These opinions just show how people haven't got around to understand the undecidability results. — ssu

Well that's normal I guess, since the undecidability results are connected to the root of the deepest philosophical questions.Such as free will, the observer problem,etc and downline even consciousness itself.

Of course interpretations of what Gödel's theorem actually shows vary.I read an article long time ago about how Gödel's theorem proves God's existence!(wtf?!!!?).People still debate for less complex things than that.So I guess this isn't a surprise.

For me though (from the things i have read at least so far) his theorem actually shows logic limitation when it comes to self-refference systems.If we actually accept that mathematics are the highest form of Logic of course.
Shows that Logic simply isn't enough when it comes to statements about self refference systems.Maybe not about all statements but at least to some of them it fails.

Well which exactly are these statements and what these Logic limitations actually mean though on issues like the free will problem for instance, is a different thing and still open of course.

that it occurs is the important point. — ssu

Well i mean that it occurs might also be a random brain function.Just another human thought that pops up from randomly neural activity.So i guess we agree that this isn't free will proof right?

Logic limitation was something that Gödel proved also with his theorem so i don't doubt about that.

One can say it that our free will limits this kind of simple extrapolation. Yet is this the correct way to state that theorem? Would it be perhaps better to say that simply there are limitations to what we can compute (or give a direct proof or), because we have free will? — ssu

Well neither.Even proving Laplace's Demon wrong in some forecasts cause of the veto ability that doesn't consist as a proof for free will existence.

Supposing you are right,even that veto could occure randomly in human brains.And remember neither randomness is on favour of free will.

But you are right about what Laplace had on mind about his Demon.He never mentioned LoE and stuff like that.
That's Hindu's Demon or maybe God :)

It seems like you are basically begging the question of free will by implying that humans have this special power of freedom that disrupts potential predictions — Harry Hindu

That's my hesitation also to Ssu's argument.Though he has a strong point, still that "veto" ability seems to imply a free will as to be achieved and mislead Demon's forecast.
Seems to require at least some degree of free will that breaks the pure deterministic laws.

Anyway it is nevertheless an interesting opinion that worths consideration.Free will problem can easily frie your mind when you dive deep inside it.

Well though that leaves us to point zero again about free will problem it was an interesting ride.

The interaction effect in Laplace's Demon was something i hadn't considered before.

That information a) and b) doesn't have the future effect on what the extrapolation (the forecast) will have. Why? Because you can have diagonalization: negative self reference to the extrapolation. — ssu

Demon can't predict the "veto" that someone could use you mean.
Well ok you do have a point.I m not exactly capable of wrapping my head around it but intuitively i think I m convinced.

What if though the Demon could progress exactly the data at the very same time?Seeing in "real time" through neurons analyzation how thoughts exachge in someone's brain??Seeing "yes,no, I will do the opposite,oh wait no... etc etc"??

Since every neuron activity that occurs in the present it simulatenously becomes past.As every moment in general does the same.
Wouldn't that mean that Demon can indeed have the "past" data( or better the present data also have the prediction effect) and make the calculations at the very same milliseconds??

Now, you might say that there's some Nash equilibrium which will happen, but the real problem is that here obviously what the Demon says affects what will happen and this isn't what Laplace had in mind with his extrapolations. It's not something that you can simply extrapolate from the past: what the Demon says, actually does have an effect. — ssu

Well it is a nice example but the problem isn't if Demon will affect the result.Of course he would do it.But he would have known that will happen indeed even with his interference.

He would knew that people would react this way suppose he had access to everybody's neurons data.

By the way i could predict that too as to be honest..haha

Well, let's assume the Demon knows what the winning numbers will be, but how does he define how much will be won by the winners? — ssu

He could change his answer every second calculating exactly humans brains activity plus etc etc.And when the bets are closed he could also say the result.

Anyway Laplace's Demon is way too fictional and can arise vague issues.Including observation effects in quantum physics as you mention.That isn't even clear either if indeed the observer affects the result.It is still an open issue.But it is a possibility.

And what if the person doesn't like what the Demon says and does the very opposite? Then the Demon obviously cannot say the future what the person will do, because it will be the opposite (hence wrong) what the Demon says. — ssu

Well imagine that the Demon at the very next second that he will tell the person what to do the data will change.
And according to the new data that supposingly the Demon would have ,he could predict that the person would do the opposite thing just because he would want to prove the Demon wrong.

Remember we suppose the demon has available all the data at any second and has the ability to make the calculations also at the same time.

Only if he doesn't interact with us, he can know. Then it is really that computable extrapolation with total information of the past on forward. The Demon simply cannot interact with us. — ssu

Well i m not really sure why the Demon shouldn't interact with us as to be able to predict the future.Can you explain it a little more?

it really is a fictional character to us — ssu

Well he is fictional in any case indeed..

