Begin to at least cast a wider net and be aware of biases and political leanings. This OP borders on, or is downright propaganda in its low quality.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart



We can draw from different sources for bias checking, but these are the most wide spread for now. For scientific rigor around bias checking there are machine learning techniques developed; but I'm not sure if any are in use at this time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362614797_Machine-learning_media_bias

Here I was thinking the same about you. — Pantagruel

In what way? You either have the broad definition of bias as something that gravitate towards something or how bias is described in thinking and reasoning, which is what this is about.

The concept that we must put a man on the moon was a bias that flew in the face of current technology (so to speak). The resultant Saturn V project was a monument to the power of human creative thought resulting in countless technological innnovations. — Pantagruel

How is that a bias? It was an ambition and goal, how is any of that a bias?

And the Saturn V wasn't enabled by creative thinking. Once again, creative thinking aren't conclusions, they're explorations. The conclusions that made Saturn V possible weren't abstractions mounted together into a functioning form, it was creative thinking that guided the journey towards rigid and factually based conclusions, i.e the final form of Saturn V that functioned did so because of the unbiased end point of that exploration. Creative thinking didn't enable Saturn V to do anything, it was the unbiased science that made it function. Belief doesn't take you to the moon, it was the hard work of unbiased reasoning that enabled it and that may start with creative thinking, but must end without bias, or else that belief will blow the thing up.

So, what biases helped build the Saturn V and make it fly? Creative thinking and ambition or goals aren't cognitive biases. Exploration in itself isn't the knowledge or conclusion. My point is that the journey towards factual conclusions can be filled with creative thinking, but anyone who stops moving towards the conclusions that lies past their biases will find themselves in a blown up rocket.

Who says that logic and rational reasoning are the sole measure of validity? Again, this is one of your own biases....

towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges.
— Christoffer
the exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.
— Christoffer
exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order
— Christoffer

Again, these are all scientifically biased, with respect to the role that science plays in human existence. To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

How are they biases? What are they biases towards?

Would you say that a conclusion that is formed on no solid grounds, that only relies on abstract random ideas; is on equal terms with a conclusion that has been formed by stripping away lose ends, beliefs and been built on further and further verifications and support in evidence?

If not, then the first quote is not a bias or biased in any way, it is an observation of how knowledge is actually acquired. Case point is the Saturn V rocket. It can start with a creative thought and idea, but you can never have a biased conclusion as the foundation for the rocket's function. Belief has no place on its blueprint.

You conflate exploration with conclusions, that's the problem here. You say something is biased but don't provide any argument that uses the term properly. You use the term in a vague form. Human biases, in the context of this thread; belief, is an end point that appears before a conclusion in truth. Having a bias towards a belief stops the journey from reaching actual rational conclusions. Belief didn't enable the Saturn V to fly, it was the engineering and math, the conclusions so rigid in their truth that they rhymed with the physical laws of the universe, far beyond any beliefs in our heads.

To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. — Pantagruel

That's not what this is about. This thread is about what limitations that theistic or religious belief has on the process of philosophical thinking and in science.

For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

Did you understand what I meant by the journey from free thought to rigid and solid conclusions? That's the core of my argument. Because you are conflating the journey with it's destination. Belief, ambition, creativity, abstraction or emotion may be the initial state of the Saturn V rocket, but the destination was a machine that could fly us to the moon. You cannot fly a rocket on belief alone, you can not design a rocket if you have a bias towards an engineering solution that is simply just based on belief.

The journey is not the destination. And in context of this thread, conflating the journey for the destination is exactly the problem with bias that theists and religious thinkers have. Stopping their journey before the destination purely on the belief that they are already there. And when presented evidence that they're not, they just move a little bit closer, but never arriving until they rid themselves of beliefs and biases.

I understand your approach. However, as I said, you are generalizing both with respect to belief and bias and, in the human world, knowledge is not exclusively of the scientific kind. — Pantagruel

Since I'm describing a gradual journey from free thought to unbiased conclusions I don't think it is generalizing at all. Between the two points are numerous positions to hold, it's only that final conclusions that become universalized conclusions from which we build a human knowledge consensus. That end point cannot incorporate a belief treated as axiomatic truth. But the journey to that point consist of many layers of thought and reasoning as well as hypotheses and fiction.

It sounds more like you didn't contemplate on what I wrote enough to see these nuances in my argument?

There are types of belief that cannot be reached through bias elimination; but which in fact function through bias-amplification (which could be described as the instantiation of value, which is one way that a bias could be described). — Pantagruel

I think you are applying too many vague definitions of biases within the context of this topic. A human cognitive bias is simply a gravitational pull towards interpretations without a knowledge-based foundation for it. And rather focus on emotional influences than logic and rational reasoning.

Any conclusion that produce a foundation for universalized truths cannot incorporate human biases or at least requires a demand for mitigation of any that arise. A concept that does not have such end point may incorporate biases, but rarely are concepts benefitted by them.

Do you have any examples of concepts that benefit from biases? Or are the biases within those concepts only there as temporary necessities because we've yet to answer the concepts fully? Either by lack of further information or lacking conceptual frameworks.

Any creative human enterprise, for example, goes beyond materialistic-reductive facts to assemble complex fact-value syntheses. It is these artefacts which form the basis of human civilization. And, in fact, science itself is one such construct. Science was discovered through pre-scientific thought, after all. — Pantagruel

But isn't that just part of the journey I described? You are conflating the end point, the final conclusions with the journey to its point.

As I described many times now. The gradual journey from free thought, including creative thinking, abstract explorations etc. towards a point of universalized conclusions is a gradual journey. The methods go from being free in thought, no bounds or limitations - towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges. Without this journey we cannot form further knowledge. Just like Einstein didn't just straight up write his equations on the chalk board, he used his creative "thought lab" and explored concepts through very abstract thinking, but he manifested them as rational theories through math and later verified through experiments. Almost no notable physicist in history have arrived at a theory by just pure math and cold reasoning based on previous evidence. The exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.

And the history of science follows this journey as well. It started maybe as early as the first human's with human cognition looked up at the sun wondering what that round element of warmth was. Creatively forming explanations that in their lack of unbiased methods formed the foundation of religion. And through our history as a species we've moved closer and closer to better ways of defining knowledge and truths about reality around us. The scientific methods of today are much more effective than even ten years ago. We journey further and further towards a scientific system that removes more and more of human bias influences on it.

So however we view knowledge and our ability to form it; it always shows that form of exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order, through all gradual steps in-between. But if a religious belief stands in the way through that journey, then the person holding those beliefs will have to move their goal posts further and further and eventually rid themselves of that bias towards their beliefs if to ever find themselves able to form that final state of knowledge. And even if we can't reach that final stage, it is the act itself to move towards it that builds our consensus of knowledge and the act of mitigating anything in the way that clouds our ability to move forward. If someone stops their journey and settles down with a bias towards a certain belief as an act of just deciding before the end, what the end is; they effectively just chose to not look any further and that can never lead to final or further knowledge.

Perspective is essentially a form of bias. — Pantagruel

Yes, but the difference within this topic has to do with the kind of bias that is bound to a belief without grounding in reality. We are biased in certain perspectives like how we can only see a fraction of all light waves, but that is a bias that we know about and can work around when explaining the nature of light. A bias out of belief rejects accepting it as a bias for the purpose of mitigating it in search of truth, and instead make that "belief" equal to an "axiomatic truth"

Acknowledging a bias in order to mitigate it in reasoning is not the same as religious belief bias. One is an acceptance of certain limitations while the other is a demand for that specific perspective to be the truth.

Belief systems are the fabric of our human reality. — Pantagruel

Yes, we are pattern recognizers. We only think in relations between objects and concepts. These relations are infused with emotional factors and produce an experience of reality that is utterly skewed towards our hallucinatory rendition of it.

And this is why we have methods to mitigate such biases in order to arrive at concepts that decode reality better than mere human interpretation.

The difference is when these biases are accepted as an axiomatic truth that is part of any unbiased research. And this is why I say that theists and religious thinkers reason with limitations as they do not accept that their religious belief is part of the biases to mitigate.

But as I also wrote, I am convinced that reasoning must have a component of free thought. That it's not about purely biased or unbiased thinking, but that it is a gradient of stepping stones from ignorance to knowledge. We need to start at the biased, abstract, play with concepts and ideas, we need to start in that chaos of free thought to be able to find pathways towards unbiased knowledge. It needs to be a gradual movement, slowly going from that chaos to stripping away bias after bias until we are able to universalize a concept or conclusion. In science, this is done with the methods of math, experiments, verifications, repeatability etc. -methods that strips away our biases until we arrive at answers that live and exist outside our human minds.

In religious belief biases however; it is equivalent to reaching the last gate before truth and be blocked by a guard who won't let you in. The guard will not accept any reasoning or explanations as to why he should open the gate because he has orders to never let you in. Regardless of how ridiculous his reasons are for not letting you in, he won't have it any other way. He is not interested in anything beyond his own emotional reasoning. You will never be able to enter the gate until the guard is gone, but he never leaves. So instead, you end your journey for truth at that point instead of getting rid of the guard. You produce an unfinished concept, a half-truth; in which you agree up to a certain point and then you just let the guard keep repeating his reasoning as the last step, because you can't bother to get rid of him. And it doesn't matter if something appears that fundamentally proves the guard wrong, he will just move the gate away from that evidence and say it's still not enough to open the gate; just like how theists and religious thinkers move their goal posts every time science have disproven something that was earlier an accepted truth within that belief.

The problem for theists and religious thinkers is that they cannot move past the last step towards a universalized concept. They are blocked by the guard, their religious belief bias. They won't accept it as something to be mitigated, as is done with spotting biases during scientific research or logical reasoning, but instead they hold onto it so strongly that all they can ever achieve is to produce half-truths and flawed reasoning. And they don't care about their limitations because they are content to just settle down outside the gate with that guard.

I didn't realize we had a choice in that? Oh wait, we do? Of course. That is the essence of belief.

Of course, if you are saying that we haven't any choice in it, then it can't be a problem or a solution, can it? — Pantagruel

Why can't a factual thing be a seed for a solution? What are actually you implying here? A factual property of our existence is a hint at our functionality in face of nature. Anything else is an invention; something requiring an addition of an invented concept rather than being what it is. Adhering to what "is" negates belief as what "is" exists outside of any beliefs.

Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance? — Pantagruel

What we deem facts of the world are what we can live by as honest as possible as truth. Our biological nature have parameters that we can measure, we have statistical data and knowledge about our human psychology that acts as our guidance. That isn't belief, that is adhering to how we function as an entity, as an animal within this ecosystem of nature. Belief does not feature evidence, with evidence comes hypothesis and therefore what I described is hypothesis, not belief. Compared to all else, an hypothesis has more ground than belief.

which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. — Pantagruel

With what I just said in mind, is it really so? Or is it that all attempts at proposing a framework gets demoted to equal "belief"-systems in order to level the playing field in favor of unsupported claims. How is adhering to our biology and human psychology equal to belief in a deity or God? One has a lot of evidence and logical rigor and one is a wish beyond any existing support.

I don't see how you can conclude it as equal? I'm not saying I have the philosophical or ethical answers beyond my conclusion in this, but I'm saying that we are more likely to find a common, universalizable truth about our human condition if we look at what we are and not at what we wish ourselves to be based on wishful thinking and how we want our existence to be.

So, am I arguing for another belief system? Or am I arguing for exploring deep in ourselves the ethical truth of our being based on what studies in psychology tells us about our species? Because what I'm seeing is not the nihilism of Dostojevskij, what I'm seeing is an optimism that seems to have gotten lost in the stigma of no faith. I do not think we need faith, I think we need to be honest towards who we are as a species, without interpretations by those who want power over the conversation.

