jar would (I would wager) be a human mind without a 'conventional' human body. A theoretical one-to-one recreation of a human mind via constructed electronic circuitry would be a mind - even wilder thought experiment though that may be.

If you mean to say that 'mind' is an emergent phenomenon, I back you to the hilt.

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  This also has a bearing on ideas of God which are usually projections of our own mind just 'omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent'
How could it possibly make sense to have an independent 'mind with agency' which is "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent' ???

Indeed - it doesn't. Which is why all such conceptions of [g/G]od(s) (in a sense restricted to such parameters in order to remain outside of naturalistic inquiry) are inconsistent and incoherent.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
Quote:Baruch wrote:
However what about humans ? Can a mind exist 'independently' of a body like Descartes thought experiment that we can have a disembodied mind ? I don't think so for similar reasons - we don't often realize the extent of embodied cognition and the idea of a 'separate mind' makes no sense.

cjlr wrote:I would agree with the statement insofar as 'body' is poorly defined. A theoretical brain-in-a-jar would (I would wager) be a human mind without a 'conventional' human body. A theoretical one-to-one recreation of a human mind via constructed electronic circuitry would be a mind - even wilder thought experiment though that may be.

The "mind" constructed via the vat or electronic circuitry would still be an emergent phenomena and not independent of its circuitry / Vat etc. You would just be changing the semantics of a "body" to some electronic vat stuff which acts in place of a body.
The question would then be would such a mind in a vat have any embodied cognition ?
Is there a way for the conscious phenomena in a vat mind to tell it is enclosed in a electronic system ?
Would for example a mind in such a vat have language of perception hinting at causality of being in an electronic vat ?
Do vat minds have a science which has causal links and chains to how they became vat enclosed and how their vat minds emerged ?
Is there an evolutionary story of emergent consciousness for a vat mind ?

Perhaps the answer to some of these question is no.
If the vat was made by an intelligent agent from the outside it is quite possible that there is no data the vat minds can access to how the vat mind was made, evolved or works - essentially vat minds would be completely baffled to how they came to be or to the nature of causality ?

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
01-02-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 06:24 PM)Baruch Wrote:  The "mind" constructed via the vat or electronic circuitry would still be an emergent phenomena and not independent of its circuitry / Vat etc. You would just be changing the semantics of a "body" to some electronic vat stuff which acts in place of a body.
The question would then be would such a mind in a vat have any embodied cognition ?
Is there a way for the conscious phenomena in a vat mind to tell it is enclosed in a electronic system ?
Would for example a mind in such a vat have language of perception hinting at causality of being in an electronic vat ?
Do vat minds have a science which has causal links and chains to how they became vat enclosed and how their vat minds emerged ?
Is there an evolutionary story of emergent consciousness for a vat mind ?

I think you're looking for more to that than I intended. If 'body' is taken as 'human body' then no, I wouldn't say that's necessary.

What I would agree with is that thought - and therefore minds - is a physical process, by any test we care to apply. So my answer depends on how 'body' is defined, and just what one means by 'disembodied'.

(01-02-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Perhaps the answer to some of these question is no.
If the vat was made by an intelligent agent from the outside it is quite possible that there is no data the vat minds can access to how the vat mind was made, evolved or works - essentially vat minds would be completely baffled to how they came to be or to the nature of causality ?

Right. But I think that would then be dependent on just what sorts of experiences such minds were having (or receiving, if you prefer).

We can say that their experiences would be divorced from their external reality but would that manifest? Absent detectable inconsistencies to prompt it I'm not sure such a question would necessarily arise!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
Yeah... I have no idea what any of you are talking about. Clearly I'm retarded.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
There is zero evidence for a mind existing without a brain. There are tons of evidence that mind is DEPENDENT on the brain completely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 08:15 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Yeah... I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

Quantum mechanics.

(sort of)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:22 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 08:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 08:15 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Yeah... I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

Quantum mechanics.

(sort of)

I love how most of people who talk about quantum mechanics got no idea what it is and how it works Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:25 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 08:22 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I love how most of people who talk about quantum mechanics got no idea what it is and how it works Big Grin

Oh, dear. I sure hope you aren't implying anything about the discourse in this thread.

I of course grant that most people, when speaking of any given subject, are simply unlikely to be specifically educated in said subject; but that's inevitable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(01-02-2014 08:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 08:22 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I love how most of people who talk about quantum mechanics got no idea what it is and how it works Big Grin

Oh, dear. I sure hope you aren't implying anything about the discourse in this thread.

I of course grant that most people, when speaking of any given subject, are simply unlikely to be specifically educated in said subject; but that's inevitable.

What I'm saying is that you need to understand something in order to talk about it. But quantum physics is understood by only few and majority often makes stuff up on the fly. I often hear fantasies about thermodynamics for example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2014 08:51 PM by Chas.)
RE: Nothing makes sense
(31-01-2014 06:56 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see why you think the point could be in two localities. If the localities tessellate, that is not possible.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean. If the localities tessellate then they have been "tiled" with polygons. The polygons have edges that meet other edges. The boundary between the localities is legislated and defined in termed of lat/long. The series of lat/long coordinates that define the boundary will land on the intersection of polygons from locality A and polygons from locality B. They will not land on the actual boundary because we defined it to have zero extension but the polygons that form the tessellations still have edges and the coordinates will land on the the edges.

I don't understand what you mean. Every point is in one and only one locality. There are no points that are not in a locality.

However, your original statement was about problems in GIS systems. It may well be that their data design is such that they do have a problem with boundary points.
My contention is only that they don't have to have such a problem, that is is an issue of data representation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: