I have no idea what that means

Cat lady.

Still, just because one field of study uses another field of study doesn't mean the first field always "describes" the second field, does it? — flannel jesus

I guess not. But if a field is bound to logic, it will be a demonstration of logic, won't it? Couldn't describing and demonstrating both be kinds of showing?

I was not expecting this reply. I thank you for humbling me. — flannel jesus

Didn't mean to!

This sounds like something a cat lady would say. Do you have a cat?

But why would that justify thinking physics should "describe logic"? — flannel jesus

Yea, I guess I'm using to describe and to express to mean the same thing. Maybe it's more that if you've seen the expression, the description has been conveyed to you? Like if you see a model of the earth's electromagnetic dynamo, you're seeing the principles involved in making the model expressed, so you're also receiving a description of those principles. Or you could pull a description out of the expression. Is that not true?

Accounting uses math, does the study of accountancy "describe math"? — flannel jesus

Math originally came from accounting, believe it or not. The number zero came from a Babylonian device that was kind of like an abacus. Writing down the configuration on the abacus is where a symbol for zero came from. Zero's place in the human mind was cemented by practical issues surrounding trade. Math as an abstract domain comes from the invention of non-commodity money. Wherever the use of money spread, a tendency to think in mathematical abstraction followed.

Sorry, favorite topic. :grimace:

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

Yes. Since physicists insist on using logic, the whole of physics is an expression of logic.

but our personal experience of the color red may very well differ from the actual experience of the same light wavelength another may have, which we’ve all agreed to call “red.” I am speaking solely on the subjective experience of “redness.” — Mp202020

This is interesting because this issue generalizes. It may be that there is no such thing as agreement in anything. Yes, we assume that there is, but what if we're wrong? What if the thing we're calling agreement is really just a matter of behavior and speech?

On the one hand, this lays the whole issue of abstract objects to rest, because that idea emerges from a foundation of supposed agreement between thinkers. We're thinking of the same number, or the same proposition. That's where the idea of abstract objects comes from. But what if there's nothing but utterances programmed by biology? Like birds in a yard, if you hear a certain tonal sequence, you respond with another to address the problem, whatever that may be.

At first glance, it looks like the intellect itself becomes an odd sort of... illusion. You can't even agree with yourself from one moment to the next. There's no continuity that would allow for concepts or universals. Food for pondering would be: is that even possible?

I think some of the misinformation is collected from people going through psychosis.

True

I was only hoping for a serious answer. I've spent enough time in lectures and presentations on the matter. — apokrisis

You want a serious answer about how the telephone system is run by a computer? What's your background in electronic engineering?

In what sense is it "run" by a computer. — apokrisis

Do you want a schematic?

Surely you can see what a bad example that is. When is information actually information in any normal sense? When it is in the post or when it is being written and read? — apokrisis

? The telephone system is run by a computer. What I described is the way representation is understood in the computational theory of mind.

I think we just have a terminology issue. For you, the word "representation" means Descartes. That's confusing to me because most theories about cognition are representational, but not Cartesian.

The telephone system is an example of that. When you speak into a phone, an electric signal is generated by the microphone. That signal is sampled to create a digital stream. That stream is transmitted and then used to generate an audio signal that's sent to a speaker. This is a representational system, in fact it involves three different representations, but there's nothing Cartesian about it. See what I mean?

I see no evidence of wanting a dictator — AmadeusD

I think that's because where you are everything is upside down.

It's in the SEP article on embodied cognition. Look at the paragraph on phenomenology. I guess it's an extreme version of the idea?

A lot of his supporters do want a dictator. His running mate believes democracy should be replaced with monarchy.

"Surprise rests on predictions about sensations, which depend on an internal generative model
of the world."

"Perception optimizes predictions by minimizing free energy with respect to synaptic activity (perceptual inference), efficacy (learning and memory) and gain (attention and salience). This furnishes Bayes-optimal (probabilistic) representations of what caused sensations (providing a link to the Bayesian brain hypothesis)."

BBH is a representational hypothesis. I think we must be talking about two different embodied approaches. The one I'm familiar with is a descendant of Heidegger. It's not something a scientist would know what to do with.

But cognitive science has moved away from representationalism itself in recent times, thankfully. A more suitably enactive or embodied approach is being taken again. — apokrisis

Is there an article in Nature about the that?

I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. When asked about his authoritarian language, he commented that a lot of people like it. Where a lot of people favor dictatorship, one is likely to develop.

For testing religions for truth. For following a religious path at all. I was just listing some benefits of this. — Igitur

I see. :up:

Even the value of a religious community could be an incentive. — Igitur

Incentive for what?

But could we experience the red colour itself? — javi2541997

Sort of. I could ask an artist if she's familiar with true Prussian blue, and if she is, ask her to create it with paint. In this case, Prussian blue isn't the property of any particular object, although the name is attached to a unique synthetic chemical. The artist and I are talking about the color itself.

So the experience of seeing the color itself involves ignoring the medium. I'm not saying everyone can do that. I don't know.

I would pay for experiencing that experience. How would it be? Like the sweetness of a candy or the sharp odour of non-drinking water? — javi2541997

Red is Arizona, driving toward Phoenix. It smells like burning Juniper.

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020

The concept of red and the property of redness belong to the whole community. You can speak of them either subjectively or objectively. When you say you've had the experience of seeing red, that terminology is subjective. If I say you need to stop at the red sign, now I'm speaking in objective terms.

We don't really know how consciousness works. Does it only exist on this one little planet? Or is it an aspect of everything? Who knows?

"You know, FDR 16 years — almost 16 years — he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” Trump quipped at the National Rifle Association annual meeting, speaking before a crowd of gun rights supporters.". Politico

He wants to change term limits.

"we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.". --Trump

People who vote for Trump think we need a dictator. Do we?

I wonder if Vance, at the behest of the donor class and GOP apparatchiks, will pull a coup on him and take over his campaign. — NOS4A2

Not likely.

It's that Vance's approval rating sucks and he doesn't balance the ticket. People think it was a mistake. Trump isn't known for loyalty, so maybe he'll ditch the guy.

I think it usually takes some kind of crisis before the basics change. It's interesting to try to guess what the change will look like

What are your thoughts? — Igitur

Religion is like opium. People take it to keep from curling up in a ball on the floor in the face of adversity like the death of a child. The main threat to religion is good healthcare. So if you look out and find people living with little to no safety net, more religion is on the way.

If Harris does make a major misstep in the next few weeks, I wonder who the powers that be will replace her with so that I can know who to vote for. — Hanover

You're going to vote Democrat?

Southern oceans absorb 25% more CO2 than previously thought.

This is a good thing.

No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. — Echarmion

Exactly. His rhetoric gave him so much power that he seemed untouchable. That's a social current worth examining.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them. — creativesoul

I don't think you understand. He believes in authoritarianism. I get that you're not taking it seriously. I do, though. I don't think it's an act.

That's part of "why" I think that. — creativesoul

He openly expresses pessimism about democracy. That doesn't sound like a schtick to me. It sounds like something else.

And you're happy to let Americans live however they like. :up:

I didn’t say they should. — NOS4A2

Cool. You're quite ready to live and let live.

I am outraged that people are given power based on race and gender, yes. You’re not? — NOS4A2

So you're outraged. Why should other people live by your rules?

I have a conscience. What does yours say about giving people power on the basis of their race and gender? — NOS4A2

Your conscience is telling you to be outraged at American politics? For real?