So, is what I'm talking about belief? Or is it closer to truth than how belief operates?

to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. Inevitably, my question may involve what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself? The whole area of theism and atheism may hinge on the notion of what the idea of God may signify. Ideas for and against God, which involve philosophy and theology, are a starting point for thinking about the nature of 'reality' and as a basis for moral thinking. — Jack Cummins

I can definitely see a difference in how people of each approach philosophical concepts. I would also say that while many say that religious people can still keep that faith while working as, for instance a theoretical physicist, I observe a difference in reasoning.

A belief system or lack thereof is basically linked to the definition of a strong bias. We know that bias is essential to human cognition, and that the deliberate action of reducing bias is essential to science and logical reasoning in philosophy. That leads to the conclusion that such a strong belief is in fact causing the problem of strong bias in reasoning, affecting the outcome of a philosophical argument or scientific conclusion/interpretation.

But there are values that needs to be taken into account. Just like art plays an important function in opening up minds to new ways of thinking, so can a strong belief system focus reasoning. It's comparable to people who've taken psychedelics and experienced a profound connection with "all things in the universe". The emotional journey of that has sometimes changed how people think about different subjects without necessarily changing their belief system. Plenty of atheists have taken such substances and have a profound expansion of their perspectives, even though those experiences are "artificial" in nature.

The important part is that the problem lies in the conclusions made. Many theists and believers use their convictions as part of their premises in arguments and such bias breaks any logic or scientific merit of their conclusions. Atheists are more keen to naturally thinking in an unbiased fashion, it's a natural pathway of their reasoning. So they're better at producing unbiased arguments than believers and theists. However, if a theist and believer understand the inability to universalize their concepts due to their fundamental bias, they can view concepts in a certain perspective that an atheist may not easily access.

I'm convinced that any philosophical and scientific thinking requires a gradual movement from free thought to rigid logic. A large problem is that people view critical thinking either too abstract or too rigid in logic, but it should be treated as going from an abstract play with ideas, concepts and visions down to a sound grounded logic that can be universalized. It's not either end, it's the journey and progress from one side to the conclusion in the other.

Theists and believers have a harder problem reaching that end and atheists and the scientifically minded have a problem beginning in the abstract play. Both sides need to understand this more deeply about each other.

I'm a big advocate for keeping ideas close to the facts of reality that we have around us and I'm under absolutely no belief or theistic notion whatsoever. But I find my play with the supernatural; the ideas and abstractions in art, which I hold is an underrated component of our process towards expanded perspectives.

I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? So, I am left wondering about the limits and freedoms arising from both theism and atheism. How do you see both perspectives in thinking? — Jack Cummins

Theists are too bound by arbitrary rules and principles, lost in scriptures and made up concepts for what constitutes what is permitted. One can argue that the lack of belief means everything is permitted, but I hold that we can find scientific answers to what is permitted or not through our biology. Yes, everything is theoretically permitted, but only for psychopaths and those are generally not considered the normality of a human being, even evidenced by their reduced statistical existence compared to non-psychopaths. No, we have a biology that push us towards compassion, push us towards empathy. It's more the natural state than any other, regardless of what pessimists say. Our psychology makes us prone to outside influence on our behavior, but our natural state without heavy manipulation leans into empathy and compassion towards other people.

So, we don't need religion or belief to guide us, we just need to rid ourselves of the manipulators and psychopaths that play with our minds. We need to focus on the natural drives towards compassion and empathy and work aligned with that and not against it. We think that a lack of belief in a system that put principles and rules on us to follow is the only way to limit us from doing violence upon another, but it's not the lack of belief that leads to violence, it is the lack in acceptance of our empathically natural and biological interactions between people that leads to nihilism.

If you want to demonstrate how you've countered my argument, simply explain to me what my argument is Christopher. I'm telling you you don't understand it. — Philosophim

Your argument's conclusion is that there has to be a first cause, which is only one interpretation in physics. And through the explanations given, your logic of causality as a framework for beyond our reality does not function or becomes inconclusive since your reasoning is bound to this reality and do not compute with quantum mechanics. And seen as causality itself is in question even in our reality and isn't a defined constant, other than on the scales in which determinism operates, you cannot conclude your conclusions through the reasoning you provide.

that you're presenting a straw man. — Philosophim

You don't even seem to understand what a straw man is.

When you're over there beating an argument of your own imagination, there's really nothing else to discuss until you resolve the accusation. — Philosophim

You accusing others of fallacies does not resolve your own fallacies. That's deflection and projection. You ignore engaging with the criticism given and try to steer the argument into other directions by cherry picking out of context and accusing other's of fallacies that doesn't even fit the definition. There's no point in engaging any further with someone so deeply in love with their own argument that they are totally incapable of even understanding the criticism given, even on a surface level.

I can take all the stuff you've already said and apply it to your summary. If you can't summarize the argument and tell me what I'm actually saying — Philosophim

I have made plenty of summaries, but you ignore them. You want people to engage in a way that makes it easy for you to counter-argue, if you don't understand the criticism, you deflect in this way. This kind of demand for others to engage in the way you want in order to control the discussion is downright childish.

after he confessed he didn't have to understand the argument. Such a person has nothing of value to add to the point. — Philosophim

I didn't confess to that, I said that your flawed reasoning is at odds with quantum physics and I rely on that for the context of this topic. Get off your high horse.

Its also not control freaky to guide a person back to the OP — Philosophim

I don't need your guidance.

This isn't a generic open ended discussion thread. — Philosophim

You don't own how other people engage with you and I've stayed on topic, but you simply don't seem to understand how.

then my accusation of you using a straw man fallacy is correct and none of your other points mean anything. — Philosophim

This is is hilarious. You use a straw man wrong and if other's don't engage in the way you want them to, you use that deflection to ignore everything that's been said. Are you able to extrapolate any criticism from the huge amount of writing I've given your thread or are you gonna continue act like a 7-year old king of your sand castle?

I'm done with this low level discussion; you're not equipped to handle a philosophical discussion and so the discussion is pointless.

This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. — Philosophim

It's a lot of effort for trying to explain how I actually argued against you since you ignore engaging with the actual counter arguments and keep rejecting in ways like this:

When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. — Philosophim

That you are the writer of the idea is not a foundation for the idea being solid.

A straw man accusation is serious. — Philosophim

Yet you ignore your own faults on display while praising your own writing?

Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly. — Philosophim

Is it? Or is the point that I've already addressed your argument and that you are still just praising your own writing as your form of defense, dismissing engagement with what's been actually written. Using GPT like this for a breakdown is primarily because you seem to not understand the criticism you get so you try to hide behind the same straw man that you falsely accuse others of doing. Let's do that again with what you wrote right now and maybe you'll see once again how problematic your reasoning is, starting at the argument in which you accuse me of a straw man:

Misapplication of the Straw Man Fallacy: The argument accuses Christoffer of committing a straw man fallacy. "I don't have to, I understand the physics instead." This statement by Christoffer does not necessarily constitute a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Christoffer's statement could be interpreted as an assertion that his understanding of physics negates the need to engage with the argument, rather than misrepresenting the original argument.

Lack of Context: The counter-argument lacks context about what the original discussion was and what Christoffer's statement was addressing. Without this context, it's hard to determine whether his response was indeed a straw man or a relevant counterpoint.

Presumption of Misunderstanding: The counter-argument assumes that Christoffer does not understand the original point (OP), without providing evidence of this misunderstanding. This assumption may not be fair or accurate.

Condescending Tone: The tone of the counter-argument is somewhat condescending, particularly in the lines "I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want" and "When you show understanding, then critique." This approach can be counterproductive in a logical discussion, as it might provoke defensiveness rather than constructive dialogue.

Lack of Direct Engagement with Christoffer’s Point: The counter-argument does not directly address Christoffer's claim about understanding physics. Instead, it diverts to explaining the straw man fallacy and summarizing the original argument. A more effective counter-argument might have directly addressed how Christoffer's understanding of physics relates to the original point.

Oversimplification of Complex Topics: The summary of the original argument about first causes and chains of causality simplifies complex philosophical and scientific topics. While simplification can be helpful for understanding, it risks omitting nuances that are crucial for a thorough discussion of such topics.

In summary, while the counter-argument attempts to point out a logical fallacy and guide the discussion back to the original topic,it has its own issues including a potential misapplication of the straw man fallacy, lack of context, presumptions about understanding, condescending tone, lack of direct engagement with the opposing point, and oversimplification of complex topics.

And further analysis of what you wrote now:

Accusation of Avoidance Without Directly Addressing Counterpoints: Philosophim accuses Christoffer of avoiding the main points of the original post (OP) without directly addressing the specific critiques raised by Christoffer. This can be seen as a way to deflect the conversation away from the substantive issues raised in the counter-argument.

Overemphasis on Understanding as Perceived by the Original Writer: Philosophim places significant emphasis on Christoffer showing an understanding of the argument in Philosophim's terms. While it's important for parties in a debate to understand each other's points, insisting on understanding as defined solely by one party can be problematic, especially if it disregards the other party's perspective or understanding.

Continued Focus on Straw Man Accusation: Philosophim continues to assert that Christoffer is committing a straw man fallacy. However, without directly engaging with the specific points of Christoffer's argument, this accusation seems more like a general dismissal rather than a response to the substance of Christoffer's critique.

Dismissal of AI Analysis as Trolling: Philosophim dismisses the use of an AI-generated analysis in Christoffer's argument as "trolling." This dismissal could be seen as avoiding engagement with the points raised by the AI, which Christoffer used to support his argument.

Failure to Address Specific Philosophical and Logical Flaws Pointed Out: Philosophim does not directly address the specific philosophical and logical flaws that Christoffer and the AI analysis have pointed out, such as the potential false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and the speculative nature of the conclusion.

Insistence on Direct Engagement with the OP’s Points Without Acknowledging Counter-Argument’s Merit: Philosophim insists that Christoffer directly engage with the points of the original argument while seemingly not acknowledging the potential merit or relevance of Christoffer's counterpoints.

Implying a Lack of Worthwhile Engagement: Philosophim suggests that if Christoffer cannot address the OP in a manner Philosophim deems acceptable, there's no point in continuing the discussion. This stance can limit the scope of the debate and potentially dismiss valid criticisms.

In summary, Philosophim's response focuses heavily on procedural aspects of the debate (such as the perceived failure to understand the OP and the straw man accusation) rather than substantively engaging with the critiques raised by Christoffer. This approach can hinder constructive dialogue and the exploration of the philosophical issues at hand.

Analyzing in this way produces an objective analysis of your argument. Dismissing it for the sake of how the analysis is done rather than the points it brings up makes zero sense. You're just deflecting all criticism you get by cherry picking parts of a counter argument out if its context and making a straw man of it yourself, then calling out the other person for doing a straw man. I've countered your argument, I've engaged in further explanations for the objections you raised and yet you still act as if no one has countered your OP. It's dishonest. Your OP post has flaws in its reasoning, explained multiple times now, including an AI analysis in the attempt to making it more objective, yet you still praise your own logic and fail to engage in the discussion on the merits of discourse. Rather, you demand people to counter argue within the context that you want, not by the merits of your own reasoning, which has been clearly demonstrated to be flawed. There's no point in providing more arguments than I've already given because at this point you're just ignoring the counterpoints raised and tries to deflect through dishonest cherry picking.

Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim

You falsely assume that your argument can solely rely on a logical argument and ignore the actual science which provides counters to it. The theories provided are there to show you how your logical reasoning isn't enough for the conclusions you made.

