What is your definition of knowledge?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
2. For Mentat:

If you consider facts as the only input for a human being then beliefs would only be processed (and perhaps synthesized) facts. There lies my point; facts are only one form of input.

Now, I never said that facts were the only form of input. knowledge is the only form of input, but "knowledge" has been defined (by me, previously) as both a collection of facts, and a collection of beliefs.

I think once I read a post from you that implied that you suppose a shaman's reasons for medical effects of honey on bruises to be wrong. "The effects are real, the reasons aren't" or something like that. If I'm right with this remembrance then that is what I exactly disagree with.

Perhaps you refer to a reply that I made (in the old PFs) to one of TENYEARS' posts. In this reply, I did say something to the same effect as that which you remembered me as saying. I was saying that the fact that a person was healed is sometimes indisputable, but rather often people will claim that it is merely the firm belief - in whatever process is being used (be it miracle healings, sugar pills, or anything else) - that causes the healing. And this point coincides with my definition of knowledge - in that the person's body "knows" that it is being healed by a miracle, even if this is not necessarily factual.

When I said "one can't dream of ..." I meant one can't even think of it, I had nothing to do with dreams. Anyway, dreams don't have to mirror objective reality but if it is the one and only reality then the only construction material available for dreams is that sort of reality. Hence, all dreams would be extremely-processed facts (to imply a hidden agreement, well, they are but you can't use this as a point of discussion).

I think that you may have missed the point of my post, wherein I stated that the random firing of synapses is responsible for dreams, and that the fact that the firing was random allows for weird "realities" to come up. All of our "knowledge" (as previously defined) is based on something that we have perceived (in one way or another) through objective reality. However, in dreams (random firings of synapses) we shuffle the deck - so to speak - of knowledge.

By the way, who says a dream is "random" firing of neurons?

I do. If you are consciously in control of the specific firings of synapses, then it is not a dream (as dreams occur in sleep, wherein you conscious mind is "shut off").

A dictionary definition of a word is at most what its development team think about majority's opinion of that word. This definition is not stuck to the word. Every individual has her/his own variant of the definition which can slightly or extremely differ from the dictionary definition. I asked "what is truth?" and you gave me a definition out of Webster. Webster, in this context, is no more creditable than a 6-year-old child. A group of individuals (intelligent and knowledgeable ones, of course) have come to an agreement about what the majority think of the word "truth". This agreement means nothing to me. Is that what truth is? Has Webster ultimately put and end to the never-ending debate about truth?

I emphatically agree on this point! There are a few, here on the forums, that would do well to consider what you have stated (in the quoted paragraph).

The Webster way of saying "truth" is indeed useful. You can use it at home, at work, at school, when you want to tease your teacher who's made a mistake, when you want to get rid of an inquisitive kid and when you need a ready definition in designing a truth-finder PC software. That's all good but here this isn't the case. When it comes to critical discussion of truth you can't offer ready-made definitions because in the court of fair judgement no statement is initially more creditable than any other one. We could start with every statement about truth and we should have got the same results (I think, confusion )

Again, very good point.

We had two questions concerned with communication on the question list: If knowledge can be shared? If the mechanisms of sharing are reliable?

An attempt to communicate is what surely happens but whether or not this attempt is successful remains a question. Also it is important to know whether or not what the aliens learn from you is what you meant to teach them.

And this is why I said that communication is not 100% reliable.

It wasn't off-topic even if this was your topic (it IS your topic for you're here).

Introducing to humanity means to teach the alien to see and think the human way (before that we must teach it to "see" and "think"). We, as human beings, are exposed to a certain range of the events in the Universe. Out of this range we choose certain parts to receive and process. Moreover, we re-shape this raw input in a certain manner. The range of input presented to us, our selective behavior against that range and our manner of re-shaping this input are the core points in our being human from the Universe's point of view. Suppose some alien being decides to make a human-detector, just like we make a magnetometer. An efficient design for this human-detector can be just like a magnetometer. It should measure the distortion that the subject of experiment introduces into its input. The distortion pattern can determine whether or not the subject is human.

Very interesting. It does seem to make a lot of sense (aside from the fact that it is possible that all things process as we do - merely to a lesser (or possibly greater) degree).

Anyway, these questions aren't off-topic because they are focused on the possibility of contact and communication. This was meant from the dawn of the topic.

Finally, yes, I'm directing that second question directly at you. You understand the words your way; I understand them my way. Do you think the gap can ever be bridged?

Yes, I think it can be bridged. However, to do so, we would have to arrive at a consensus/agreement of what every word that we use means. This does not mean that we will have to meet each other half-way, on all topics. In fact, sometimes one of us would have to admit that he/she is wrong, and take the other person's view-point. And, sometimes, both parties will be wrong, and they will have to agree on a new view-point. But, yes, I think it is possible (with the right amount humility, that is - there is no room for a huge ego, when trying to reach agreement).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
2. For Mentat:

Hey, I read you're 14. Wow! You're much too good for that age; actually I thought you're at least 30. I'm 19 and still lack your intelligence and sharpness. I'm dying of jealousy. Be proud of yourself!

And please take a look at my previous post.

Thank you.

I have read the post, and responded.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I suppose you're mismatching "input" and "knowledge". Input in any form is distinct from knowledge and this distinction must be kept in mind. Knowledge is a gathering and resides "inside" the individual. Input comes from "outside". Input gives us an information stream which in turn will turn into knowledge by being processed. Different forms of input can exist and co-exist while only one form of knowledge exists that is produced by processing and storing information fed in from the input.

You said knowledge is the collection of facts and beliefs. I say that isn't all of knowledge. Even worse, I claim knowledge can't be defined with straight linear definitions.

And this point coincides with my definition of knowledge - in that the person's body "knows" that it is being healed by a miracle, even if this is not necessarily factual.

What if I claimed the person is healed by her/his knowledge affecting the objective reality?

I think that you may have missed the point of my post, wherein I stated that the random firing of synapses is responsible for dreams, and that the fact that the firing was random allows for weird "realities" to come up ... I do. If you are consciously in control of the specific firings of synapses, then it is not a dream (as dreams occur in sleep, wherein you conscious mind is "shut off").

I think you aren't careful enough with your usage of "random." A random event is not simple to talk about. Also it isn't simple to prove something is random. If you give me hard neurophysiologic evidence that neurons ever fire at random then I'll have to re-think this part of my speech.

Dreams and all other brain activities aren't random for sure. Brain activities always follow patterns. When one's dreaming certain parts of her/his brain light up and then go down; a whole area and not a single neuron. There is interactivity among neurons and they don't work randomly or even isolated from each other. I was told that a single neuron's behavior is chaotic. Notice, chaotic but not stochastic. I was also told that chaotic systems may become simpler when their freedom is limited by their interconnection, ie neurons are interconnected so their accumulation which is a brain may exhibit patterned and predictable behavior.

Conscious mind is "said" to shut off while dreaming but that is just a small part of the mind so if the rest of the mind is up we won't get lost in "weird" realities but in a complex processed synthesis of our past experience.

And this is why I said that communication is not 100% reliable.

What if I claimed it to be 0 percent reliable? We may simply be separate with no connection or possibility of contact. You say it isn't 100 percent, then how much is it? Can you prove you've ever talked to me?

2. For zimbo:

Please look at my previous post.

 

[zimbo]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio

Have you listened to Carl Orff's Carmina Burana? It has everything said.

I surely have - very colourful music (and overused in movies IMO). I prefer other sections from the same piece - try 'In trutina' and 'Fortuna plango vulnera' (sp?)

Verbal definitions are the easiest way to show loops are inevitable. When one tries to define a word, she/he encounters other words that need definition. There are two solutions to this situation. First, one can assume there is a set of (yet unknown) words that are used as primitives in building all definitions; second, one may accept that loops are inevitable and that the language contains many self-referenced word definitions.

I agree with the need for loops. So let's see what you conclude from that . . .

The latter brings up another question: how have these loops taken shape and built up an individual's vocabulary without the individual initially knowing anything of the language? This question can be answered in the light of structuralism. The language can be seen as a self-contained structure with no connection to outside even though it is used to describe the outside Universe. The language needn't be responsible for what happens outside, instead it re-shapes every event to fit into its own context and capabilities. I think that's why individuals grown in and exposed to different languages have always problems in conveying certain parts of their experiences. I will perhaps never get much of English wit; an English speaking person may as well never understand the signs of eloquence in my native language.

I don't agree with what you say about language being 'self-contained'. Langauge is not exhaustive of experience - there are many experiences for which we don't have a word, and there are many things we feel we can't describe fairly. Different languages may have different strength's and weakneesses when it comes to describing various things (hence the old anecdote about Eskimo language and snow). There is a certain connection between a string of words and their content (if any exists), though not a perfect one. How could there be a language without there being human experiences/perceptions in the first place?