But it is illogical then to think that we, being part of the universe and actors in the universe, could then now this future — ssu

Well sure we cannot know it.But the really question is,could Laplace's Demon know it indeed?

Plus do we have a say on it??Even a tiny one?Or are we just automatic biological systems that just watch like in a theater what their brain does??

It is a damn deep problem and for me at the end it just lies on general consciousness problem.Do we accept that mind is just a different state of matter?Do we actually know if that matter can produced a 'self ' that can change the route of the "other matter" (neurons) just by having some degrees of "freedom"?Just breaking even for a second the pure deterministic laws?

Well personally i can't tell really.I just believe that in such issues you can never be dogmatic.You have to have a open mind.

And for one thing i m sure, if you support that there is not at all free will then you have to embrace the futility of everything.And that you cannot held people moral responsible for any of their acts.It is a tremendous existential thing to do.
Well in fact for those who support no free will the verb "do" also loses its meaning here ;)

I have heard many people argue about no free will and at the end they close their speakings,or articles with something like "..so what that tells us is that we have to think,do etc".Like urging people to act in a certain way (as if they can....).And they don't even understand that that is totally incoherent with what they have argued about for hours.

If you wanna support that we humans are just automatic biological machines you have to go all the way till fatalism my man.Sorry you can't have it all.

Well the only link i see as to be honest is that current leftist parties(some of them at least)are the closest to reality that communism can get.At least so far in mankind.
They are as if communism tries to wear a more realistic - pragmatistic suit.I find that better for sure than the utopia.

have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah i have.

Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe

It makes sense for me also.There is really strong competition here ,as you mention.
It is much more easier to be followed.And doesn't require such hard fight as to change our own selves and our belief system first.
So seems also logical for me that communism remains an utopia, even if i still vote for leftist parties on elections.

For me the answer is pretty simple i think.Look around you.Colleagues, friends, neighbors,social workers even family sometimes.
Do all these people seem ready or willing for you to follow the main "all equal" path of communism??
Don't judge by what they(we)say.Just by what you see they(we) do.

Even communists are so confused that they think they act equal and at the very end they do the exact same.They are just so confused that they don't event understand it themselves.
They just find silly excuses ,as we all do, to justify their(our) own shit.

Of course not all people are like that.There are really exceptional People who believe and act like that indeed.Personally i deeply,deeply admire them.

But the vast majority of people aren't like that at all.Ego is in our genes.Totally "killing" it ,or pretend that we can totally "tame" it,well i don't know if it is even possible.
And i don't know if ever the majority of people will reach to that spiritual level as to achieve it and be ready for applying a real communist or socialist system.

Congratulations to the ones who run the site for this.Really that is really something for the site.It is an achievement which moves the site one step forward and some people worked for that.

Then how can there be any consciousness in the body, if we can remove so much of it, without becoming a less conscious creature? — universeness

I don't think it's the quantity of body as the quality.The full interaction of its parts despite how many these parts are.As a system.
Even less parts can interact even better together.
I m not fan of the moto "the more the better"

I mean, do you think their cortex would have a reduced ability, to play it's role in perception, awareness, thought, memory, cognition, etc due to having an artificial blood pump, instead of a natural one (such as a heart transplant)? — universeness

Well i guess it woud be even a slightly different consciousness compared to the one before.
But as you mentioned the artificial heart will play the exact role of the normal heart.
So i guess the rest of the body will continue to coordinate with a similar way as before.Not exact the same though.But i don't think the change would be so dramatic as someone to become a totally different person.
.

BUT do you therefore think that if before you die, we could take out your brain and connect it to a fully cybernetic body. That there is no way and no sense that the creature produced would still be you?
Still be your 'conscience?' — universeness

No I don't think it would be me if the whole body changed.Who am i is connected to my own body also and the experience i have from whole of it.
A cybernetic body would mean a total different experience.Maybe due to the same brain we might have some things in common.But i wouldn't consider myself same as my new "cybernetic self".
How for example the senses that my body has now and give data to my brain and form my consciousness be the same with the cybernetic senses that I would have?The data from them would be totally different.

If we talk to/observe, a human with no legs, would we find some difference in their 'level of consciousness' compared to people with legs? — universeness

Well they would simply have different consciousness as in every person in general.If by difference you mean lower level of consciousness for those with no legs.Then of course not.

We can consider the affects on human consciousness, if we removed parts of the brain. — universeness

Yeah, but consider also the brain without a heart to support it.

The rest you posted is extremely interesting.And really informative.I had little knowledge for R complex and now you made me wanna investigate it more.

I mostly agree to the conclusion that consciousness is a phenomenon of constant interaction of different areas and cannot be spotted only in just one specific place in the brain.I believe that myself.