I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring — Philosophim

I've directed you to the problems of your reasoning, that's what's being ignored here. You're so biased towards your own argument that you value it like gold and any counter argument is straw manned by you. You're just projecting your own fallacies by dismissing and deflecting when calling out straw man's of other people, especially when you don't even use the accusation of straw man properly.

He doesn't understand. He's in his own world. — Philosophim

Again, projecting by describing yourself. You fail to simply understand that your argument of a first cause is just empty dislocated logic in face of the science actually decoding reality into a complexity beyond that use of logic. So it's you who live in your own world of your own logic out of a limited understanding of the science, and demand that everyone acknowledge how brilliant you are or else they are beneath you.

I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. — Philosophim

Just reiterating your argument again is not a valid counter argument to any of the criticism. It is being ignored because your OP as already been addressed, in summery:

The OP simplifies things too much by saying everything either has a prior cause or there's a first cause, ignoring other possibilities. It also talks about this first cause (Alpha) without really explaining it well. It sticks to a traditional idea of cause and effect that might not hold up in complex areas like quantum mechanics. The way it defines "Alpha" is circular; like it's saying it exists because it has to, which isn't a strong argument. It also quickly dismisses other ideas about never-ending or looping causes without much reasoning. The argument doesn't differentiate between different kinds of causes and ends up with a speculative conclusion that a first cause must exist. It doesn't consider other theories about the universe that don't need a first cause. It has notable gaps that has been thoroughly pointed out, which you totally ignore.

And to drive the point further, here's a summery of an AI analysis of your deduction alone, without the fluff:

Overall, while the argument lays out a structured approach to discussing causality,it has limitations. It depends on specific assumptions about how causality works and doesn't fully explore or address alternative models, such as causality as a concept that may not be universally applicable or may operate differently at different scales or in different contexts (like in quantum mechanics).

If nothing of this is enough to point out that your OP is flawed, including everything that I've written prior, then you are simply not equipped to handle criticism and well only keep deflecting through self-praise.

Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim

Maybe understand in what context I wrote that in before calling it a straw man.

I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," — Philosophim

No, I argue against the conclusion you make as we already have physics telling us similar things that doesn't need you to re-invent the wheel, but also other interpretations that gets ignored by the absolutism of your conclusion.

You get so hung up on forcing people to understand you that you use others rejection of your argument as some evidence that you are right. But in doing so you ignore the objections being raised.

In order to maybe simplify things (as you seem to not really care about the counter argument you are answering to) I let an AI break down the flaws of your OP. Notice the highlighted parts in relation to what I've been writing. Also notice the irony in you calling out fallacies.

This argument, which aims to establish the necessity of a "first cause" in the context of causality, has several philosophical and logical flaws:

False Dichotomy: The argument begins by presenting a dichotomy: either everything has a prior cause, or there is a first cause. This framing may oversimplify the complex nature of causality and exclude other possibilities, such as causality not being applicable in all contexts (e.g., quantum mechanics), or the concept of causality itself being a limited human construct that may not apply universally.

Undefined Terms and Concepts: The argument uses terms like "Alpha" without adequately defining them or explaining how these concepts interact with established understandings of causality. The notion of an "Alpha" as an uncaused cause is a speculative philosophical concept, not an empirically established fact.

Assumption of Classical Causality: The argument assumes a classical, linear model of causality (A causes B, B causes C, etc.). However, in some areas of physics, especially quantum mechanics, the traditional concept of causality may not hold in the same way. This assumption limits the argument's applicability to all of existence.

Circular Reasoning in Alpha Logic: The argument about the "Alpha" is somewhat circular – it defines an Alpha as something that must exist because it cannot have a cause, and then uses this definition to argue for its existence. This is a form of begging the question, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Overlooking Infinite Regression and Looped Causality: While the argument addresses infinite regression and looped causality, it dismisses these concepts without sufficient justification. It's a significant leap to conclude that because these concepts are difficult to comprehend or seem counterintuitive, they must lead to a first cause. Infinite or looped causality models are viable theoretical concepts in cosmology and philosophy and cannot be dismissed lightly.

Conflating Different Types of Causality: The argument does not distinguish between different types of causality (e.g., material, efficient, formal, final causes in Aristotelian terms). This lack of distinction can lead to confusion and misapplication of the concept of causality to different contexts.

Speculative Conclusion: The conclusion that a causal chain will always lead to a first cause (Alpha) is speculative and not empirically verifiable. It's a philosophical position that depends on the acceptance of certain premises and definitions, which are themselves debatable.

No Consideration of Alternative Models: The argument does not consider or address alternative models of the universe that do not require a first cause, such as certain models of an eternal or cyclic universe.

In summary, while the argument is an interesting philosophical exercise, it is not conclusive. It relies on certain assumptions about causality, does not adequately address alternative theories, and contains logical flaws such as false dichotomy and circular reasoning. — ChatGPT

Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. — Philosophim

I have critiqued, but you don't understand the critique you get, and instead you use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique.

Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements. — Philosophim

Math is an invention of interpretation, it does not change the fact of 2 + 2 = 4, which is a function of reality only interpreted through math. Same as with the Planck scale, it's not bound to measurement, it is bound to fundamental quantum randomness, it is the scale edge-point at which our reality stops acting properly. It is not an invention.

Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego. — Philosophim

Don't posit to know something without demonstrating it. So far you haven't demonstrated understanding quantum mechanics, which produces a problem in that you use produce conclusions based on misunderstandings. Pointing out that you misunderstand something and use something wrong is not a personal attack, it is simply pointing at the flaw on reasoning. The irony here is that you lift up your logic and reasoning as rock solid and you dismiss criticism with the evidence of how well your logic is. But your argument mainly only point out that there must be a first cause, without it, there would be a cyclic loop. And maybe I misunderstand here, because that just sound like stating something obvious, axioms of logic that are already logical in themselves, without a need for overcomplicated reasoning.

You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. — Philosophim

The Planck scale is a scale in which reality breaks down; there's no property to this that had a caus, it is a singularity point. It's like saying "what caused this centimeter" and not mean the invented measurement, but the centimeter in itself without relation. That is silly. Such a scale singularity point in which reality breaks down and dimensions stop to have any meaning is a state in which causality breaks down as well. Without causality there are no causes and all our reality in this scale means no prior cause. If a randomness of probabilities exist there they exist without prior causes, they exist there out of pure randomness, causeless spontaneous existence. But since such existence forms properties, they expand. - This is me explaining why calling for a cause to the Planck scale makes no sense.

And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point. — Philosophim

I'm not dodging, I'm countering the points you make. I've already explained the different solutions to the Big Bang theory. Penrose cycles, inflationary universe, loops or the one I described, which points out a first event without a prior cause.

But the key point is that the density of the universe right at the event of Big Bang would mean dimensions having no meaning, therefor no causality can occur in that state. It is fundamentally random and therefor you cannot apply a deterministic causality logic to it. And since you can't do that, how can you ask any of the questions in the way you do? It's either cyclic in some form, or it is an event that has no causality as its state is without the dimensions required for causality to happen.

If you want an answer to a first cause, that's the answer I've been given many times now. The first cause in that scenario is the first causal event to form out of the state in which causality has no meaning, which is a state that has mathematical and theoretical support in physics. But if your point is that "aha! see there's a first cause!" then you are just stating the obvious here and I don't know what your point really is? Because you jump between pointing out the obvious, entangled in a web of unnecessary reasoning, and asking irrational questions about physics.

Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate." — Philosophim

No, it is the theoretical scale supported by math in which general relativity and quantum physics breaks down. You even quoted exactly that part, and yet you don't seem to understand what it means.

At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an invention of interpretation and the thing that's being interpreted. You argue as if the number 2 is an invention. The invention is the interpretation of reality that correlates to the real thing of 2 something.

A Planck unit is a mathematical invention of interpretation. The Planck scale is not the invention.

And it's not "the place in which our tools begins affecting the outcome", read the bold line in that quote you posted and really think about what it actually really means.

So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it. — Philosophim

But it isn't conclusive. You still have the Penrose theories, and other cyclic interpretations that do not have a first cause as it's circular. There's no need for a first cause as the cycle, the loop causes itself. It's only paradoxical because we aren't equipped to understanding such things intuitively, because we are bound to thinking within the parameters of this reality. But the math supports such interpretations as well. And as I've pointed out, math is not an invention of reality, it is an invention of interpretation and our interpretations have yet to formulate a defined answer as to if our universe appeared out of nothing, or if it is a form of cyclic looping event causing itself.

What I have been saying is that your logic isn't enough to point out a first cause, since such conclusion is bound to the parameters of this reality. You can point out a first cause within our reality, beginning at the start of our dimensions; but you cannot conclude anything past that with it since there's no evidence for our reality functioning the same beyond the formation of it's foundation. Therefor, we can conclude there being a first cause at the point of the Big Bang, for this reality (as it operates on entropic causality) and it could be that it IS the first cause out of nothing, based on what I've been describing above. But a cyclic, and in our point of view, paradoxical looping universe is still a functioning hypothesis, and since such is beyond the logic of this reality, it breaks the logic in your argument.

Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this. — Philosophim

As said, it is one of the interpretations that exists, I don't adhere to the absolutism of any single interpretation just because the logic I find is sound, because there are too many possible interpretations that include mathematical projections beyond our reality. Regardless, your reasoning is a totally unnecessary confusing web when we already have the math that points towards this outcome. It's all already there in the physics, but you seem to just want to lift up your argument and reasoning as something beyond it, which it's not. So I question the reason for this argument as physics already provide one with more actual physics-based math behind it and I question the singular conclusion of first cause as it doesn't counter the other interpretations that exist.

Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique. — Philosophim

I don't have to, I understand the physics instead. The conflict is in that you try to re-invent the wheel and demand others to accept your wheel when they already have perfect ones mounted. I critique the need for your argument. And since you demonstrate a shallow understanding of the physics at play; it all just looks like you are with force trying to mount your wheel on top of our already functioning wheels, not understanding that those wheels already work.

What caused the Planck scale to exist? — Philosophim

Nothing caused it to exist, it's like asking why 2 + 2 = 4. The Planck scale is the scale at which measurements stop making sense as reality becomes fundamentally probabilistic. It's not a "thing" it's the fundamental smallest scale possible for reality, which in my point was that such a scale and such a function rhymes with the theoretical physics of how the universe began. So there's no "cause" to the Planck scale, you've entangled yourself in a web of your own thinking here with no regard for what these things that you address actually means.

demonstrate why. — Philosophim

What should I demonstrate?

You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please. — Philosophim

For one, your incorrect use of concepts like the Planck scale shows how versed you are. The lack of understanding of the uncertainty principle is another, especially since you claim that we "just don't have the tools to decode it". I'd just answer like Feynman did: "If you think you know quantum mechanics, you don't". I've given a run through of how causality can appear out of nothing at the point of Big Bang, something that's much closer to what scientists actually theorize. This is far from making it personal, I'm just pointing out that you mostly use bad reasoning here and back it up with "you don't know how versed I am in quantum mechanics.", which isn't saying anything, especially when you don't seem to show it.

What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway. — Philosophim

Again, you don't understand what the Planck scale is. It is not an invention by us and I don't know why you keep implying that.