So where do the loops fit in? Notice that most 'definitional loops' occur for abstract concepts. Whereas there are many definition that can ultimately be reduced to the act to 'pointing' at something. eg a definition of 'red' ultimately leads to the need to simply point at something and say 'this object is red' - do you see potential for a loop there? I don't.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For zimbo:

My favorite part of Carmina Burana is "Estuans Interius." That is a brilliant piece. I've listened to it more than a hundred times. I have the video from the performance in Berlin Philharmonie as well. I'd rather say, it is "misused" in movies (that's a keyword ). I think the piece you're referring to as "In Trutina" (in balance) is in fact "In Taberna" (in tavern)...

14. In taberna quando sumus (When we are in the tavern)


In taberna quando sumus-------------When we are in the tavern,
non curamus quid sit humus,---------we do not think how we will go to dust,
sed ad ludum properamus,------------but we hurry to gamble,
cui semper insudamus.---------------which always makes us sweat.
Quid agatur in taberna--------------What happens in the tavern,
ubi nummus est pincerna,------------where money is host,
hoc est opus ut queratur,-----------you may well ask,
si quid loquar, audiatur.-----------and hear what I say.

Quidam ludunt, quidam bibunt,-------Some gamble, some drink,
quidam indiscrete vivunt.-----------some behave loosely.
Sed in ludo qui morantur,-----------But of those who gamble,
ex his quidam denudantur------------some are stripped bare,
quidam ibi vestiuntur,--------------some win their clothes here,
quidam saccis induuntur.------------some are dressed in sacks.
Ibi nullus timet mortem-------------Here no-one fears death,
sed pro Baccho mittunt sortem:------but they throw the dice in the name of Bacchus.



Primo pro nummata vini,-------------First of all it is to the wine-merchant
ex hac bibunt libertini;------------the the libertines drink,
semel bibunt pro captivis,----------one for the prisoners,
post hec bibunt ter pro vivis,------three for the living,
quater pro Christianis cunctis------four for all Christians,
quinquies pro fidelibus defunctis,--five for the faithful dead,
sexies pro sororibus vanis,---------six for the loose sisters,
septies pro militibus silvanis.-----seven for the footpads in the wood,

Octies pro fratribus perversis,-----Eight for the errant brethren,
nonies pro monachis dispersis,------nine for the dispersed monks,
decies pro navigantibus-------------ten for the seamen,
undecies pro discordaniibus,--------eleven for the squabblers,
duodecies pro penitentibus,---------twelve for the penitent,
tredecies pro iter agentibus.-------thirteen for the wayfarers.
Tam pro papa quam pro rege----------To the Pope as to the king
bibunt omnes sine lege.-------------they all drink without restraint.

Bibit hera, bibit herus,------------The mistress drinks, the master drinks,
bibit miles, bibit clerus,----------the soldier drinks, the priest drinks,
bibit ille, bibit illa,-------------the man drinks, the woman drinks,
bibit servis cum ancilla,-----------the servant drinks with the maid,
bibit velox, bibit piger,-----------the swift man drinks, the lazy man drinks,
bibit albus, bibit niger,-----------the white man drinks, the black man drinks,
bibit constans, bibit vagus,--------the settled man drinks, the wanderer drinks,
bibit rudis, bibit magnus.----------the stupid man drinks, the wise man drinks,

Bibit pauper et egrotus,------------The poor man drinks, the sick man drinks,
bibit exul et ignotus,--------------the exile drinks, and the stranger,
bibit puer, bibit canus,------------the boy drinks, the old man drinks,
bibit presul et decanus,------------the bishop drinks, and the deacon,
bibit soror, bibit frater,----------the sister drinks, the brother drinks,
bibit anus, bibit mater,------------the old lady drinks, the mother drinks,
bibit ista, bibit ille,-------------this man drinks, that man drinks,
bibunt centum, bibunt mille.--------a hundred drink, a thousand drink.

Parum sexcente nummate--------------Six hundred pennies would hardly
durant, cum immoderate--------------suffice, if everyone
bibunt omnes sine meta.-------------drinks immoderately and immeasurably.
Quamvis bibant mente leta,----------However much they cheerfully drink
sic nos rodunt omnes gentes---------we are the ones whom everyone scolds,
et sic erimus egentes.--------------and thus we are destitute.
Qui nos rodunt confundantur---------May those who slander us be cursed
et cum iustis non scribantur.-------and may their names not be written in the book of the righteous.

I don't agree with what you say about language ...

You're right. Perhaps a mixture of the two solutions is appropriate. Some words are pointing to certain sensory patterns, more abstract ones are participating in intertwined loops which may also include some of those words that are pointing to sensory patterns.

However, if I was to keep the self-contained language idea I could answer your questions. Langauge is not only the set of words and sentences but also all symbols that we can use. Those feelings for which we don't have words may be well represented by body gestures which are symbolic for sure. I also would ask if we could ever think without language. If the answer is "yes" then I'd ask you to prove it, if the answer is "no" then I'd conclude that language is self-contained because it marks the borders of thinkable and unthinkable. If every thought happens inside the language then language as the superset of all thoughts must be self-contained because thoughts are all that a human mind is capable of. It can't point to outside because it would be pointing at something that is not a thought.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I suppose you're mismatching "input" and "knowledge". Input in any form is distinct from knowledge and this distinction must be kept in mind. Knowledge is a gathering and resides "inside" the individual. Input comes from "outside". Input gives us an information stream which in turn will turn into knowledge by being processed. Different forms of input can exist and co-exist while only one form of knowledge exists that is produced by processing and storing information fed in from the input.

Hola, Manuel.

Actually, I didn't mismatch input and knowledge. I agree (mostly) with your assesment of the difference between the two. I said that "knowledge" is the collection of facts/beliefs, what one chooses to believe is up to him/her, but their knowledge will be based on what "input" they have recieved. One who has never taken in even the slightest bit of "input" can never produce belief.

You said knowledge is the collection of facts and beliefs. I say that isn't all of knowledge. Even worse, I claim knowledge can't be defined with straight linear definitions.

Is there any basis for your claim, or is this just how you have chosen to believe?

What if I claimed the person is healed by her/his knowledge affecting the objective reality?

You may claim as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have yet to define knowledge, and so far it appears that you think of it as having some physical presence/force that can affect reality.

I think you aren't careful enough with your usage of "random." A random event is not simple to talk about. Also it isn't simple to prove something is random. If you give me hard neurophysiologic evidence that neurons ever fire at random then I'll have to re-think this part of my speech.

I have read from various sources that it appears to be random firing of synapses, and I think that Quantum Mechanics would dictate the same conclusion.

Dreams and all other brain activities aren't random for sure. Brain activities always follow patterns. When one's dreaming certain parts of her/his brain light up and then go down; a whole area and not a single neuron. There is interactivity among neurons and they don't work randomly or even isolated from each other. I was told that a single neuron's behavior is chaotic. Notice, chaotic but not stochastic. I was also told that chaotic systems may become simpler when their freedom is limited by their interconnection, ie neurons are interconnected so their accumulation which is a brain may exhibit patterned and predictable behavior.
Conscious mind is "said" to shut off while dreaming but that is just a small part of the mind so if the rest of the mind is up we won't get lost in "weird" realities but in a complex processed synthesis of our past experience.

You should read "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennet. It clears up a lot of misconceptions about dreams/hallucinations.

What if I claimed it to be 0 percent reliable? We may simply be separate with no connection or possibility of contact.

Objection! Your honor, this is specualtion.

You can claim this, if you wish, but it is demonstrably not true, as I am responding to something that I see on my screen, and I didn't write what I'm responding to, so obviously there is a second party.

You say it isn't 100 percent, then how much is it?

Depends on what is being said. "Hello" is very difficult to confuse, but there are other words that can be said in many different tones, and can easily be confused.

Can you prove you've ever talked to me?

See above. If you haven't talked to me, then what am I responding to, and if I'm not talking to you now, then why are you thinking about what I'm saying?
2. For zimbo:

Please look at my previous post. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Actually, I didn't mismatch input and knowledge...

I thought you did because you wrote "knowledge is the only form of input." And that's indeed a mismatch. Let's forget it.

Is there any basis for your claim, or is this just how you have chosen to believe?

This is what I've come to think of because linear definitions of knowledge (like many other linear definitions) fail to achieve their purpose. They fail to inform their audience of what knowledge is. The reason, if I'm asked, is that human language and human thoughts are actually closed systems in which definitions eventually point to other definitions that are no more informative. This situation leads to the emerging of loops where no loops are allowed. We try to analyze and understand the depth of mind and its artifact, knowledge, but we encounter loops even though we have never trespassed the borders of rational thinking. These inevitable loops are quite meaningful; when mind is studied by itself we actually stand on the brinks of human capabilities.

You may claim as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have yet to define knowledge, and so far it appears that you think of it as having some physical presence/force that can affect reality.

What I'm doing isn't only claiming, it is counter-claiming. I'm claiming the opposite of what you've claimed to be true; you claimed "the effects are real, the reasons are not." I counter-claim and expect that you give me reasons for your claim. If you've no reasons for that just then we've an equal state: we've both claimed what can't be proven with rational means.