My only guess is that this interaction, that makes the phenomenon of consciousness to emerge, is among all body functions.And yes brain plays a huge role as coordinate them.
But as i mentioned before nothing can stand on its own in human body.Not even brain.
It is the interaction of everything that makes it happen.
But its only my hypothesis.Does not make it true.

it would mean that perhaps information can be passed/correlated via some quantum phenomena such as entanglement (as Sheldrake himself has suggested). — universeness

And that is also a nice hypothesis.

That is a really really good argument.Your thread makes a serious point.Nice.

Maybe consciousness can't be defined as strictly brain function like the "walking example" cause it is not strictly brain that generates it.
First even brain has to interact with the external world as consciousness to take place.And to interact also with the whole body function.

So maybe consciousness isn't produced only from the brain but from the whole body.And brain just plays the central role to all that function.As in everything.The "coordinator role" let's say.
In fact not even walking is just "what legs do" if you consider it. Cause brain involves also for it.As other human organs too.

What i mean is, that it might be better starting to examine consciousness as a whole body effect and remove it from the typical theory that connects it only with brain.And all that Endless mind-brain debate.Well anyway it is only a hypothesis.
The only thing i disagree is that neuroscience has nothing to say about consciousness.
If not the only, for sure though ,brain plays a crucial role in consciousness.And neuroscience studies brain.
So if not neuroscience then who would have a better say on that? Let's not be aphoristic.

But again nice thread and great argument for the actual definition that exists about consciousness even in dictionaries.

What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you? — Pantagruel

Basically all of your list below.Included "Other" too.
The right amount-or better combination of them-is the most difficult and crucial part thought.A real philosophy oughts,imo,to include Everything that makes human race wonder about.And all of these categories are united together somehow,as everything in general in the universe is united too.

So for me ,the type of philosophy that shows how philosophy should be indeed, is the combination of all types of philosophy.A United philosophy.I vote for "All".

But i say again, it is the way of how philosophy should achieve this combination that makes all the difference.That's the "juice" and the real question I think.

I m glad you are glad.Though supposing there is God indeed,his way of "thinking" is way more irrational than mine.

. I don't think you should choose to role play god, especially when you make such bad decisions when you do — universeness

Well it's not in my future plans.So no worries.

No, that would be very bad indeed, as you rob people of the truth of their own origins. — universeness

So now that let's say God exists you are sure of your origin aw??

but not if some omnigod just created us for its own entertainment, as it found its omni status unsatisfactory — universeness

Even if that was the case you would never know it.You would be sure for example that your existences is a random thing.So what's the harm there?You wouldn't have any anxiety at all about God as people have now that don't even know if he exists for sure.You would have an answer at least.Still sounds much better to me.

We can, and want to, and will be, masters of our own destiny as a species, — universeness

Doesn't seem that way though the way things are now.Since most people consider God as their master.
God also seems to have much fun already, seeing his "kids" as you say keep wondering about his existence or not.And slaughtering each other without him intervening.But you don't seem to be bothered by that.

So, you would choose to create beings which were inferior to yourself and then you would leave them ignorant of your existence and then you would watch as they floundered around hopelessly trying to discover why they exist. You would not help your own creation in any way. An absent creator deity who takes no responsibility for the suffering of its own creations. You would be a god that gets it's jollies in nasty ways. — universeness

Yeah more or less what is going on already with the current God.But he wishes to be worshipped also.I wouldn't.
Plus it would be better people to stop wondering why they exist and focus all of their energy on how they can exist in the best way they could.Doesnt sound that bad to me.

What would be their grandest thought regarding existence if "God" was a concept unavailable to them? — Benj96

In fact that question is mostly the reason that I would have made such a decision.

Yeah I would be a really curious God.So i wouldn't intervene at all.Plus i wouldn't be a mystery for them.Since none would believe i exist.

I would be curious to see what they could or couldn't achieve with having faith only to themselves.

If i were God i would make all people stop believing on me.

Well since you take the actualism side as i understand from the links,then we merely agree.I don't see our reality like a combination of all possible realities that could exist.But more like just one version(frame) of many possible others.At least we share the belief that we just talk for one world and its reality and not for many others.

Our reality" consists in every possible "form of how real can be presented". Analogously, chess consists in every game that it is possible to play, whether or not they are ever played, and not just instantiated by a single representative (perfect? ideal?) game of chess — 180 Proof

Yeah but our reality is just one of the possible forms.That's why is named "our".Not all possible forms together,as the use of "consists in" might make someone think.
Analogously we play just one game of all the possible games that can be played in chess.

Anyway i think we have an agreement at the core of your argument.The rest(like the word consists that i objected or your corrections)seem more like wording details that don't change much the essence.