No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause. — Philosophim

Do you know what these quantum fluctuations implies? It's a fundamental randomness of probabilities that do not act according to general relativity. The concept of spacetime, in essence, causality, breaks down and have no meaning at that point. Regardless of how we view the Big Bang, all projections starts the universe at such a dense point that it fundamentally becomes zero dimensional and there can be no such thing as a first cause before this since there's no spacetime in this state. Without dimensions, there's no causality and no cause. If we take the fact that quantum randomness and rogue probabilities increase in likelihood the smaller in scale you go, then at a scale so small it basically becomes dimensionless, there would be a singularity of probabilities. A probable event occurring, a fluctuation, in a state without spacetime, would instantly become. Without dimensions the only way to fit that fluctuation would be for it to expand "somewhere", producing the necessity for dimensions, and that causes a basically infinite density to expand into those dimensions.

You can't have spacetime at such a dense point, and without spacetime you have no causality, therefore you cannot find a first cause before it that aligns with how we view deterministic causality in our reality. You can only find a first cause after spacetime appears, after our dimensions formed.

What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? — Philosophim

How does anything without spacetime act as a causal event? A quantum probability doesn't need spacetime as it can exist in all states at once. If that state was because of a big crunch, a higher dimensional looping state that we leak out of or if it was a fundamental paradox of dimensionless nothingness that have no beginning, it still places our reality at a point in which no causality existed before it existed. So if you're looking for a first cause, I've already pointed at it; the first event of time and causality at the point of the big bang. That is the first cause and it has no prior cause due to no causality existing before it. It's the logical conclusion of the state of the universe at that point and the cosmological models support it.

Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why. — Philosophim

No, you clearly misunderstand everything into your own logic and you have become so obsessed with that logic that you believe the Planck scale is an invention and disregard how general relativity breaks down at a singularity point. If a star of defined mass produce a black hole where spacetime breaks down, then imagine a singularity or a Planck scale dense form of our entire universe. Then explain how causality would work in that state. You seem to forget that our laws of physics break down at that point and that our dimensions stop making sense. If causality breaks down, then you can have no causes before this event as there's no spacetime there to produce it. That's where logic takes you based on the current understanding of physics and quantum physics.

Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.

So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact. — Philosophim

You didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the idea of a first cause, as in the cause that kickstarted all we see of determinism. And how there's no need for one if the universe expanded from the Planck scale. That determinism is underlying our reality is not what I was talking about.

False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it. — Philosophim

No it's not. Maybe you should read up more on quantum mechanics. "Cleverly designed computations" is a nonsense description of it, and sounds more like religious talk. Quantum mechanics isn't magic, but it's not how you describe it here. We can absolutely measure it, but we run into the uncertainty principle and the reason may be located outside of reality or our ability to measure it due to limitations in our dimensional perception.

Don't state something as false before leaving a description that isn't even close to how quantum physics are described. That's bias talking.

A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is. — Philosophim

A first cause is merely the first causal event and as I described it can simply be the first causal event out of the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. A dimensionless infinite probabilistic fluctuation would generate a something and still not be a first cause as it is a fundamental absolute probability. And even if it weren't it can also be explained by a loop system, infinitely cyclic like Penrose's theory.

A first cause isn't necessary within a probabilistic function.

Causality, as in deterministic events, follows entropy only on scales above the Planck scale. Virtual particles, as understood right now, does not have a first cause, they are probabilistic random existences.

If the universe extended out from this Planck scale; in which determinism exists as an irrational system due to the absolute probabilistic chaos that exists there; then the first cause is basically defined as the first entities that acted upon another entity causing a chain reaction of events rather than randomness. In essence, once there was an absolute probabilistic chaos and then one such instance acted upon another causing a chain reaction of events forming our universe.

So, through quantum physics, a first cause isn't a necessity. It's only a necessity for that which solidifies out of an absolute probabilistic system when that system's random probabilities reach such high certainty as to fundamentally make any other probable outcome impossible due to not being able to affect neighboring events. At a certain scale, the governing constants of the universe (which themselves may be part of the initial probabilistic random outcome during the Big Bang), form an alignment for probabilistic outcomes and as such all other probable outcomes collapse into what is most deterministically probable.

Like drops on a surface, their surface tension conform them into large actions and systems; the merging two drops is a highly probable event based on the laws of physics, regardless of the chaotic nature of the substance and its elementary quantum randomness. All other probable outcomes becomes only probably on such small scales as to be overridden by the emerging properties of the whole set.

Therefore, the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, but the likelihood of an event that overrides determinism in the universe is so low that it cannot happen during the entire timescale that the universe exist through. Like, for example, a drop of water splitting up into two parts by a reversal of the laws of physics governing that drop is on its large scale such an improbable event that it would take billions of times the timescale of our current universe lifetime for that to happen as a random event, and the deterministic outcomes would even then be insignificant to the universe as a whole.

Furthermore, spacetime singularities may be places in which matter and objects compress to such scales where they start to behave like pure probabilistic randomness, and since that produces a paradox in entropy, reality itself collapses into a feedback loop that becomes a "hole" in our reality as it cannot function together with the deterministic system outside of it.

Then there's the superposition of causal events that have the same outcomes regardless of which came first, and such an indefinite causal order. Although it doesn't change larger causal links.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/

So what? They're not that much fun to look at in real life. Use a Cabbage Patch Kid and it won't bother me — Vera Mont

That's not the point though? A realistic infant is needed to be able to tell a story. I don't understand this argument? It sounds more like you don't like seeing infants in movies? If so, no one's forcing you to watch movies.

in which the child's image will be recorded for some foreseeable future — Vera Mont

An infants likeness to their adult self or even child self is barely if at all recognizable. So why does this matter? The subject was about trauma due to on-set practices.

and available for commercial use to who knows what entities. — Vera Mont

For the specific movie or TV-series, yes, so I'm not sure what you are talking about? A production company doesn't own anything other than the filmed shots for the purpose of the movie, except for any trailers, posters and photos from that movie for marketing it. It barely even stretches into using shots from previous movies as "flashbacks" in sequels since it sometimes spawn lawsuits from the actor not getting paid for re-using those shots in a new project. Contracts are for the specific movie or TV-series specifically. A production company doesn't own any other type of use out of the images they shot. If some shots were edited out, they can edit them in with a director's cut without affecting anything, but that's about it. So I'm not sure what other "entities" you refer to it becoming available to?

Yes. That's where the kid is looking - not at the actor who is supposed to be their parent. That's why they're they're unconvincing in the scene. — Vera Mont

Depends on the shot and competence of how it's framed. Sometimes it's also possible to just digitally replace the head of a parent holding a child, to that of the actor. But most of the time, the parent, child and actor get to know each other before rolling (obviously also so that the infant feels comfortable in the arms of someone else), so that there's a more likely connection between the actor and the infant in the scene. I see no difference between that and a parent letting their friend hold their baby. And actually, a lot of times it is actually a friend of the actor who's the parent so there's even less issues. Of course, there's a lot of bad examples but nowadays I rarely see it. Mostly also because it's so easy to digitally change where someone is looking in a scene so productions do that if the child starts looking in another direction.

If the kids' lives get ruined, well, that happens a lot more without any cinematic intervention, just through unfortunate circumstances. — Vera Mont

I see the amount of incompetent parents as a bigger reason for traumatic childhoods. Domestic fights between parents, misbehavior due to alcohol etc. The common culprits of abuse are one thing, but even parents who aren't crossing such thresholds can cause traumas just by not being educated enough on child psychology. Like, in attachment theory, if a parent just leaves the apartment without signaling this to a child, even though the other parent is home; it can cause a traumatic feeling in the child as if the parent disappeared from their life. A continued behavior of this can cause long term trauma that could even form problems to handle social skills well as an adult.

Generally, modern life isn't adapted well to taking care of children. Parents today are forced away from the necessary time that should be given to the child and with the rise of neoliberal individualism as a societal ideal, parents are ill-equiped to move away from the self-centered lifestyle they have, and subsequent unintentionally harms their children psychologically.

As long as we have the forces of capitalism pressuring parents into living paycheck to paycheck, they will not ever find the time to parent for the sake of the child.

And that's ironic, since many modern parents are so overprotective of their children, they want to shield them from all the worlds harm to the point of wrapping them in bubble wrap; all while the harm might come from the parents themselves, without them even understanding or noticing it.

I don't see that infants are necessary — Vera Mont

CGI isn't cheap. A digital baby that's supposed to be viewed in close ups can cost many millions of dollars to make, without any guarantee of it actually looking more convincing than a real infant. Children of Men is an example of it being very convincing, but that's a huge budget.

lack of informed consent — Vera Mont

But that's true for all situations an infant are in, and why it's the responsibility of the parent or caregiver. You can bring an infant out into a public place and that is also without consent. You can't get consent from an individual who does not have neither the communication capability or enough ability to understand the situation they are in. Usually, a film set is quieter and less stressful than a public street.

their caregiver is obviously somewhere off-stage. — Vera Mont

Parents are usually right next to the camera. They're right up close because that's part of the regulations, but even so, I've never even heard of any crew who would even think of separating the parent from the infant during a shoot and it's also crucial in order to even get a shot. When it comes to crying, there's been occasions when twins in which one of the infants usually cry a lot and the other not. So the crew simply stand by with the camera and quietly wait out until the child who cries a lot starts to naturally cry. Usually it only takes a few seconds of crying to get the shot needed and then the rest is just sound effects and a dummy. And when there's a need for calm, the other twin is filmed instead. Set's aren't mechanical brutal machineries, they're usually boring slow and a lot of waiting. It's often more of a problem that there's too much waiting rather than stress and when infants and children are involved, crews generally are super focused to quietly and quickly be ready before the infant is even brought on set. It's the same with animals, especially if they're not trained for filmmaking.

But there could definitely be shoots with malpractice of this. There's a lot of filmmaking taking place outside of regulated productions, so those should be criticized if they fail to comply. However, real productions are very careful, both because of all the regulations, but simply out of respect from the crew.

the lighting, the noise, the presence of strangers, the incomprehensibility of the situation and the irregularity of schedules has to be stressful. — Vera Mont

Not accurate (and I've been on many film sets). Whenever infants are present there's a deep respect among the team members not to cause any stress and there are regulations and rules to follow for shoots involving children and animals. The experience for an infant is barely different from being with their parent's friends outside in public among people. So should we ban people in cities to walk outside with their children? That's far more stressful than a film set. And the time children are on set is usually very short, only for the shot and then they go home. If a child is in many scenes it usually involves twins in order to comply with the time rules and regulations for children and animals. And dummies are often used for any shot that isn't a close-up.

Those things happen one time, for a few hours, not long days of shooting. You don't know how many rehearsals, how many 'takes' and how much waiting around in between is behind a two-minute scene in which the audience actually sees the baby. — Vera Mont

Not accurate as I mentioned. There are no long days of shoots for infants, ever. Twins or triplings are utilized if the time exceeds the regulations which are strict. If someone breaks those rules, that's not an industry problem, that's a problem with those specific people, just like if some asshole treats a child bad in public you don't blame everyone on the street.

Small children - depending on how small - may enjoy the limelight, but they do tend to become damaged over time. — Vera Mont

If success creates mental health issues (in adults, too, incidentally) imagine what failure does to a little kid who was promised stardom. — Vera Mont

The reason why many child actors in Hollywood have gone down that route is because many parents and caretakers of these children are forcing their children into fame as an extension for themselves becoming famous. There's a culture around fame in Hollywood that is downright destructive to anyone's soul.

But that has nothing to do with film sets and set practices. And anecdotal cases from a small number of shoots with infants and children does not reflect the entire world of filmmaking. The problem has to do with the culture of fame, not film shoots.