And I've given my definition of knowledge plus much more in a post on page 1.

I have read from various sources that it appears to be random firing of synapses, and I think that Quantum Mechanics would dictate the same conclusion.

Please give me a link to one of your creditable sources (preferably not a book for there's no guarantee on that I can find a certain book here). And what does Quantum Mechanics have to do with Neuroscience? We haven't yet reached those dizzy heights to explain a neuron's behavior on quantum level. Again, don't use "random" carelessly. Don't use it unless you've clear-cut understanding of the differences between "stochastic" and "chaotic" behavior. If you've that understanding then please give me some information on the subject and also prove that neural behavior can ever be "random."

Besides, I've a problem with your vocabulary; is that a "synapse" that fires or a "neuron"? Synapses ought to be inter-neuron junction points where a neuron's Axon meets another neuron's Dendrite. The Axon end releases chemicals when stimulated and these chemicals will in turn stimulate the receptors on the other neuron's Dendrite end. Consequently, what fires ought to be a "neuron" and what carries the signals between two adjacent neurons ought to be a "synapse"; isn't it that way?

You should read "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennet. It clears up a lot of misconceptions about dreams/hallucinations.

I went CogPrints and found Dennett’s (this is the first time I'm searching the name Dennett) article on three essays written about that title but the book itself should be bought somewhere, I guess. That's what I can't afford. Please quote some part of the book to clear up my misconception. And Daniel Dennett, is she/he a philosopher or a neuroscientist?

Objection! Your honor, this is specualtion...

I object your objection . How do you know that all you're claiming to happen is happening? There is no evidence in the vast expanse of Universe to prove there is the merest piece of truth/reality in what we conceive. Suppose you've a large set of (question, answer) pairs, each pair shows consistency between Q and A; and there's overall consistency in the Qs and As of the set. Can you be sure that exactly two individuals have been communicating?

Have you heard about the two-army deadlock?

2. For zimbo:

Aye, I made a mistake! The piece of Carmina Burana you were referring to was indeed "In Trutina" but the lyrics had a typo so I couldn't find it.

Please take a look at my previous post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I thought you did because you wrote "knowledge is the only form of input." And that's indeed a mismatch. Let's forget it.

I guess I've slightly changed my definition of knowledge, since the first post. I now define it (as I have been speaking of it in previous posts) as the collection of facts, and that which one believes to be facts.

What I'm doing isn't only claiming, it is counter-claiming. I'm claiming the opposite of what you've claimed to be true; you claimed "the effects are real, the reasons are not." I counter-claim and expect that you give me reasons for your claim. If you've no reasons for that just then we've an equal state: we've both claimed what can't be proven with rational means.

So you are claiming that the shamans, medicine men, etc all have paranormal powers, just because I claim that they don't? Fair enough. However, I think it's a bit off-topic, and I will agree to disagree on this point (for now).

And I've given my definition of knowledge plus much more in a post on page 1.

I can find nothing of the sort. I'll look harder, and then comment.

Please give me a link to one of your creditable sources

Sorry, all I've read it in is books. My friend goes to seminars on the workings of the brain, and she gets a lot of books on the subject, which she let's me read. I am in no way an expert, and don't claim to be, but a few of the books have stated (even if vaguely) that dreams are random firings.

And what does Quantum Mechanics have to do with Neuroscience?

First off, let me clarify that I know very little about neuroscience, and what little I know, has been from books that have dealt more with the mind, then with the physical brain.

However, QM definitely must play a role, because all wave/particle interactions should be understood within the framework of Quantum Mechanics. Since dreams are a wave/particle interaction, they should be as indeterminable/random, as any other such interaction, right?

Again, don't use "random" carelessly. Don't use it unless you've clear-cut understanding of the differences between "stochastic" and "chaotic" behavior. If you've that understanding then please give me some information on the subject and also prove that neural behavior can ever be "random."

"Stochastic" and "chaotic" are synonyms, aren't they? "Stochastic" means "a state of unpredictability, where random chance plays the major role", and so does "chaotic". If my definitions here are wrong, please correct me, but I don't think that the difference between stochastic and chaotic has ever been an issue in this thread (before now, that is).

Besides, I've a problem with your vocabulary; is that a "synapse" that fires or a "neuron"? Synapses ought to be inter-neuron junction points where a neuron's Axon meets another neuron's Dendrite. The Axon end releases chemicals when stimulated and these chemicals will in turn stimulate the receptors on the other neuron's Dendrite end. Consequently, what fires ought to be a "neuron" and what carries the signals between two adjacent neurons ought to be a "synapse"; isn't it that way?

I guess you're right. Like I say, my understanding is very limited. Please correct, and pardon, any mistakes on my part.

I went CogPrints and found Dennett’s (this is the first time I'm searching the name Dennett) article on three essays written about that title but the book itself should be bought somewhere, I guess. That's what I can't afford. Please quote some part of the book to clear up my misconception. And Daniel Dennett, is she/he a philosopher or a neuroscientist?

Daniel Dennet is a very widely acclaimed Philosopher. When I mentioned his book, I was particularly making reference to the parts about hallucinations, and how you could never be fully interactive with any hallucination/dream, since it would have to take into account all possibilities, and this is too much information.

I object your objection . How do you know that all you're claiming to happen is happening? There is no evidence in the vast expanse of Universe to prove there is the merest piece of truth/reality in what we conceive. Suppose you've a large set of (question, answer) pairs, each pair shows consistency between Q and A; and there's overall consistency in the Qs and As of the set. Can you be sure that exactly two individuals have been communicating?

I object, and I move to strike! As I said before, if we were not communicating, then how could you be thinking about what I'm saying right now? There is proof that we have communicated, and the proof is the fact that you are thinking about the thought that I attempted to convey. That's what communication is.

Have you heard about the two-army deadlock?

No.

 

[Mentat]

Also - as a side note - I haven't really changed my definition (*looking back at Mentat's old definition*). My definition in the first post was:

1. Knowledge is a collection of facts (or, at least, what one believes to be facts).

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Hi there,

1. For Mentat:

I guess I've slightly changed my definition of knowledge...

Amnesty granted , we'll go on with your definition that knowledge is a collection of facts and beliefs.

So you are claiming that the shamans, medicine men, etc all have paranormal powers, just because I claim that they don't? Fair enough.

No, my claim goes further. I don't claim any "powers." I claim a two-way interaction between the objective reality and the subjective mind. I'm counter-claiming because your (now famous) saying "the effects are real, the reasons are not" has much to do with your definition of knowledge. Your definition tells me that you make a distinction between two Universes, the inside and the outside, the microcosm and the macrocosm. The worst part for me is that you have this belief with "certainty." I, too, make that distinction and use it in my everyday life but I don't hold it too dear or with certainty. With your definition, outside is where facts come from and inside is where knowledge is stored. As you know, Descartes made similar assumptions about the mind and the body (or the matter). The mind had to reside "inside" and the matter was what built the "outside". Making the cut is quite easy but then comes the problem of interaction between the mind and the matter, the inside and the outside. Descartes thought that mind was essentially distinct from matter, so he couldn't figure out how mind and matter interacted. You, being aware of Neuroscience, don't make that mistake and (probably) consider the mind as software loaded on neural hardware. That solves the problem of interaction but gives rise to a new problem: how certainty can ever be attained if we are aware of a dynamic unpredictable distortion introduced by our perception and interpretation system? This is a new situation in which nothing can be claimed with certainty including the uncertainty itself (ie it may someday dawn on us by unknown means that everything we've perceived has really been the way we understood it).

Make sure you understand my claim thoroughly. I'm not claiming that we know nothing or we can know nothing. I declare a general uncertainty casting shadow over all our understanding. The ever-present uncertainty levels all statements to an equal state because no statement can be proven true/false with certainty. It also levels all experiences to an equal state, eg facts can't be said with certainty to be more "real" or closer to truth/reality than dreams.

Having facts equal to dreams, there remains no concrete experience to hang on to and build a definition of knowledge from.

I can find nothing of the sort. I'll look harder, and then comment.

Are you kidding? I said it was on the first page. It isn't sorted by numbers.

... QM definitely must play a role, because all wave/particle interactions should be understood within ...

I know nothing more, if not less, than you so let's be discreet in making suppositions.

You're correct with your statement but it has nothing to do in this context. Every entity in the physical Universe, including human brain, should be well described using Quantum Mechanics but that means nothing. Every system must be observed and understood at its own level of existence. A neural network is indeed made of wavicles but this doesn't mean that you have to study it at quantum level or even that it behaves like wavicles. There are complexities and ambiguities in applying Quantum Mechanics to systems larger than a single atom and we are way far from computing all wavicle interactions to understand a system's behavior. I think what you actually mean here is the use of Statistical Mechanics which has its own story.