In other words, the territory does not transcend its mapping so much as the territory is conceived of as an ensemble of all of its possible maps; 'reality as such' as a generalization from – simplification of – many different, particular realities (i.e. ways of depicting and modeling). — 180 Proof

So at the end you think that "our real" is just one form of how real can be presented? One of numerous other possible forms that can be?Or you mean something else?

Well not really.I don't have the fuel for that and is really late here. i have to go to bed.Plus i don't think a misunderstanding took place here.Questions were simple and specific.

You just told me what real shouldn't be considered (which I also disagreed) but nothing about what real should be considered then after all for us humans.
Turning it into definitions once again.I care much more about the actual concepts that words try to describe.And they don't have to be defined perfectly as to still find out things about them.
We lose the forest for the tree with all that endless circular definition game that takes place constantly here on TPF.Anyway i m sure we will discuss about it again.

My dear Banno.I value your opinions( despite the stubbornness and the irony that they are inhaled) but at that post exchange we had at this thread,you did waste my time and in fact i wanted to do something indeed.
If you re read our conversation you fucked me up for good.Going me from one generalization to another without discussing about the actual "juice" at all.And now this..

I'm saying that we don't always need to start with definitions - indeed, that we cannot always start with definitions.

A moment's consideration of the nature of definitions will show this to be so. — Banno

Another irrelevant generalization that says nothing about what i asked or wanted to talk about.So we might not always need to start with definitions,i agree ..anddd?
Anyway let's drop it.

On a more serious note and putting aside what I said earlier about "real" here, if a word is causing more obscurity than clarity, perhaps its best either to drop the word, or using it sparingly. We can get awfully tangled up in arguing about the meaning of words as opposed to arguing ideas. — Manuel

Manuel had seen that coming.




Once again stupid definition games that you just use and some other members here as to hide behind every time you run out of arguments.Putting Witty ahead as authority.Well sorry but Wittgenstein never said what you imply in many of your posts that we shouldn't discuss at all issues and concepts that aren't perfectly defined.
I ask you specific questions and you give me back silly generalizations.

shown in the way we use the word in our language games... — Banno

And that way also make us understand our reality as we do know.

It says nothing.Stop the games here please.So it can't be defined totally so that's it??we cant say anything about it?Make like it doesn't exist? That's your thesis?

In science things are not 'true' as such they are 'not false'. Yet. — Tom Storm

That's where the magic in science lies.

like; but be honest about it, realise that is what you are doing. — Banno

How i do that exactly?Again to the statements i made above you disagree?if yes tell me where.

Pfff..What exactly was that know?We go back to the definition game again?So we can't define perfectly what reality means so let's shut up and not talk about it at all.Hmm in fact we can't have absolute definitions about anything at all now that i think about it.So let's shut up in general and remain in eternal silence.
I expected more from you.

Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived. — Banno

How else is defined if not by what we perceive??We perceive stuff that are real indeed.But it is not the only way of how these stuff could be.I still can't understand your disagreement here.
Your sentence above says nothing about how you think real should be defined then and sorry but i will not read all your posts here as to find it out where you mention it.If you wanna tell me ok if not it's still fine.

What is important here is to realise that saying things like " Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell" and "Reality is ineluctable", and "Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is" we are not doing science. — Banno

Can you explain me what your disagreement is to the above statements?You find them wrong?
By the way I didn't discover America here.These are well known views that in fact many many scienctists support.Are they not doing science either?

And what we cannot know at all cannot form part of our understanding. The only response one might make to it is silence.

Anything you say about what cannot be said will by that very status be wrong. — Banno

That's exactly what science does though.Explore what we can actually know.It isn't limited only to what can be said.At the very end we can never know the borders of science.And after years what can and what cannot be said.So you can never be sure about what we cannot know.

So better that science doesn't follow the silence path that you suggest.

But the concepts of "real" and "reality" were created by humans for use by humans to describe a world of human experiences. They only have meaning in relation to us. — T Clark

Yeah but that "Something" outside of us that we are also part of it wasn't created by Humans.But we know there is.So let's suppose a different creature with different mind and physiology appear.The same "Something" would be real for it also.They would be part of the same Something,and they would understand that something exists except themselves.So they might not be able to name it as real but they will know is there.

Even in humans before we develop language and name what we perceive as real,still we could understand that Something exists.We could feel it and act like that.We just couldn't name it.

there is a reality which is mostly stable and enduring for everyone under everyday human conditions. — T Clark

True.But you have to acknowledge also that this is totally filtered by our human physiology,our senses and brain.
It would be too egoistic for humans to think that their physiology is the only "right" or possible one ,that can or has been created in this vast and timeless universe.

Yes ,other possible forms of reality can't be known by humans and probably we shouldn't care about them at all then.Just focus on ours and end of story.It is a view indeed.But that still doesn't make our reality the only right one.