Another problem as I see it is that there's an extreme obsession with protecting children today in a way that becomes destructive. Amateur psychologists or people who think they know child psychology make wild conclusions about what children can handle or not. What we've seen the last couple of years are Millennial parents who's so overprotective of their children that when they enter teenage years and later are unequipped to handle the complexity of adult life. The overprotection of children systematically makes the children, when later grown up, more susceptible to anxiety and depression because they've never been in enough situations to process difficulties of life. So facing challenges in childhood is not the problem, it's the lack of guidance and if the "guides" around children just push them into fame and that culture without such guidance on how to navigate such a sphere, that's what's causing these problems.

As someone who's been any many sets and actually knows that world it's frustrating to see people from the outside speak of something they clearly know very little about. Especially since the problems with child actors in Hollywood aren't seen in other film industries to the same extent and especially since the root cause of the problems often lie outside of the film sets. When it comes to children working as actors (not infants), more often than not it's the familiarity and "family" of the crew and cast that becomes their comfort and it's the cult culture around fame that's handled by their agents, parents and other people in Hollywood that's the destructive part, not sets or crews.

Pointing fingers at film crews like this is an extremely skewed situation that isn't fair to the people who actually functions as the best people around famous child actors. Anecdotal and situational accounts of bad practices on sets are no more common than having the children out in public or anywhere else. So please stop pointing fingers at film crews like this, it's not accurate.

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different. — baker

What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? I would say the same thing about Democrats, but since they've not displayed the same level of total ignorance of facts, knowledge and stability that the Republican party has displayed these recent years; the criticism needs to be aimed where it's currently needed to be aimed. Where's the competency on display in the Republican party? Like, just look at how they treated the house speaker situation last year. They act like spoiled children, constantly just doing whatever they can to keep fucking up things until they become the center of attention. The behavioral rot has spread from Trump and infected the entire party. I could make a long argument against the problems among the Democrats, because they're acting incompetent as well, but the level at which the Republican party operates today is just a laughing stock for all us in more functioning democracies in the world.

Whenever there's embarrassing turmoil in the Swedish, Nordic or even the EU government and I turn to read up on what's going on in US politics I'm stunned at the differences in competence. We view our politicians as incompetent, but in comparison to the US political scene we're like an utopia compared to a Mad Max film.

Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.

Anyone who looks at the US system as some pinnacle of democracy needs to get their heads checked.

The problem is this. What happens to your consciousness when you get transported to a planet? — Walter

How do any of the crew know that you, the one who goes into the transporter, actually is the one ending up on the planet surface? Since a copy can be made, does that mean that the one going into the transporter essentially dies and a copy is being materialized on the planet surface?

With all memories intact due to the brain structure being intact, the one ending up on the planet surface will always have the experience of being "sent there", but they will never be able to know if their individual experience and life ends when being transported.

Without a proper wormhole portal that you "go through", it's more likely that everyone who's transported essentially just dies every time they are transported. It's impossible for them to be able to know the difference.

How is it even conceivable? — Wayfarer

Because the proper protections aren't in place. Maybe the US has never been in a situation like this in which someone who may implement anti-democratic policies gain power. I think the US and its people have been living in a fantasy in which they believe that such a thing will never happen in their own nation. That's something that happens in those other "backwards" countries, but not in the US because that's a nation of Godly blessed got damn freedom! If the US survives this overgrown manchild and finds some stability, I think that both the Democrats and Republicans need to implement a more rigid defense against this bullshit. Maybe look to more functioning democracies and stop believing they're the best and greatest nation in the world. Time to try out some humility and introspection and clean out the halls of power from power leeches and lobbyists, install safeguards that make it impossible for people who value themselves over their own people and the world to gain power.

I don't accept that Biden is feeble or senile or incapable. I do accept that he projects very poorly on the podium but considering the stuff he's having to deal with, and magnitude of the problems he and the world are dealing with, any number of which could literally be world-ending, I think he's doing a quite exceptional job. — Wayfarer

I'm not arguing against that, as I said, he's steering the half-sinking ship through a storm of global turmoil and economic hurricanes. But the risk is in his health, what if he suddenly dies, suddenly seriously fail in mental capacity. There has to be some actions taken right now on both sides to find some younger candidates to build up for the next 2028 election. It takes time to build up trust in candidates among the voters, so get some stable, non-bullshit, young people up there. And Republicans need to ditch trying to capture the Maga people's votes, even if they risk losing. Many other candidates feel like pseudo-Trumps, as if they just want to reach those voters. But that's not gonna hold, they need to focus on voters outside of that cult, and for that they need a proper candidate and not pushing forward other clowns.

That their cruel and imprudent behaviour to their brothers is now having undesirable consequences should have been predictable and should have been avoided, so perhaps they are not quite as clever and sensible as they think. — unenlightened

But was there such a behavior though? Weren't there enough good hearted people who cared for all people and wanted to help, just to get a shotgun to the face and screamed to get off their property? That there were enough people who tried to make things better for all, especially low-income low-educated people?

Isn't it the false promises of neoliberal capitalists on the right side of politics who promised these people the garden of eden; only to flush it with factory chemicals, doubt, fear and rage?

And then they turn their backs on- and want to fight those who actually stood on their side, making them suffer and in the end just utter back to them: "ok, then rot in your filth you morons".

We can blame culture, but part of the great irony is that the people in power around Trump, as well as himself, does not care for these people other than to feed their narcissistic blood flow, cash flow and voter booths.

After all this time, how much longer should the people who actually care for these Trump supporters as human beings have to wait for these Trump supporters to realize which side actually fundamentally supports them? Because they get so much hate and so much shit all the time while trying to reach out that at some point... enough is enough.

I'm talking about fence-sitters. — baker

Anyone who's on the fence towards such a side does not seem to have the capacity to understand reason. So it doesn't matter what you do, they are attracted to the childish bullshit that Trump spews out. It is clear by these recent years that it's a cult behavior; reason doesn't work, facts doesn't work. The only thing that works is if they realize the suffering they stand for, if they see it head on, if it produces a cognitive dissonance; in the same way as cult members realize what state of mind they're in. Listen to cult survivors and how they reason, what made them realize their faulty ways. Someone waking up from the Trump cult will echo the same reasoning.

It's easier on your ego to think that .. — baker

No, it is true. They follow cult behavior to the letter. Treating anything a leader says as truth, as something to applaud without any attempt to rationally understand what it all meant is part of a cult mentality. Why do all these QAnon and conspiracy people intersect so well into the Maga culture? They follow the same cult mentality; the same psychology.

I don't care about my "ego", I care about making honest observations of what is going on.

Such is democracy. — baker

Yeah, a sloppy version of it. Democracy needs care and systems to protect it. Because the result of a sloppy democracy is civil war. If someone gets voted in to dismantle a democracy, crowning themselves king; then the other half who didn't want that, will show that they did not want that. So protecting democracy and protecting it from such destructive forces as well as keeping the peace require better care for that democracy.

Democratic tolerance can only function until the intolerant becomes tolerated. After that you don't have any democracy anymore.

The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that. — baker

You're talking about demagogues, not democratic people. They don't understand democracy, they understand the abuse of democracy by acting as demagogues, that's what a dog-eat-dog concept entails. By any means; fool the people, take the power. And if that power leads to anti-democratic actions, then what democracy really exists in their minds other than autocratic power?

What's even more scary is how sloppy people treat democracy. It's the same as how sloppy they treat freedom of speech. The constant appeal to them in broad, vague and simplified terms as some defense against actions aimed to supersede their actual purpose. And the so called educated just fumble their words trying to point it out to these people, it's absurd.

No, democracy is what it is and that kind of mentality is not democracy at all. That only proves that they do not understand democracy or they do not care and just use the public's low education of what it means in order to take power.

I'll pick the side that is *not* cheering on a mendacious narcissist wannabe dictator. — Wayfarer

...and I don't understand how people have trouble with this reasoning. There are plenty of other Republicans who're not like Trump, who can respect democracy, produce stability and act for the people and not for themselves. But it seems like Republicans are stuck trying to appeal to the lowest denominator, the easiest to fool voter. How long do they think that's gonna hold? When will that house of cards fall down? We could say the same of the democrats, but Biden, even at his extreme age, still holds the country together, through global turmoil, economic collapse. Still, get some new younger blood into the game, some stable proper candidates that can act like actual politicians.

The US is a laughing stock in the world, but we can't laugh because the implications could be dead serious.

And every time you say such things, a fence-sitter is closer to slipping off into Trump camp. — baker

I don't think it matters, it seems that nothing matters. They won't listen to reason or criticism, they're captured by Trump's narcissistic "embrace" regardless.

The people loved it. They swallowed every word, and they voted for him.

I can’t quite understand why this is. but I don’t find it entertaining. Depressing, would be one word, and scary, another. — Wayfarer

Because they are just words, they have no meaning to these people. They hear a strongman saying strong things about stuff they have no education about or are too stupid to understand. It's herd mentality, groupthink psychology, fanatics. It is the same thing as in any other cult; the meaning of the words, the consequences of it doesn't matter; it is the promise of power; it is the promise of becoming the new kings of the world after they've lived in the backwater of the "experts" and "educated" people's rule.

These people dream of Trump leading them to a promised land, a kingdom in which they're the elite and not those other ones you see on TV all day.

When can we call these idiots actual morons? It's been years of people trying to balance things and say that we need to listen to these followers of Trump, hear their perspective on life and understand their situation. But when you listen to them, when you listen to Trump speaking to them, it's clear that they are downright utterly stupid people who basically joined a massive cult.

No reason beating around the bush, it's stupid people who are bitter and angry against smarter people for getting more attention. Spoiled adults who behave like screaming children in stores when not getting more candy for their fat asses, and their God is Trump, a representative of themselves, just as stupid, but able to storm the white castle of power.

Everything he's done since coming down the escalator is a step too far. A thousand times already, it's been 'that's it, now he's done it, there's no coming back from this.' And yet, here we are. — Wayfarer

I think "going too far" needs to go further before people wake up. When people start to feel the fascist boot up their ass, they're gonna dust off that anti-fascist mentality everyone had during the early 40's.

Just as you say, nothing is done by what has already happen, so he can go far if he like, but if he starts to dismantle the ability for other presidents or the Democrats, or even others in the Republican party to be voted into power after him, then that is gonna be bloody. At this point, due to his own words, I'm not ruling out civil war; if the military is even willing to march on his orders. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his own security took action while he's down oinking into- and devouring a pile of Big Macs. There are too many people in the US who wouldn't accept such abuse of power.

On the other side though, if Biden wins I wouldn't rule out militias believing they're God's army under Trump's banner to make some form of attack.. The powder keg is lit and the only thing that would stop it is if Trump chokes on his Big Mac falling on the fuse.

It's going to be some kind of mess, this won't be clean in any form.

Don't you think that he's a real threat to society? — Wayfarer

The only positive thing that will come out of a Trump presidency, if he goes too far, would be that the sleepy apathetic regular people who doesn't care about politics will wake up and smell the ashes. After such a clusterfuck I think there would be a radical change to the core of the US system that puts higher demands on the competency of any future presidential candidates. Maybe even strengthening the ability to remove presidents who abuse their power. At the moment, all the steps to remove a president hinges on their own followers to vote against him, which isn't gonna happen with fanatics and people who only cares about their own power.

It's ironic that with the historical banishment of those who followed a king, all in the name of freedom, the nation ended up in a rather autocratic position; swear on the bible, live in a white castle, have servants and a king's guard. Maybe we should just call the US out for being the pseudo-monarchy that it is and reshape its democracy to protect it better against those who would and could tear it down into a proper autocratic society.