Statistical Mechanics defined by Britannica.com glossary (I know you like that sort of thing):

Branch of Physics that combines the principles and procedures of statistics with the laws of both Classical and Quantum Mechanics. It aims to predict and explain the measurable properties of macroscopic systems on the basis of the properties and behaviour of the microscopic constituents of those systems.

That's it. Anyway, Neuroscience has nothing to do with QM these days. It studies all aspects of neural networks from two points of view, the biological and the mechanical; with advanced mathematics, fast computers and complex Physics of all fields plus much more. The biological side is neurophysiology, neuropsychology, etc and the mechanical side is the study of artificial neural networks, AI, etc. A neuroscientist would surely give a better definition but this definition should have cleared up that Neuroscience in its current form neither studies wavicles nor tries to incorporate QM in its tasks. Yet probability studies and statistical approaches are much practiced which will in turn make use of the advances in Statistical Mechanics.

"Stochastic" and "chaotic" are synonyms, aren't they?...

When discussing literature they're the same, when discussing Science, Chaos theory and Probability theory in particular, they aren't.

Stochastic behavior is behavior subject to stochastic probability, which is scientifically called "random." It is a situation in which the system has no innate tendency towards any of its possibilities, ie no equation of any complexity describes the behavior of that system. For example, the behavior of an electron beam directed at a target is stochastic because statistical analysis can tell us at good approximation what proportion of them will be repulsed but no single electron can be predicted to behave in a specific way with certainty. The system doesn't even show tendency towards a certain state.

Chaotic behavior on the other hand is NOT random. It has an equation governing the system which describes all the inter-dependencies of variables of the system. What systems are chaotic and how chaotic systems behave is the subject of study for Chaos theory. Chaotic systems are non-linear and exhibit almost unpredictable behavior when viewed from classical linear viewpoints. However, they can be predicted at good approximation using Chaos theory. Chaos in this context is sometimes called "deterministic chaos" which is a paradoxical term. We encounter systems whose complexity takes them way out of the reach of our calculations but also have (very complicated) equations governing them. It is randomness governed by deterministic laws. The famous example is the weather which was in fact the first chaotic system to be studied with that purpose by Edward Lorenz (mathematician and meteorologist).

I'm not going to explain it more for my knowledge is very limited. The advanced mathematics used in Chaos theory is something I only can dream of. Nevertheless, many simple insightful books and online resources about Chaos theory can be found if you do a simple search. One book that I know and recommend is:

"Chaos: Making A New Science" by James Gleick

Daniel Dennet is a very widely acclaimed Philosopher...

Is he a scientist, too? Where do his hypotheses come from? Does he work in some lab somewhere to empirically prove them? How does he show that his ideas should be taken seriously?

I ask these because I haven't heard of him, like many other great scientists and philosophers I've heard nothing about. Please tell me more about him.

... the proof is the fact that you are thinking about the thought that I attempted to convey. That's what communication is ...

Am I really thinking? Or it is you who is assuming that I'm thinking?

Regarding the two-army deadlock, well, it's a computer science problem. It goes so:

Suppose two blue armies on two hills around a valley have besieged a white army which is caught in the valley. If either of the blue armies attacks the white army it will be defeated but if both of them attack at the same time they will win. The only means of communication is a messenger sent between the two blue armies. The messenger should bypass the white army to get to its destination.

Now suppose that blue army 1 sends a message to blue army 2 saying: "Attack at 9:00" but blue army 1 can't be sure if blue army 2 has received the message (since the messenger may be captured by the white army) so blue army 2 will send an acknowledgment. When the acknowledgment reaches blue army 1 they can be sure that blue army 2 has received a message so they can attack together but blue army 2 can't be sure if blue army 1 has received the acknowledgment and in the case of loss of the acknowledgment blue army 1 won't attack. So blue army 1 has to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of blue army 2's acknowledgment to ensure them. This story goes on and on unless the commander of one of the blue armies decides to risk and act without acknowledgment. It can be proven that there is no way out of this deadlock without a minimal risk of failure.

This minimal risk solution is used in an algorithm called "three-way handshake" on computer networks when two computers who've established a connection to each other want to release the connection.

The same problem persists for human communication. You can almost be certain that you're talking to me but that isn't certainty. It is minimal uncertainty.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi there,

1. For Mentat:

No, my claim goes further. I don't claim any "powers." I claim a two-way interaction between the objective reality and the subjective mind.

Oh, I see.

I'm counter-claiming because your (now famous) saying "the effects are real, the reasons are not" has much to do with your definition of knowledge. Your definition tells me that you make a distinction between two Universes, the inside and the outside, the microcosm and the macrocosm.

Perhaps not so much as you might think. For example, I do allow for the objective reality to impose itself on the subjective, I merely don't allow for the inverse to occur.

You, being aware of Neuroscience, don't make that mistake and (probably) consider the mind as software loaded on neural hardware. That solves the problem of interaction but gives rise to a new problem: how certainty can ever be attained if we are aware of a dynamic unpredictable distortion introduced by our perception and interpretation system?

Come again? Who said that our perception would distort anything?

This is a new situation in which nothing can be claimed with certainty including the uncertainty itself (ie it may someday dawn on us by unknown means that everything we've perceived has really been the way we understood it).

This is paradoxical (self-contradictory).

Make sure you understand my claim thoroughly. I'm not claiming that we know nothing or we can know nothing. I declare a general uncertainty casting shadow over all our understanding. The ever-present uncertainty levels all statements to an equal state because no statement can be proven true/false with certainty. It also levels all experiences to an equal state, eg facts can't be said with certainty to be more "real" or closer to truth/reality than dreams.

But, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether what we percieve to be "real" is actually" real, so long as it continues to behave as though it were "real".

Having facts equal to dreams, there remains no concrete experience to hang on to and build a definition of knowledge from.

No, there is still a way to build a definition of knowledge. You see (and this is much reminiscent to my philosophy about Free Will), even if you cannot prove whether you know anything that is actually a fact, that doesn't change the fact that it is "knowledge", by my previous definition of the word.

Are you kidding? I said it was on the first page. It isn't sorted by numbers.

All right, I found it. You don't seem to disagree with me at all, in this post. In fact, your conception seems very similar to mine.

I know nothing more, if not less, than you so let's be discreet in making suppositions.

You're correct with your statement but it has nothing to do in this context. Every entity in the physical Universe, including human brain, should be well described using Quantum Mechanics but that means nothing. Every system must be observed and understood at its own level of existence. A neural network is indeed made of wavicles but this doesn't mean that you have to study it at quantum level or even that it behaves like wavicles. There are complexities and ambiguities in applying Quantum Mechanics to systems larger than a single atom and we are way far from computing all wavicle interactions to understand a system's behavior.

I think that any physical study can be taken down to the realm of QM, and thus understood to be subject to Uncertainty.

Yes, every system should be understood at it's own level of existence, but for all practical purposes, it's level of existence can always be brought to the Quantum level.

That's it. Anyway, Neuroscience has nothing to do with QM these days. It studies all aspects of neural networks from two points of view, the biological and the mechanical; with advanced mathematics, fast computers and complex Physics of all fields plus much more. The biological side is neurophysiology, neuropsychology, etc and the mechanical side is the study of artificial neural networks, AI, etc. A neuroscientist would surely give a better definition but this definition should have cleared up that Neuroscience in its current form neither studies wavicles nor tries to incorporate QM in its tasks. Yet probability studies and statistical approaches are much practiced which will in turn make use of the advances in Statistical Mechanics.

Well, I don't know why neurologists don't use QM in their studies, and I'm not one to criticize their decision. However, what I was really saying is that, at the Quantum level, the behavior of these particles is random.

When discussing literature they're the same, when discussing Science, Chaos theory and Probability theory in particular, they aren't.

Stochastic behavior is behavior subject to stochastic probability, which is scientifically called "random." It is a situation in which the system has no innate tendency towards any of its possibilities, ie no equation of any complexity describes the behavior of that system. For example, the behavior of an electron beam directed at a target is stochastic because statistical analysis can tell us at good approximation what proportion of them will be repulsed but no single electron can be predicted to behave in a specific way with certainty. The system doesn't even show tendency towards a certain state.

Chaotic behavior on the other hand is NOT random. It has an equation governing the system which describes all the inter-dependencies of variables of the system. What systems are chaotic and how chaotic systems behave is the subject of study for Chaos theory. Chaotic systems are non-linear and exhibit almost unpredictable behavior when viewed from classical linear viewpoints. However, they can be predicted at good approximation using Chaos theory. Chaos in this context is sometimes called "deterministic chaos" which is a paradoxical term. We encounter systems whose complexity takes them way out of the reach of our calculations but also have (very complicated) equations governing them. It is randomness governed by deterministic laws. The famous example is the weather which was in fact the first chaotic system to be studied with that purpose by Edward Lorenz (mathematician and meteorologist).

I'm not going to explain it more for my knowledge is very limited. The advanced mathematics used in Chaos theory is something I only can dream of. Nevertheless, many simple insightful books and online resources about Chaos theory can be found if you do a simple search. One book that I know and recommend is:

"Chaos: Making A New Science" by James Gleick

Well, thanks for the reference (to the book), I will try to find it. BTW, I think that I was probably referring to "chaos", when I said that the firing of neurons was random.

Is he a scientist, too? Where do his hypotheses come from? Does he work in some lab somewhere to empirically prove them? How does he show that his ideas should be taken seriously?

He consulted with many neurologists, biologists, and philosophers, before writing his book.

Am I really thinking? Or it is you who is assuming that I'm thinking?

Both.

Regarding the two-army deadlock, well, it's a computer science problem. It goes so:

Suppose two blue armies on two hills around a valley have besieged a white army which is caught in the valley. If either of the blue armies attacks the white army it will be defeated but if both of them attack at the same time they will win. The only means of communication is a messenger sent between the two blue armies. The messenger should bypass the white army to get to its destination.

Now suppose that blue army 1 sends a message to blue army 2 saying: "Attack at 9:00" but blue army 1 can't be sure if blue army 2 has received the message (since the messenger may be captured by the white army) so blue army 2 will send an acknowledgment. When the acknowledgment reaches blue army 1 they can be sure that blue army 2 has received a message so they can attack together but blue army 2 can't be sure if blue army 1 has received the acknowledgment and in the case of loss of the acknowledgment blue army 1 won't attack. So blue army 1 has to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of blue army 2's acknowledgment to ensure them. This story goes on and on unless the commander of one of the blue armies decides to risk and act without acknowledgment. It can be proven that there is no way out of this deadlock without a minimal risk of failure.

Very interesting. I've never hear of this before.

The same problem persists for human communication. You can almost be certain that you're talking to me but that isn't certainty. It is minimal uncertainty.

Well, I - for one - am almost perfectly certain that I am communicating with someone, because I keep seeing these new posts here, and I'm not writing them.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Hi,

1. For Mentat:

Perhaps not so much as you might think…

It is too much indeed. You split the Universe into two, the self and the rest. Then you build up a wall in the middle and say “the rest may affect the self” and “the self may not affect the rest.” That’s indeed too much of an assumption. This sort of division has been common for at least 2000 years and has seen many apexes of popularity that, I think, it didn’t deserve. There is nothing to assure us of the legitimacy of such division; our very rules of deduction and analysis have their roots in the Great Divide.

Come again? Who said that our perception would distort anything?

I said so. By the rule of the Great Divide, the mind sits somewhere inside and gets all its input through a perception and interpretation system (a tokenizer, I guess). You, one such mind, can’t be sure of the honesty of this system. You have always received all you could ever receive through that system. How can you say if it’s been reliable, efficient, capable and honest enough to give you the right picture?

This is paradoxical (self-contradictory).

Indeed! The entire story with definitions is that loops (and paradoxes) are inevitable. I wrote the reason so in another post, when you asked why I think straight linear definitions of knowledge won’t do. You ignored my answer, I presume. If you like you can criticize the idea now.

I think that any physical study can be taken down to the realm of QM, and thus understood to be subject to Uncertainty.

That’s what I said before. I repeat, describing the Universe with Quantum Mechanics is an ultimate (which may prove untrue later) but current Science and processing power don’t seem to be able to cope with such a magnificent problem. Think about it, four interactions between every two particles in a mass made up of 1 mole of particles! CERN and FNAL researchers use the most powerful computers of our time to analyze the results of a collision between two bunches of particles in strictly regulated conditions and they still hunger for more processing power; let alone a 1 mole mass of matter in unregulated conditions.

… why neurologists don't use QM in their studies …

Simply because they can’t. The reason I wrote above. You see, I said that particle behavior can’t be compared to mass behavior without further considerations. Particle behavior is stochastic, I wrote in my previous post. Neural behavior is not, the climate is not, the human society is not, although they’re made of particles.

… I think that I was probably referring to "chaos", when I said that the firing of neurons was random.

That’s why I asked you to be careful in using the term “random.” As a scientific mind, you can’t be using words that already have strict meaning for purposes they aren’t designed for. A mismatch of “chaotic” and “random” is lethal.

He consulted with many neurologists, biologists, and philosophers, before writing his book.

That’s good. Anything more about Daniel Dennett?

Both.

Is that your philosophical answer? Won’t you consider explaining why you think so?

Well, I - for one - am almost perfectly certain that I am communicating with someone, because I keep seeing these new posts here, and I'm not writing them.

You, for one, are looking at the problem simplistically. You know there are many background mental processes running in your brain, couldn’t this illusion be the result of one such process, eg I be that process? Even worse, you’re assuming that what you think is written is actually (not to mention your assumption of the existence of an actuality) written, that what you think you read is actually read, that what is written should be sometime written by someone, that what is written by someone and posted in PF has been written at most 24 hours ago, etc. You’re making countless assumptions when you conclude that way. These assumptions can noway be proven and/or verified.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

It is too much indeed. You split the Universe into two, the self and the rest. Then you build up a wall in the middle and say “the rest may affect the self” and “the self may not affect the rest.” That’s indeed too much of an assumption. This sort of division has been common for at least 2000 years and has seen many apexes of popularity that, I think, it didn’t deserve. There is nothing to assure us of the legitimacy of such division; our very rules of deduction and analysis have their roots in the Great Divide.

Just because there is nothing to assure us that such a division exists, doesn't mean that the division doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing to assure us that it doesn't exist.

I said so. By the rule of the Great Divide, the mind sits somewhere inside and gets all its input through a perception and interpretation system (a tokenizer, I guess). You, one such mind, can’t be sure of the honesty of this system. You have always received all you could ever receive through that system. How can you say if it’s been reliable, efficient, capable and honest enough to give you the right picture?

The point is that it doesn't matter whether it's been reliable to me or not.

Example: You are standing in the middle of a church, singing your favorite hymn, and hearing everyone else sing along with you. But what if no one else is really singing? What if everyone else has sat down, and is telling you to stop singing, but, since you percieve them to be singing, you just keep on singing? In "actual truth" you look foolish to everyone, but it doesn't matter, because your mind is absolutely convinced that everyone is doing what you are doing.

Side Note: While in your conception, the aforementioned scenario should be possible, it is not according to Daniel Dennet. That's why I mentioned his book, wherein he shows that in order for your mind to play such an awesome "trick" on you, it would have to process all of your possible reactions to the "hallucination" and this is simply too much information. So, it makes you behave in a certain way, and "hopes" that you don't notice your lack of free will (this is a LARGE over-simplification of Prof. Dennet's philosophy, but it makes the point).

Indeed! The entire story with definitions is that loops (and paradoxes) are inevitable. I wrote the reason so in another post, when you asked why I think straight linear definitions of knowledge won’t do. You ignored my answer, I presume. If you like you can criticize the idea now.

You presume beyond yourself, I was merely trying to formulate my answer in a way that would get the sense of what I was trying to say across to you. I think that your idea of linear definitions of knowledge is wrong because it requires that one definition inevitably lead to another definition, but this is not so. You see, if my definition of reality (for example) were to eventually lead to a definition that require that you know what a computer is (for example), then I could just find a computer, point at it, and thus not need to define anything to get across the point.

Simply because they can’t. The reason I wrote above. You see, I said that particle behavior can’t be compared to mass behavior without further considerations. Particle behavior is stochastic, I wrote in my previous post. Neural behavior is not, the climate is not, the human society is not, although they’re made of particles.

Who says they're not? The could just as easily be stochastic, and we just think that there is way of predicting them, when in fact there is not (gotta play Devil's Advocate sometimes, eh? ).

That’s good. Anything more about Daniel Dennett?

Well, to be honest, I've only ever read that one book by him (and The Mind's I, which he co-authored).

Is that your philosophical answer? Won’t you consider explaining why you think so?

I just meant that (IMO) you are thinking, and I believe that you are thinking. It's not important to me that you actually even exist (no offense is implied by this), all that matters to me is that I keep percieving these new posts, and I keep responding to them.

You, for one, are looking at the problem simplistically. You know there are many background mental processes running in your brain, couldn’t this illusion be the result of one such process, eg I be that process? Even worse, you’re assuming that what you think is written is actually (not to mention your assumption of the existence of an actuality) written, that what you think you read is actually read, that what is written should be sometime written by someone, that what is written by someone and posted in PF has been written at most 24 hours ago, etc. You’re making countless assumptions when you conclude that way. These assumptions can noway be proven and/or verified.

First off, I don't assume actuality. For example, I actually exist. If you disagree, read my posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am".

Secondly, I know that I'm actually writing, because I percieve new language symbols, and these new language symbols are of my own origin. One way or another, I percieve new symbols, so somebody is writing, and since I think of exactly what is going to be written - before it is written - I assume that that person is me.

Thirdly, You don't assume reading, you just do it. I am taking in new knowledge, through the perception of written languange symbols, thus I am "reading".