I'm focusing on what consciousness actually is, about explicitly trying to grasp our intuitions about what it is. And you're discussing the how and why, which doesn't make sense in this thread since we didn't even elaborate what it actually is. How can we talk about why and how something was made if we didn't clarify what we're talking about? — Skalidris

How can you make a distinct difference between formation and what it is? The formation hints at what it is and how it is for us comes out of how it was formed. How can you clarify what it is without understanding how it was formed? And I'm not talking about the physical formation in the physicalist sense, but instead in terms of our psychology, how it formed into the experience we have. That is what this is about. To elaborate on the formation, our internal perspective of the process of its formation, is to speak of "what it is".

So I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that you focus on what consciousness "actually is". To "grasp our intuitions about what it is"? Are you talking about a religious perspective? Supernatural? Because if you're focusing on those things, without it being supernatural or religious, then what I added is clearly within the focus of this thread.

It seems more like you just reject the things we already know and just want some "new perspective", but that's like seeing a boulder rolling; giving clues to what will eventually be invented as a wheel, yet reject that observed boulder rolling and instead force everyone to think about some new idea about what constitutes rolling as some abstract new intuition.

Otherwise you need to clarify further what you actually mean.

The first conclusion is that there are no rational reasons to believe that consciousness always come with the notion of individual. And that therefore, they should be treated as two different matters. The second derives from the first one: there could be several neural networks experiencing consciousness in our brain. — Skalidris

All of this I elaborated on. I'm not sure you really engaged with the text I wrote?

The notion of the individual, the "self" the self-awareness is an emergent property out of our type of consciousness. There are speculations of other animals to have a sense of individuality, but consciousness in nature seem to be a gradient rather than some hard cut-off point. Some animals are only functioning as pure machines with sensory inputs, acting on instinct and behavior, sometimes in hives. Mammals and many birds seem to show higher cognitive abilities where some are able to recognize their own image in a mirror and communication behaviors that requires a notion of the self. So it seems like its scientifically clear that individuality and consciousness are not the same and that individuality is an emergent property out of specific forms or levels of consciousness.

Sticking to the science, we already know in neuroscience that we have parts of the brain that acts as subfunctions. They're not as rigid in one place as previously thought, but spreads out from specific positions in the brain. All these functions on their own does nothing but control certain parts of cognition and requires interconnections to form our experience. Evidence of this comes from retellings of people waking up from death (brain being inactive through loss of oxygen). How their experience of the world, if first and only registered through memory, and only a small fraction of other functions "turning on" one after another; their experience is of an utter lack of understanding of anything around them. With surreal events that have no meaning or value, no purpose in the form of identity. Only when all systems comes in sync does the person start to sense themselves "become". A key part of this is due to memory, if memories aren't formed then there's no sense of time and consciousness without the experience of time is just a function that has no sense of existence. That is possibly the experience of each part of the brain, much like insects in a hive.

I was quite surprised recently at the number of people I've spoken to that consider other animals as not "conscious".

It's a difficult word to tackle because of semantics but as far as I gathered, they meant has a lack of an "I" sensation/experience of self, therefore little to no agency to apply to a self, and act mindlessly on mere precribed impulses. — Benj96

Most actions that human's take are pretty much out of similar strings of causal behavior as animals. The only difference is that we are adaptable through taking a plan of action. We can evaluate our surroundings to reach a specific purpose. Our behavior looks complex, we sound complex, but we forget that we're just the tip of the spear when it comes to consciousness. If we view the animal kingdom more in terms of a gradient of conscious abilities; since our consciousness evolved; there should be other animals who have similar conscious experiences as us, but remain limited enough to not reach our capacity.

Ravens, for instance, seem to be able to form culture around behaviors. They can spread "ideas" to other ravens who then follow. In that sense they need to understand the difference between a self and another raven in order to understand that they have a perspective that the other raven does not.

The problem with people saying that animals don't have an inner experience like us, is that we don't even know how to define our own inner experience. Our experience of qualia is unknown between people and that means its even more unknown between us and animals.

We can only judge animals out of our standards of behavior, which means we are sure to miss any sort of self-aware qualia of an animal.

One experiment that we've used to make some kind of measurement is through mirrors and the idea of self-awareness out of how lifeforms acts in front of their own reflections. If they behave like they recognize the mirror image as themselves, they are probably able to internalize that the image is of themselves. So far there are a few animals that seem to behave like this, elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas, ravens etc. But we still don't know the differences between our internal experience and that of these animals. They might have an awareness but handle that qualia differently, they may be more aware than we seem to believe.

Some of them may even be on the brink of their own evolutionary step towards high intelligence, we just don't know. But that would be an interesting scenario; if an animal group started to show signs of high intelligence and the ability to study and contemplate about us humans, what then?

Because there's no reason to believe that our consciousness were just some fluke. Our level of consciousness may be a very rare trait, but seen as animals exist in a large gradient range of different conscious abilities and self-awareness, there's definitely an evolutionary incentive towards developing our level of consciousness.

In my theory, that's due to adaptability, because our consciousness is highly synced to that survivability trait. So if some other animal started developing highly adaptable behaviors, then it might not be far fetched to assume that they may form consciousness in a similar form to us.

The strings are our emotions - the predictive system; you're saying that's what controls our actions. — NotAristotle

It's more complex than that. What we feel as emotions are the strings of intuition and instincts. Emotions are part of evolution training us. Pain over the course of many generations of mutations can produce a behavior or physical restructure to mitigate it. The same goes for pleasure.

But the "strings" in our psychology have become more than just emotions. The construct of meaning could be linked to the pleasure of fulfillment, a grand form of it pushing us towards such reasoning. However, we form ideas about meaning that transcend mere emotional realms but they're still driven by predictive drives. The idea of forming something that generates meaning for grandchildren who would never even think about you can be a sense of prediction for projected survivability. That it's not just direct emotional self-programming that guides us, but that the predictions of navigating reality has become so temporally complex that it forms a higher complex awareness in which our sense of self and individuality is entangled in this web of strings pulling within us. It's such a complex web of different drives that it produces an illusion of ourselves being in control and have agency, but that its essentially a malleable highly advanced prediction machine that's constantly trying to make split-second adjustments to its predictions about everything.

If you were to ask yourself "why?" on every action you make, every minute detail of your behavior, and if the answer is vague continue with another "why?", where does it lead you? Doing so honestly rarely leads anywhere but down into extremely simple forms of basic necessities, emotional or as a plan of action, large or small. Even if the action, behavior or thought seemed complex and cognitively advanced, the reasons are usually simple. The complexity of this system hides the cogs of it so that we attribute more profound meaning to is than it actually has.

The predictive system can study itself? — NotAristotle

The predictive system has to do with adaptability. A constant stream of sensory and emotional "data" helps to form better predictions. This is basic cognition on most animals, but we evolved the ability to create categories of data in order to predict events and plan. The emotion in relation to other information does not equal only repeatable actions as in other animals, but will always be contextualized in a constantly adaptable system of prediction. We are constantly able to change our behaviors according to our adaptable system, which leads to us having a more dynamic agency and behavior not bound to repetition in the same way as other animals.

However this is not a generic thread about qualia and our subjective experience as a consciousness, this is, as the title suggests, a thread about challenging our intuitions of consciousness. How is anything that you wrote a reply to my thread? It seems like you are just expressing your opinion about consciousness. — Skalidris

It is a reply in that it focuses on the formation of consciousness, or rather the formation of qualia and individuality. That's a dimension that needs to be included if we are to break down our intuitions of consciousness. Much of your first post does not adhere to the things we actually know about our brain and consciousness in general, which means you form reasoning out of something other than common knowledge. Deconstruction of something requires the common construct first.

It's also unclear what you are actually arguing for. You ask what we think about your reasoning, but there's no clear conclusion you make. It reads more as a speculative meditation on the subject than deconstruction down to a conclusion.

And if you lift the idea of individual thought or the sense of us within ourselves; the problem with qualia; then I did give a perspective on it. The possible why of what's producing this sense of agency, self-awareness and individuality.

So I'm not sure in what way it doesn't relate because you opened up a discussion on the subject but did not provide a truly clear point or conclusion.

That is not necessarily what I mean when I speak of "seeing reality as it is." As I am presently using it, I mean seeing reality in contradistinction to the way reality is seen through the lens of an apparent illusion of consciousness. — NotAristotle

The illusion is what I described here:

But because all of this becomes so extremely complex with maybe thousands of predictions that occur all the time, we don't experience it as such, but instead we experience some emergent phenomena of "being", an illusion that forms out of these basic adaptive functions. — Christoffer

The illusion is our experience of ourselves to be more advanced than what we really are. We don't see the strings that pulls our behavior, wants, needs, thoughts and actions, we only experience the sum of those strings and it makes us feel like we are in control and have agency. Individuality formed out of this complex web through the formation of self-reflection out of the need to predict other individuals within a tribe, group or against another rival group.

Still, it seems to me that any sort of illusion of reality would be weeded out by evolution in favor of a more honest interface, seems to me like that would have an evolutionary advantage. — NotAristotle

Seen as much of the mental disorders in our modern life comes from the fact that our psychology still functions similar to that of the psychology of hunter-gatherer groups over 50 000 years ago, we haven't evolved much further. Evolution takes timea lot of time. If we think that the past 100 000 years changed us much, the fact is that it didn't. It may be that the only evolutionary progress we've made is the one I mentioned with better self-control over our emotions as civilisation grew larger, but most modern civilisations didn't begin before 12 000 years ago and that's not really enough time for major evolutionary changes.

It may be that our modern life, like this, using technology, will eventually evolve us into other forms of consciousness, but that will take so long that the risk might be greater that we destroy ourselves before then. Evolution requires a very long time over many generations and under specific conditions in order to form and it's not step by step, but gradually. We might have changes in our consciousness today compared to 5000-10 000 years ago, but those would be miniscule.

But in terms of the weeding out the "illusion", there isn't a replacement for it in evolutionary terms since it's an emergent result out of the underlying functions and it's the functions themselves that are our actual mechanics of consciousness, it's them that would need to change in order to transform the illusion into something else, but so far, where's the need to do so? We don't have a form of living that impose a need for anything other than our predictive and adaptive function and so there's nothing pushing on evolution to change us.

You need to view this from the perspective of evolution and how it progress, not from the perspective of what would seem a logical "better" step towards a superior system of consciousness, that's not how evolution works.

Wouldn't there be the possibility to know one's emotions and thereby know why one is acting? And, is it not the case that if we know how we are going to act, we have the ability to act in a manner contrary to what we are conscious of? — NotAristotle

Which is in line with a highly complex web of prediction actions. What happens when a prediction system starts to predict possible outcomes of actions that are themselves formed by a prediction "algorithm", in this case our emotions? It start to form a value-system in which it balances these predictions towards the best outcome. When culture and civilisation evolved it was advantageous for our survival to adapt to its structure and so we felt emotions that were there to predict outcomes, but those outcomes often led to negative consequences that in nature worked, but in culture and civilisation didn't. And so our new layer of predictions analyzed our own emotional behavior and started to mitigate them when needed. We all act according to what we predict will happen. We all act with very basic needs and how we navigate towards getting those needs is through a range of actions based on highly complex web of predictions that form a plan of action and strategy. But because all of this becomes so extremely complex with maybe thousands of predictions that occur all the time, we don't experience it as such, but instead we experience some emergent phenomena of "being", an illusion that forms out of these basic adaptive functions.

Through this, it looks like we are simple and we are, but the emergent effect out of this simplicity forms a complexity that is highly unique in nature.

And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle

But that does not have an evolutionary function. Evolution acts on previous abilities and their limitations. We have no reason to "see reality as it is", and in this sense I think you mean to be free from the emotional driving forces and be able to always act without biases to any needs. But wherein lies the reason to evolve like that? We evolved in nature in relation to the environment and our survival, the reason to have the consciousness we have functions out from that existence and not what we could argue would be a detached and more effective overview on reality, far away from any natural animal instincts and forces limiting us.