Fourthly (is it appropriate to say "fourthly"?), I am visiting the PFs right now, this is not just an assumption. If it weren't true, then you wouldn't be reading my new post, on a site called Physicsforums.com (as I keep bringing up to you). Remember, just because I can't ever know if you are actually reading this right now, doesn't mean that you don't know that you are. And since we both believe the same thing (that you are reading this right now), we have the truth, at the "mouth of two witnesses".

Lastly, these assumptions don't have to be true, to be practical. However, I have shown [at least fairly] good reason to believe that they are true. And the fact that you keep responding (which you know you are doing) just serves as that much more proof.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Hi,

1. For Mentat:

Just because there is nothing to assure us that such a division exists, doesn't mean that the division doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing to assure us that it doesn't exist.

I'm in total agreement. This is an application of the (or my?) uncertainty principle (this isn't Heisenberg's uncertainty). Your saying alone shows that you aren't sure of such division. Whenever you accept uncertainty on a subject you're in fact giving chance to countless other possibilities to rise. All of these countless possibilities of describing a situation are equally creditable, ie you could split the Universe in any other manner or even split it not at all and all these countless possibilities are equally close to righteousness.

... in order for your mind to play such an awesome "trick" on you, it would have to process all of your possible reactions to the "hallucination" and this is simply too much information ...

If that's all Daniel Dennett has said, well, it is obviously out of context. Determining how much means too much for the mind depends on determining what a mind is and how this mind works. The answer to the latter two questions is context-dependent. Saying that mind is incapable of processing that much information is a scientific claim and requires a few assumptions including one saying something like "mind is a gathering of neural interconnection weights loaded on a neural network."

When you start doing Science you've already submitted to its basic pre-suppositions including but not limited to the Great Divide I mentioned before. I've learned from your speech that you're mainly concerned with Science and are comparing everything to scientific validity and verifiability criteria. If you were to talk about, for example, solid-state Physics you would be right but this isn't the case.

We're at a brink. We're about to assess the validity of the entire human knowledge, Science included. Science itself doesn't qualify for assessing its own validity. Every system of thoughts is consistent from inside. A view from outside would show how this "consistent" structure leaks like a sieve. With your description it seems Daniel Dennett has made the same mistake (who am I to say that?). You can't say what a mind can do in this context using Neuroscience for doing so implies that you have taken a certain not-necessarily-valid scientific understanding of the mind for granted in this extra-scientific context.

... if my definition of reality (for example) were to eventually lead to a definition that require that you know what a computer is (for example), then I could just find a computer, point at it, and thus not need to define anything to get across the point.

Are you sure? How do you know what you call a computer is the same thing for me? You can't be sure whom/what you're talking to, how can you be sure that computer is sensible in my scope of understanding? How can you be sure that your "Hymn in the Church" scenario is not happening?

If you want to "point at" something to give your audience a sense of what you mean, you have to point at something you're sure they'll understand. Since you can't be sure of that (for you can't be sure whom/what you're talking to and if you share a common experience) you can't "point at" something. Your only way to define words is using other words, assuming you and your (poor ) audience share similar vocabularies.

Who says they're not? The could just as easily be stochastic, and we just think that there is way of predicting them, when in fact there is not (gotta play Devil's Advocate sometimes, eh?).

A little devil who isn't much evil ... and is wrong here . In previous posts we've followed two lines of discussion; first, the philosophical discussion about knowledge and second, the scientific discussion about chaotic and stochastic behavior. No way! You can't mix Science and Philosophy.

When I talk about neurons I'm talking Science. Being talking Science I'm submitted to its pre-suppositions. There's no such thing as a neuron for Philosophy, it only makes sense when one's talking Science. "Chaotic" and "stochastic" are scientific terms, too. When I'm talking Science I'm agreed to a subject-to-consensus external independent reality which continues to exist if I cease to. This is the scientific Universe in which neurons exist and minds are built on these neurons. Human society and the climate are other entities from the scientific Universe. They needn't appear anywhere else. Being entities from the scientific Universe they'll act the Science way and their science-governed behavior will be observable by scientific means. This is the internal consistency of the scientific Universe.

On the other hand, when I'm talking Philosophy all pre-suppositions should be detected and washed away. To detect and wash away the pre-suppositions I start questioning all that I think is true and see if it can endure this test; if it proves groundless I'll do my best to put it aside in the course of discussion. There is a Greek word "Epoche" which meant "suspension of judgment" to Greek philosophers (or sophists?); that's the best word for this starters' step in Philosophy. One such judgment to be put aside is the distinction made between reality/fact and dream/hallucination/error/illusion.

I just meant that (IMO) you are thinking, and I believe that you are thinking. It's not important to me that you actually even exist (no offense is implied by this), all that matters to me is that I keep percieving these new posts, and I keep responding to them.

I'm madly sad! You don't even care whether I (this precious "I" that I love/hate so much) exist .
The same way, it doesn't matter to Philosophy (to me, it matters) that you don't consider explaining the "why" of your idea. Philosophy won't lose much in that case (I do lose something) except for an intelligent mind who could initiate the wind of change but didn't.

First off, I don't assume actuality. For example, I actually exist. If you disagree, read my posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am"...

Unfortunately enough, I don't have enough time to read everything posted in PF (though I'll miss much). However you do assume something and if that is "I think therefore I am" not only it is an assumption but also it is problematic if viewed from linear logic point of view. I can prove this and my proof suffices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Every statement of the sort "I [beep] therefore I am" is erroneous when viewed with linear logic (I mean, no self-contradiction and/or loops allowed). Here's my proof:

Consider having said "I [beep]", you have to choose one of the two following statements:

P([beep]) : There need be an "I" to "[beep]."
P'([beep]) : There needn't be an "I" to "[beep]."

Since the above statements are contrary, only one of them may be yours (for we're using Aristotelian logic where a statement can be either true or false and nothing else and there's no escape from having chosen one of them).

If you choose 1, you've clearly pre-assumed that there need be an "I" to "[beep]" and you haven't done much in mentioning the consequence that "therefore I am." This is a self-referential statement giving no more information than what was known before.

If you choose 2, you've made another mistake. How could you say it isn't necessary to be an "I" to "[beep]" and then conclude that "therefore I (necessarily) am?" This is paradoxical for the statement is made up of two parts which are contradictory.

(This proof may be wrong. If so, please show my mistake(s))

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your other statements are assumptions, too. You can't be sure of them unless you're viewing the Universe scientifically and the scientific view is a hell of a lot assumptions. Nothing is wrong with assuming whatever you like (just like I do) but you have to be aware that there's no certainty (and no superiority) in these assumptions.

Lastly, these assumptions don't have to be true, to be practical.

I can't understand your sentence. If you mean "these assumptions don't have to be true but they have to be practical" then I'd say that's another assumption.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If that's all Daniel Dennett has said, well, it is obviously out of context. Determining how much means too much for the mind depends on determining what a mind is and how this mind works. The answer to the latter two questions is context-dependent. Saying that mind is incapable of processing that much information is a scientific claim and requires a few assumptions including one saying something like "mind is a gathering of neural interconnection weights loaded on a neural network."

That's not all that Daniel Dennet said. I was just giving a (BRIEF) summary of his idea. And it's not that he's saying that we don't have the processing power to do something like that, it's that he's saying that there are too many possibilities, with too many reprecussions, for any processing unit to pull of such a "trick". For a better understanding of his philosophy, check out the book. I am going to have to read it again, since I don't remember everything that was said.

When you start doing Science you've already submitted to its basic pre-suppositions including but not limited to the Great Divide I mentioned before. I've learned from your speech that you're mainly concerned with Science and are comparing everything to scientific validity and verifiability criteria. If you were to talk about, for example, solid-state Physics you would be right but this isn't the case.

That doesn't mean that science loses it's credibility or usefullness, just because we have to submit to some pre-suppositions. What if these pre-suppositions are right? Isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?

We're at a brink. We're about to assess the validity of the entire human knowledge, Science included. Science itself doesn't qualify for assessing its own validity. Every system of thoughts is consistent from inside. A view from outside would show how this "consistent" structure leaks like a sieve. With your description it seems Daniel Dennett has made the same mistake (who am I to say that?). You can't say what a mind can do in this context using Neuroscience for doing so implies that you have taken a certain not-necessarily-valid scientific understanding of the mind for granted in this extra-scientific context.

Well, it is generally held that the mind is information produced by the brain (for more reflections/discussion about this see "The Mind's I", by Douglas Hofstadter, and Daniel Dennet), and thus Neuroscience (the study of the brain) should be rather useful in describing the workings of the mind.

Are you sure? How do you know what you call a computer is the same thing for me? You can't be sure whom/what you're talking to, how can you be sure that computer is sensible in my scope of understanding? How can you be sure that your "Hymn in the Church" scenario is not happening?

As I've said before, it doesn't really matter. Your starting to remind me of Nietzsche's (and that other guy, who's name I forget, (it starts with an "St")), wherein he posits that there is no external reality, just the individual perceptions.

I'll reply to the rest later, I have to go now.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.

... it's that he's saying that there are too many possibilities, with too many reprecussions, for any processing unit to pull of such a "trick" ...

For "any" processing unit? How can he/you know that? There's no certainty about the limits of processing units, including our minds. See, this isn't Science this is Philosophy. You can't show me a human brain and tell me "it can do something in a range from 10^14 to 10^17 IPS, so it can't do 10^20 GIPS." That's nonsense here. For Philosophy no such thing as a human brain is sensible. "The mind" is an abstraction of the thinker entity. It isn't the brain or the software loaded on a (possibly artificial) neural network. It can't be given properties the scientific way. There's no certainty about the outcome of observation (which is the first step for Science) for the objective reality undergoes unpredictable modifications that we can't know about, in the best case.

The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.

And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.

That doesn't mean that science loses it's credibility or usefullness ...

Halfway right. Whenever we talk/think we've already submitted to a set of pre-suppositions that are sometimes totally unknown. Fortunately, for Science at least they're well-introduced by giants like Francis Bacon as in his "Novum Organum."

Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.

It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.

You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.

Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.

Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.

Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...

Well, it is generally held that the mind is information produced by the brain...

Another scientific claim in extra-scientific context.

Your starting to remind me of Nietzsche's (and that other guy, who's name I forget, (it starts with an "St")), wherein he posits that there is no external reality, just the individual perceptions.

I'd be honored to be compared to the great Friedrich Nietzsche . I've only read his "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I read it when I was 9 for the first time. Then I couldn't even understand some words in its translation to my native language but was fascinated by Zarathustra's descent and the outer layer of his speech. Later I read it another two times with a 4-year gap in between though I never well understnood it. It still fascinates me.

And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little .

Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."

I'm waiting for your next post...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.

For "any" processing unit? How can he/you know that? There's no certainty about the limits of processing units, including our minds. See, this isn't Science this is Philosophy. You can't show me a human brain and tell me "it can do something in a range from 10^14 to 10^17 IPS, so it can't do 10^20 GIPS." That's nonsense here. For Philosophy no such thing as a human brain is sensible. "The mind" is an abstraction of the thinker entity. It isn't the brain or the software loaded on a (possibly artificial) neural network. It can't be given properties the scientific way. There's no certainty about the outcome of observation (which is the first step for Science) for the objective reality undergoes unpredictable modifications that we can't know about, in the best case.

The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.

And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.

Halfway right. Whenever we talk/think we've already submitted to a set of pre-suppositions that are sometimes totally unknown. Fortunately, for Science at least they're well-introduced by giants like Francis Bacon as in his "Novum Organum."

Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.

It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.

You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.

Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.

Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.

Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...

Another scientific claim in extra-scientific context.

I'd be honored to be compared to the great Friedrich Nietzsche . I've only read his "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I read it when I was 9 for the first time. Then I couldn't even understand some words in its translation to my native language but was fascinated by Zarathustra's descent and the outer layer of his speech. Later I read it another two times with a 4-year gap in between though I never well understnood it. It still fascinates me.

And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little .

Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."

I'm waiting for your next post...

Please don't take offense, Manuel. I only said that it didn't matter because you are "re-inventing the wheel", so to speak, and I have faintly lost interest in discussing why all of our pre-suppositions are wrong. I only lose interest in this because the systems that are based on these "suppositions" work, and I enjoy studying them. Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the idea that they are wrong, but it's rather meaningless to just speculate as to "what if" they were.

Even if Nietzsche's philosophy was correct, it wouldn't matter that our systems are wrong, provided they work - in our own "realities".

I was wrong, the philosopher that influenced Nietzsche's work was "Schoupenhauser".

We can keep discussing how all of the things that we believe in are wrong (except for our existence, of course ) if you want (and I will be glad to continue this discussion with you). However, I'd like to present a point (that might slightly digress from the current theme of the thread), and get your opinion on it. You were talking about whether I can really know that I am talking to you. Well, why isn't the fact that I keep seeing your responses proof enough of this?

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Dear Reader,

I've a list of questions and would be thankful if you give your set of answers and let us start a discussion on these answers. I will reveal my answers after having seen yours . New questions to be added to the list are also much appreciated.

01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?
02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?
03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?
04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?
05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?
06. Can knowledge be verified?
07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?
08. Are there different types of knowledge?
09. Should knowledge be sought for?
10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?
11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?
12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?
13. Can knowledge be divided into practical and theoretical knowledge?
14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?
15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?
16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?

PS: Shame on me! I changed "devised" to "divided"...

1.knowledge is thinking...we look something and thinking...
and get something
2.yes...like write a poem...it's a knowledge..but not science
3.yes
4.tell the other what your opinion
5.yes
6.yes...our life can verify
7.knowledge is only knowledge...it's no true or false
8.what u mean?
9.yes
10.learn something you don't know, and useful
11.no
12.no
13.no...it's not physics can divide theory and experiment
15.is it pratical is doing something?
16.why not?...reading, learn from other...because u just have 24
hours a day...if u learn for the the other...that mean u save times to experience that thing

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Read this post well, please!

... I only said that it didn't matter because you are "re-inventing the wheel", so to speak, and I have faintly lost interest in discussing why all of our pre-suppositions are wrong ...

I, too, feel somehow tired of our discussion (or what?) but not because it is like "re-inventing the wheel." If it was Science re-inventing the wheel would be absurd but again this is "Philosophy." The wheel we re-invent is our own wheel; my wheel is different from Nietzsche's, Dennett's and yours. We're not re-inventing the same wheel all the time. I desire re-inventing my "own" wheel and for that purpose I seek help from others. I let others know my opinion and ask them to argue about it, to prove me wrong. It's an exhaustive task; it will need much time and patience though it's my deepest elation as well. Re-inventing the wheel is the very reason for having a PF-Philosophy. If it wasn't for re-inventing the wheel you wouldn't be the intelligent inquisitive Mentat but rather a non-Mentat.

My weariness comes from not achieving a single point of agreement. And partly that I feel you just don't get my point. I say it over and over again that I'm not about to say our "pre-suppositions" are wrong/right. I'm saying we can't be sure of them. I'm only saying they can't be simply seen as the one and only possibility. I talk of "general uncertainty" as a principle of thought. And what do you say? You say you've lost interest in discussing why all our pre-suppositions are wrong. Who's ever said we were discussing the wrongness of something? Did I ever say they were wrong? I only asked if you're sure and if you were someway sure you could say "yes" and explain the grounds. I repeat, I don't pose for or against any possibility but I ask of the reason you prefer one possibility over countless others.

Another time I say this: Philosophy is not Science. "What if" questions are crucial to Philosophy because they represent alternative possibilities to our current thoughts. Too many "what if" questions won't benefit Science for it needs a finite (and fairly small) set of them to empirically test but they do benefit Philosophy for it is meant to explore all possibilities for human beings. All those alternative possibilities have been the basis to alternative points of view which have later become the mainstream and formed the movements of human individuals and human societies. "What if" is the heart of our endeavor to explore new possibilities which have never been thought of. "What if it isn't that way?" is a motive for seeing if "it" is "that way" and if it isn't "the other way."

I was wrong, the philosopher that influenced Nietzsche's work was "Schoupenhauser".

The one you mean is Arthur Schopenhauer who is sometimes called the "philosopher of pessimism."

You compare me to him and then say how our suppositions are wrong? It is clear that you've built up an image of my thoughts from the very first post which is way far from what I meant to convey. You've made up this image in spite of me having so many times attempted to break it down with so much effort. This is the way our suppositions "may" be wrong. I'm no pessimist, I'm no optimist, I'm no [beep]-ist, I'm just me, I'm trying to think fair and just to whatever definition of fairness and justice I have set for me. I like all philosophers but I'm noway like Schopenhauer.

Even worse, I often see you ignore my words. I don't write them to waste your time and mine. My sentences convey my thoughts. They can't be ignored if one is about to criticize them.

Well, why isn't the fact that I keep seeing your responses proof enough of this?

The statement "I'm talking to you" is made up of two core concepts; first the act of talking and then your audience (that is the "you" which points at me).

The act of talking implies the conveying of meaning over a communication channel. Our communication channel ought to be an entity from the objective reality, PF forms on the Internet. That the entity is external to you is a matter to be doubted. If it is external for sure, then its reliability is subject to uncertainty. If its reliability in conveying the structure is verified, then its reliability in conveying the content can be questioned. Your evidence of talking to me is your perception of incoming/outgoing messages. This evidence can be satisfied with countless distinct scenarios, for example the whole thing your conscious mind perceives as a talk to an external entity may be an inter-process communication between a process in your conscious mind and a background process. None of the scenarios including the "real" talk has higher creditability compared to others for those matters of doubt I described here can noway be verified without first examining the structure of objective reality which in turn is something to be doubted and should be verified.