I think we often forget where we came from, attributing a lot of fantasy onto ourselves because we believe ourselves to be "more than nature". But we aren't. We are just part of any evolutionary tree as any other species and our evolutionary trait of self-reflecting consciousness is a function just as birds ability to fly along the magnetospheric lines of the earth is a remarkable evolutionary trait; or the electric eels able to generate up to 600 volts without hurting themselves. We look at these traits as fascinating and wonder how they developed, but then we look at consciousness and start to produce magical fantasies that promote our own sense of ego.

Since we are animals who act for survival just like everything else in nature, it is understandable that we inflate our own ego in face of nature. To attribute our own consciousness with a magical aura and position it as something greater than nature, we effectively form a survival mentality in which we've taken control over nature by reasoning ourselves into masters of it.

It may be the reason why people who barely survived in nature, astronauts who gazed upon earth from the moon and people who faced death due to their own stupidity; all start to reevaluate their position in nature's hierarchy. Yes, maybe we are at the top, but we are not magically special, we are still part of it all, we come from it, evolved from it and are bound to the reasons why we became who we are.

I'm not talking about the limits of knowledge. There is no end of things to discover. I'm talking about the limitations of objectivity as a mode of knowing. — Wayfarer

And that returns to the question of at which level of perception an objective understanding, a knowing, is preferable. The one which is in the middle, seeing clearly past the absolute noise but with the ability to abstractly understand beyond? Or the one who sees all, but becomes blinded by its noise?

I agree that we have limitations in our perception and that a new perception could drastically change our emotional experience of how we experience reality and the universe. Much like when people saw the first images from Hubble, it changed the emotional experience of knowing the universe. However, that's only emotional experience. Objectivity in knowing, requires a humble and unbiased relation to the knowledge we have, respecting the data that forms a deeper understanding past our perceptive limits. And we have another tool for knowing; in form of the collective. All who are versed in how biases affect us knows that the more there are who observe without bias, the more objective we can be about reality.

Let's say we have a white room, evenly lit. In this white room there's a white podium with a red apple. Outside the room there's a person who do not know what's in the room. You let another person into the white room to observe and then out to describe and draw what they saw in the room to the first person. That wouldn't lead very far in his objective understanding of the apple and how it looks. But it will increase with more people that enters the room, giving their descriptions. At a certain point, the first person will have enough understanding of the red apple to predict exactly everything there is and be able to imagine the red apple in its entirety. Now, this looks an awful lot like another version of Mary and the black and white room. And that's intentional because when Mary steps out into a world of color she experience it emotionally. But the question is then, are we describing simply emotional experience? A purely human perspective that should not really be a foundation for objective understanding. To understand the universe, we do not need an exceptional emotional experience of it and fundamentally we are already doing something like that through art.

There's a beautiful expression of this in the Oppenheimer movie; in the montage after he gets asked the question by Bohr: "do you hear the music?" -Oppenheimer battles through the theory and there's a shot of him deep in thought in front of the Picasso painting Femme assise aux bras croisés. Art has been instrumental for experiencing beyond mere perception, and it is worth asking the question if the interpretation and honest imagination of information is more clear and objective in understanding than the being who can observe everything as everything is. Because, as I said, seeing all would blind you maybe even more than not seeing all due to your limitations.

What is an objective understanding then? Especially when reality seem to fluctuate in a away that makes the objective in objective understanding; a variable entity at that level of absolute perception. Understanding may very well be more clear with some limitations and so the conclusion that we cannot objectively understand becomes a very undefined conclusion.

Not according to Brian Greene: — Wayfarer

That was just a segment on the uncertainty principle. What causes the collapse is still about how any detection introduces an interference that collapses the wavefunction. And our mind does not affect the collapse because any measurement we use in order to witness it introduces an observable event long before our mind. Much like our eyes do not see by spraying out photons, the photons have already interacted with any surface and we only observe with our eyes after the photons already acted upon the world. Any interaction is a type of observer, because "observer" in physics has to do with interaction, relation. Anyone who uses the Von Neumann interpretation misunderstands a large part of physics and believes that they can isolate a physical phenomena in their lab without their equipment affecting the measurement. There's a reason why the Von Neumann interpretation is considered the worst of the interpretations, because even among physicists there are people who don't understand quantum mechanics. As Richard Feynman said; "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

This is the sense in which quantum physics definitely mitigates against physicalism, and why you are compelled to dispute it. — Wayfarer

Physicalism also points out that physical processes are causes. The problem is, as I mentioned in my last post in my answer to Count Timothy von Icarus, that philosophers gets addicted to labels. It becomes hammers to battle with rather than positions to extrapolate out from. If I present an argument that uses physicalist emergentism as a springboard into my philosophical ideas, then the label is only the starting point. If all I said gets reduced back to rigid descriptions of these labels, then you are acting out of the same criticism you've given for how scientists can only observe through pre-conceived categories.

It's why I usually never use these labels when talking about different topics, because it collapses people's ideas back into a box that makes it harder for them to read what I actually write. It's also fascinating that when we read philosophy, all these labels and terms get invented by the notable philosophers in history, but when people discuss philosophy and operate on expanding on ideas, they mostly become puppets of these labels, using them as tribalist positions. But true philosophy is about understanding the ideas and work out from it. Since it seems that physicalist emergentism as a label is boxing in my argument in a framework that is limiting, I think I need to coin my own terms for it. But since the science of criticality is still in very early stages I want to wait until there are more of a foundation for emergence theories.

Are your notions here based on work by Daniel Dennett or Thomas Metzinger? — Tom Storm

Actually, no, they're ideas I've developed on my own out of trying to conceptualize the evolutionary reason for consciousness and how we ended up with self-awareness as it seems to be too evolutionary intentional to just be an accidental trait.

But it's not uncommon that people arrive at similar conclusion independent of one another. I will check out their concepts, thanks for the tip :up:

You can check out the thread on Physicalism as well, we all went deep into emergence of consciousness if you need more input on that angle. I firmly stand by physical emergentism in terms of defining consciousness, but I think the question in this thread focuses more on qualia than consciousness.

Leaving the formation of consciousness aside (I've written enough on the subject in the other thread), the question of qualia and our subjective experience as a consciousness is another discussion that fits this thread better.

Fromt the emergence perspective, consciousness is the resulting abstract system that forms out of a combination of systems. Each subsystem handles specific responsibilities, like the visual cortex and so on. Each system in itself does not form any understanding for the individual since there's no context that its "data" is set in relation to. Only when each part forms connections to the others do we form context and consciousness emerges. But these systems aren't bound to a specific location in the brain, recent research has shown it to be more of a bell curve response in a particular part of the brain, so each system stretches out far into a blend of the others, which might explain why people with brain damage in a region that should remove a certain conscious capacity sometimes only suffer minor changes and that the brain through neuroplasticity manage to salvage functions as there are enough neurons to rebuild connections, although at a lesser capacity due to loss of physical space in the cranium.

When all systems work together we form a contextual complexity and it blends together all sense data into a coherent experience. Add to that how our memories form and are always a relationary source of context for all actions and emotions we have. We always act with a memory context guiding us. That also applies to memory of emotions forming instinctual behaviors.

But the main part I'm looking into has to do with the moment to moment function of our consciousness. Why do we act, think and do what we do?

As I wrote in the other thread, consciousness needs to be viewed in relation to evolutionary need. Why did we evolve this trait? What were the evolutionary reason?

Here's a sort of line of events that might be a reason...

If we imagine a pre-homosapiens or rather pre-self-aware-conscious ape trying to survive as a group.

The most effective trait that an animal can develop through evolution is adaptability. The ability to regulate body heat, blend in, fool your pray and fool those who hunt you. If our ancestors developed the evolutionary trait of adaptability through predictions of their surroundings, they were able to predict being attacked, predict how to attack, predict if they were in danger, predict if they needed to move to another location and so on. Prediction seems to be one of the core features of our consciousness.

Prediction exists throughout nature in many forms. The most direct example is Pavlov's dog. We can program behavior through programming an animal's sense of predicting something. An octopus predicts danger and hides in its camouflage. A herd hears a disturbance and everyone moves in accordance. The more advanced an animal can predict their surroundings, the better they survive.

So what happens if an animal gains a highly advanced predictive function? The ability to not only act out of instincts that were programmed by trial and error through evolution in order to adapt to events, but also form basic understanding of causal events into the future and from the past. Instead of instincts, this animal were capable of conceptualize instincts, predict that if they turn that corner there will be a lion waiting, therefore stay put. So they survived.

Extending from that, they could also predict where to get food. Instead of just predicting danger, this trait helped predicting where herds gathered, like seeing a pond of water and predicting that the herd will gather and drink from it. So we wait for the food to come.

And so we developed rudimentary language because if you say the word for "stay here", both are able to predict what that leads to. One stays, the other push the herd towards the one who stays.

But the group also need to grow, sexuality is a driving force that is core to evolution. And emotions relating to that, the chemistry cannot be handled well. So the predictive skills becomes of use within the group as well. Can you lure the one who threaten your position in the group, into a place where you can kill them and be the alpha or the center of attention?

Language evolves to more complex systems, because it's not just your relation to nature that requires predictions, it's the group dynamic as well.

And so the history goes, step by step forming a system that's built on the function of predictions.

When looking at a modern human and its psychology. Is there any action, behavior or thought that isn't rooted in predictive behavior? We have our core emotions, our instincts and uncontrollable drives. But every reason to act seem to come from us trying to predict an outcome and adjust. Increasing the complexity of such a system extends to so much in culture, so much is about moment to moment predictions in relation to emotions, in relation to harm and wellbeing. Our mind produce predictive models for what will happen if we do something, all the time. It uses memories to find sources of context in order to predict an event better and so on.

And in order to predict others in the group, the individual need to have the function to predict another human being's behavior and that individual's own predictions. In order to do so the only source of data is themselves. So in order to predict others the individual self-reflect about their own nature, their own behavior. The mirror in which we see ourselves is used to form understanding of others, empathy is born and we can predict another's behavior.

This stream of perception data, filters through our highly advanced prediction calculations in order to form behaviors and actions in a way that navigates our surroundings in the best possible way for our survival. And the increasing complexity of culture that evolved due to this increasing system of predictions only feedbacked into growing more evolutionary needs for prediction skills. The ones who were able to predict reality the best, survived.

In essence, we believe that we have agency, but we act only in accordance to prediction of our future in order to survive. Which also means that we became aware of death. Not through pain as many other animals do, but conceptually we can predict nonexistence, which formed a feedback loop of emotions in which we predict our death, but that should be avoided, and yet it can't be avoided and the paradox spawned all sorts of strategies based on the prediction of death. How can we avoid it, if not what happens then? And the emotions surrounding death spawns its own complex and growing strategy to handle that paradox.

Wherever we look we can find reasons why prediction spawned behavior and internal thought. This illusion of our subjective experience may only be emotional responses to our surroundings based on our sensory data that produces predictive behaviors trying to handle survival.

Why do I sit here and write this? What drives me to do it? Not what I think is driving me, but what is actually pulling my strings doing this? My emotions surrounding the act of writing all of this. Is my emotions driving me to find survival in a group here? Predicting that if I write something good it will generate connection to the tribe, to the group and put me in a better place for survival? Is it an act against death? Is it about survival?

I think we conceptualize too much around our experience of consciousness, I think there's a very basic reason why our consciousness acts in the way it does and why we experience things as we do, but this basic reason has evolved into such a complex form that we've basically become lost in that complexity and produced this illusion that is our qualia, our inner experience of life.