Then, the nature of your audience is suspect. Is it a computer? Is it a human? Is it a software process? Is it a mental process? Doesn't it transcend all guesses made at its nature? Matter of fact it really isn't important to whom you're talking but there are further implications to these questions I'm going to explain right now.

The statement "I'm talking to you" as meant in its common meaning has so many assumptions subtly hidden inside it. Here is a list of those I can conceive of:

00. There is an "I."
01. This "I" is capable of an action named "talking."
02. This action is by definition so and so and is being performed according to the statement.
03. There is a "you."
04. There should be a "you" to talk with.
05. "You" and "I" are prior to the action "talking."
06. The action will cease to exist if "you" and/or "I" cease to exist.
07. "You" and "I" are distinct.
08. "You" and "I" would continue to exist if the action ceases to exist.

There are indeed many other assumptions that I haven't been able to extract. I call them "assumptions" because they can't be proven but are always present whenever two individuals are talking or thinking they're talking or whatnot. Countless assumptions are hidden in our every action/thought. That they can't be proven doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong but they can't also said to be right to any extent. We just take them for granted to continue our habits of life.

What I'm doing to this daily statement is noway new. One century ago David Hilbert (great German mathematician) showed how the 2000-year-old beast named Euclidean geometry had much more axioms than it was said to have. The axioms, in fact, implied many (so-called, I suppose) "real" axioms that were much more "basic" and "intuitive" than the original axioms. And then instead of the first bunch of axioms (whose modification led to non-Euclidean geometries) there were many more axioms to be proven to be basic enough to be called "axioms." I'm furthering his work by saying that nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted (many others have done so, I'm sure) even the statement "nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted." You see, this is a paradox but that's another story.

2. For Newton1:

Thank you for posting but I'm afraid you're a bit late. Please read the posts from the very beginning and tell us what you think.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Read this post well, please!

I, too, feel somehow tired of our discussion (or what?) but not because it is like "re-inventing the wheel." If it was Science re-inventing the wheel would be absurd but again this is "Philosophy." The wheel we re-invent is our own wheel; my wheel is different from Nietzsche's, Dennett's and yours. We're not re-inventing the same wheel all the time. I desire re-inventing my "own" wheel and for that purpose I seek help from others. I let others know my opinion and ask them to argue about it, to prove me wrong. It's an exhaustive task; it will need much time and patience though it's my deepest elation as well. Re-inventing the wheel is the very reason for having a PF-Philosophy. If it wasn't for re-inventing the wheel you wouldn't be the intelligent inquisitive Mentat but rather a non-Mentat.

My weariness comes from not achieving a single point of agreement. And partly that I feel you just don't get my point. I say it over and over again that I'm not about to say our "pre-suppositions" are wrong/right. I'm saying we can't be sure of them. I'm only saying they can't be simply seen as the one and only possibility. I talk of "general uncertainty" as a principle of thought. And what do you say? You say you've lost interest in discussing why all our pre-suppositions are wrong. Who's ever said we were discussing the wrongness of something? Did I ever say they were wrong? I only asked if you're sure and if you were someway sure you could say "yes" and explain the grounds. I repeat, I don't pose for or against any possibility but I ask of the reason you prefer one possibility over countless others.

Another time I say this: Philosophy is not Science. "What if" questions are crucial to Philosophy because they represent alternative possibilities to our current thoughts. Too many "what if" questions won't benefit Science for it needs a finite (and fairly small) set of them to empirically test but they do benefit Philosophy for it is meant to explore all possibilities for human beings. All those alternative possibilities have been the basis to alternative points of view which have later become the mainstream and formed the movements of human individuals and human societies. "What if" is the heart of our endeavor to explore new possibilities which have never been thought of. "What if it isn't that way?" is a motive for seeing if "it" is "that way" and if it isn't "the other way."

The one you mean is Arthur Schopenhauer who is sometimes called the "philosopher of pessimism."

You compare me to him and then say how our suppositions are wrong? It is clear that you've built up an image of my thoughts from the very first post which is way far from what I meant to convey. You've made up this image in spite of me having so many times attempted to break it down with so much effort. This is the way our suppositions "may" be wrong. I'm no pessimist, I'm no optimist, I'm no [beep]-ist, I'm just me, I'm trying to think fair and just to whatever definition of fairness and justice I have set for me. I like all philosophers but I'm noway like Schopenhauer.

Even worse, I often see you ignore my words. I don't write them to waste your time and mine. My sentences convey my thoughts. They can't be ignored if one is about to criticize them.

The statement "I'm talking to you" is made up of two core concepts; first the act of talking and then your audience (that is the "you" which points at me).

The act of talking implies the conveying of meaning over a communication channel. Our communication channel ought to be an entity from the objective reality, PF forms on the Internet. That the entity is external to you is a matter to be doubted. If it is external for sure, then its reliability is subject to uncertainty. If its reliability in conveying the structure is verified, then its reliability in conveying the content can be questioned. Your evidence of talking to me is your perception of incoming/outgoing messages. This evidence can be satisfied with countless distinct scenarios, for example the whole thing your conscious mind perceives as a talk to an external entity may be an inter-process communication between a process in your conscious mind and a background process. None of the scenarios including the "real" talk has higher creditability compared to others for those matters of doubt I described here can noway be verified without first examining the structure of objective reality which in turn is something to be doubted and should be verified.

Then, the nature of your audience is suspect. Is it a computer? Is it a human? Is it a software process? Is it a mental process? Doesn't it transcend all guesses made at its nature? Matter of fact it really isn't important to whom you're talking but there are further implications to these questions I'm going to explain right now.

The statement "I'm talking to you" as meant in its common meaning has so many assumptions subtly hidden inside it. Here is a list of those I can conceive of:

00. There is an "I."
01. This "I" is capable of an action named "talking."
02. This action is by definition so and so and is being performed according to the statement.
03. There is a "you."
04. There should be a "you" to talk with.
05. "You" and "I" are prior to the action "talking."
06. The action will cease to exist if "you" and/or "I" cease to exist.
07. "You" and "I" are distinct.
08. "You" and "I" would continue to exist if the action ceases to exist.

There are indeed many other assumptions that I haven't been able to extract. I call them "assumptions" because they can't be proven but are always present whenever two individuals are talking or thinking they're talking or whatnot. Countless assumptions are hidden in our every action/thought. That they can't be proven doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong but they can't also said to be right to any extent. We just take them for granted to continue our habits of life.

What I'm doing to this daily statement is noway new. One century ago David Hilbert (great German mathematician) showed how the 2000-year-old beast named Euclidean geometry had much more axioms than it was said to have. The axioms, in fact, implied many (so-called, I suppose) "real" axioms that were much more "basic" and "intuitive" than the original axioms. And then instead of the first bunch of axioms (whose modification led to non-Euclidean geometries) there were many more axioms to be proven to be basic enough to be called "axioms." I'm furthering his work by saying that nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted (many others have done so, I'm sure) even the statement "nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted." You see, this is a paradox but that's another story.

2. For Newton1:

Thank you for posting but I'm afraid you're a bit late. Please read the posts from the very beginning and tell us what you think.

Manuel, I've been reading your posts thouroughly. I never respond until I do. My problem is not that I think that you are saying that everything we believe is wrong/right. My problem is that you are stating the obvious, that it can't be proven. However, when I said "it doesn't matter", I meant it in the same sense as Wuliheron always does - which is that it will make no difference to our lives; the pursuit of knowledge/wisdom; the studies of Science/the studies of Philosophy; or anything else.

Perhaps you should post one point of discussion at a time, and I will respond to each, individually.

As far as the supposition required for "I am talking to you", I agree with most of them. It is not an assumption that I exist, Descartes showed this rather well. It is not an assumption that I'm capable of communication, because I've observed myself as using is many times in my life. However, I guess you're right about the rest of it.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If you say that "it will make no difference to our lives" let's have your word. Plus that I still think you haven't read my previous post(s) thoroughly for there've been many important claims in them that you haven't even taken into account during the discussion.

I read "I think therefore I am" thread posts. Your noticeable post there is the one saying:

Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.

I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.

Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):

I can think about not existing, thus, I exist

In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.

I don't agree with you on these points. Please explain this post in more detail. Let's argue the case. Post here or we'll move to your topic, "I think therefore I am."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If you say that "it will make no difference to our lives" let's have your word. Plus that I still think you haven't read my previous post(s) thoroughly for there've been many important claims in them that you haven't even taken into account during the discussion.

I read "I think therefore I am" thread posts. Your noticeable post there is the one saying:


I don't agree with you on these points. Please explain this post in more detail. Let's argue the case. Post here or we'll move to your topic, "I think therefore I am."

I haven't ignored any points, I just don't have time (or space, for that matter) to respond to all of them at once. That's why I asked if you wanted to ask me about one thing at a time.

Why do you disagree with those points? This is your thread, so if you don't mind side-tracking it, I will talk with you about Descartes' reasoning, but if you want to stay on-topic, then we can just continue this on my thread.