We are highly advanced prediction machines, driven by emotions that guide our survival. Those are the strings we don't see and which gives us the illusion of complex experience.

I don't think we are as advanced as we think we are, in terms of how we function. The consequences of our consciousness onto the universe is very complex as a result, but we are not that complex in how we function. And our subjective experience may only be an illusion formed out of a basic system that had the ability to take many forms, and has done so and evolved into extreme complexity. But we attribute ourselves more complexity than I think is actually in our heads.

Our experience and ability to self-reflect is something that we evolved into, and so the answer to it lies in why we evolved into it.

But the philosophical point about the inherent limitation of objectivity remains. — Wayfarer

It remains mostly just as a remark of an obvious observation on human perception, but it fails to lock down limitations as actual limitations of knowledge. We cannot see all wavelengths of light, but we know about them, we can simulate them, we use them both in measurements and in technology. Understanding reality doesn't require limitless perception, nor is it needed.

To pose that we must have limitless perception in order to understand reality downplays our actual ability of abstract thinking.

And it also produces another question; would unlimited perception of reality actually produce perfect understanding or would it just scramble the ability to understand everything by the lack of defined perspectives? That without a specific perceptive perspective and clear categorization while able to do abstract reasoning that relates to those perspective, it may form better understanding than the unlimited. A being that, for instance, would see all wavelengths of light, may not comprehend light any better than us due to the absolute visual noise it would produce. In that scenario there wouldn't be any actual ability to see matter easily and, therefor, that being would of course see more than us in terms of photons, but it would see less than us due to photons interacting with matter drowning in the sea of the wavelengths we don't see.

So to pose that our limited perception is limiting us isn't a strong conclusion because we could also argue that our perception strikes the perfect balance of perceptive observation that makes reality able to be navigated and understood more easily while we further have the ability through abstract thinking, mathematical calculations and building external tools to extend our comprehension.

As an analogy, in art, there are clear examples in which an artist had unlimited means to make whatever they wanted, without any problems with funding, equipment or inspiration and yet they were only able to produce something that people felt became worse than when they were stuck with limitations. We cannot conclude perceptive limitations to be equal to an inability to fully understand reality, not when incorporating our other mental abilities and capacity for creating technology to extend our abilities, as well as realizing how limitations in perceptions can make understanding cleaner. Absolute, limitless perception might just become an incomprehensible mess that renders a clear picture into white noise and "objective conclusions" lacking even more details. So when would a being be able to understand the universe fully? Because limitations in perception doesn't seem enough of a defining criteria based on this.

I recall a quote from a philosopher of science along the lines of facts being constructed like ships in bottles, carefully made to appear as if the bottle had been built around them. — Wayfarer

Carl Sagan? He emphasizes the idea that sometimes people construct their beliefs first and then selectively choose or interpret facts to support those beliefs. Which is why modern scientific methods are rigorously focused on bypassing such biases. The ship in bottle-analogy refers primarily towards those conducting pseudo-science, empathizing the need for rigorous critical thinking, evidence, and scientific principles. Which is what I'm standing by as well when I say that my philosophical speculations are extrapolated out of science, not out of a belief first that I'm then searching for evidence to support. I did not focus much on emergentism before many scientific fields started to form similar conclusion in their analysis of extreme complexity. While the concept of emergence has been around for long in philosophy, it's only recently, with progression in things like criticality, that it starts to lean into the most probable position. And as I've mentioned, if it turns out to be false due to new discoveries, then I will simply have to shift my perspective to something that's more probable. I will not, however, change my perspective into something that relies on belief alone and cause just because it feels good or present me a sense of emotional meaning.

If, by 'laws of reality' you mean 'natural law' or 'scientific law', are these themselves physical? I think that is questionable. The standard model of particle physics, for instance, comprises an intricate mathematical model, or set of mathematical hypotheses. But are mathematics part of the physical world that physics studies? This as you know is a contested question, so I'm not proposing it has a yes or no answer. Only that it is an open question, and furthermore, that it's not a scientific questio — Wayfarer

The laws of reality or physical laws are the mathematical principles that guide processes in physics. Mathematics are just our way of extrapolating an understanding of the unseen. The equations we have is a language for interpretation and extending such interpretation to prediction has proven to guide how we test physics, and in turn successfully proven physics to a point in which we can act upon and manipulate it, which is why we have most of the technology we have today.

So are they part of the physical world? Math on a board and in our head, no, they're just the lens for which we see these underlying rules of the physical world. But they correlate, and something like the fine structure constant; its mathematical calculation is extrapolated out of the phenomena we observe and through that we can measure its impact beyond our perception.

The standard model is what's proven, the hypotheses part is what we extend out from it, theories that tries to breach into a theory of everything. For instance quantum electrodynamics is one of the most accurate theories in all of physics. Even if we found out that it is something else or part of something else, the math of its function remains and exist as a physical phenomena. Science does not prove something "wrong" with new discoveries, they prove a new relation and perspective that put previous knowledge in new light and a new framework. It's a slowly forming knowledge, like a statue that's forming by water droplets, slowly coming into shape. It's not a finished statue that's demolished and rebuilt from scratch with new discoveries. And math is the reason why, because the answers in math cannot be changed, only understood better.

String and M-theory are one of those areas where the only reason why it keeps existing is because the math works. If proven wrong, the math will still stay and have to be incorporated into what is proving it wrong.

Furthermore physics itself has thrown the observer-independence of phenomena into question. That, of course, is behind the whole debate about the observer problem in physics, and the many contested interpretations of what quantum physics means. I know that is all a can of worms and am not proposing to debate it, other than to say that both the 'physicality' and 'mind-independence' of the so-called 'fundamental particles of physics' are called into question by it. — Wayfarer

The "observer" in quantum physics has to do with any interaction affecting the system. When you measure something you need to interact with the system somehow and that affects the system to define its collapsing outcome. This has been wrongfully interpreted as part of human observation, leading to pseudo-science concepts like our mind influencing the systems. But the act of influence is whatever we put into the system in order to get some answers out. A photon launched at what is measured, for the purpose of a detector to then visually see what's going on; will have that photon affecting the system being measured. It's not that our mind does anything, it's that we have to put something in to get information out and the only way for the system to keep a superposition is to not have any influence, which means it is in suspended and dislodged from reality until defined.

If Christoffer responds to this and tries to correct your misconceptions, do you consider it likely that you will be inclined to tell him that his response was too long?

If so, it would be considerate to say so now. — wonderer1

:lol: This is more accurate than any prediction in physics

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the post I responded to. We'll see. — Wayfarer

:lol:

You ask questions and write about complex physics; it's like asking how an airplane function expecting a short answer, but if my answer is "it flies", that wouldn't be much of an answer really.

If the problem with explaining apparently emergent phenomena is just that you need a "lot more computational capabilities," then what you have is merely 'weak emergence,' and reduction still works. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's why in my very first post in this thread I said this:

I would posit myself as a physicalist emergentist. What type is still up in the air since that's a realm depending on yet unproven scientific theories. — Christoffer

The question is still if it is possible and I cannot conclude either. But weak emergence and reductionism are not the same. Reductionism heavily focuses on clear basic interactions of the parts and direct relations to the higher sum property, while weak emergence still focus on how the interactions create levels of changes that propagate up to an emergent phenomena. The difference is that reductionism draws clear lines from the actions of the parts towards the effect, while weak emergence is a "slowly mixing liquid" where all steps in its progression becomes further part of the final emergence. You could still, if possible, calculate the progression with enough computing power, but it will not show clear causal lines, but instead a trace of the progression of changing operations within the system over time from initiation to emergent outcome.

A striking feature of quantum mechanics is known as “quantum entanglement”. When two (or more) quantum particles or systems interact in certain ways and are then (even space-like) separated, their measurable features (e.g., position and momentum) will correlate in ways that cannot be accounted for in terms of “pure” quantum states of each particle or system separately.

Quantum entanglement is a misunderstood concept. It simply means that a particle set in a relationary superposition with another particle and those particles are separated and then one particles spin is measured will give you information on what the other particle has in its spin since they are in relation. It doesn't mean we can directly affect a particle over long distances as a form of "sent information", only that the superposition when measured gives us information about the other distant particle.

Your post seems to blend two ideas though. That our conceptual framework is fundementally lacking, and that we simply lack computational power adequate to "brute force," our way through these issues. I would just ask if these are the same position vis-á-vis emergence? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's about acknowledging the missing parts. We don't know if we can calculate or not, because we don't have the computational power yet. When we do, this will be a testable part of physics. So we cannot conclude our knowledge-relation to emergence yet, even if we can see it happening. Much like how we can see both general relativity working as well as quantum mechanics, but not have a theory combining them at this time. I'll speculate that we might even find clues to such a bridging theory of everything within emergence theories, seen as they focus on the shifting relation between smaller chaos into larger deterministic systems.

The way collapsing wave-functions happen sure do resemble the emergence from high complexity, if that complexity comes from things like virtual particles. Or it may just be that the collapse is based on superpositions dancing between probabilities until they're settling in one or the other direction, similar to a drop of water between two other drops of water pulling on its tension and then randomly ends up in one or the other. Meaning, there may be a fundamental randomness of existence at the Planck scale, in which mathematical and universal constants define where the random existence and non-existence forms and in what way. And some of this randomness ends up in a condition where it locks into place by attaching and guiding the ones already locked in place, and which causally scales up to collapsing into such a locked position which defines moment to moment reality. A form of fundamental emergence that flows like a fluid with an increasing ability for causality through scale; from extreme randomness to slowly solidifying into more and more defined states at higher and higher scales. If that's the case, it might be that at the largest scales, scale levels of the entire universe, there's no emergence happening, forming a boundary where reality cannot progress further and that the only thing expanding our universe is the underlying emergence pushing reality larger, explaining both the increasing speed of the expansion and maybe even dark energy.

But that's just some pure speculation at the edge of my mind, so grains of salt required or course.

With the former view, I do think it's quite fair to ask if superveniance and thus "emergence" are even framed in the right terms, using the right categories. This is in line with process-based critiques of the entire problem, that it rests on bad assumptions baked into science that go back as far as Parmenides. The "lack of computational power," explanation seems like a different sort of explanation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What are the right categories? These categories are just frameworks for further thought, accumulating the broad grouping of ideas in order to communicate better the position being discussed. I personally do not like the labeling and use of labels in philosophy because I think they limit thought down to people throwing balls with labels on them, defined, and for some, unmoving and unchanging concepts that when someone extends a label outside of its "comfort zone" people rebel and proclaim it not correct according to said label. Physicalist emergence is just a starting point for me.

It's probably why philosophical debates goes on for so long. Most people don't use the ideas of previous philosophy as a springboard, they simplify it down into labels and use them as hammers. I can find ideas in Wayfarer's idealism argument that I fundamentally agree with, but not with the conclusion, so does that make me a pseudo-idealist? No, it's only about following where the ideas lead based on rational thought and logic. Emergence as I'm talking about it, is referring to the underlying behavior of nature and our universe to assemble into further concepts that act with functions not possible to be defined by their parts, and further what that means and how it acts upon reality. So trying to purely define ideas based on how well they fit into categories is part of the limitations in Wayfarer's idealism argument that I agree with; that we cannot progress knowledge by only acting out of predetermined categorization. If emergence as I argue about it, produces new positions not able to be defined, then maybe a new category is needed to define it?

As I've noted, this conditions a lot of what you write. Hence, 'the blind spot'. — Wayfarer

Not really, it comes from me evolving my ideas from what is known and what is likely, not what is desired or believed. The idea of mind and body(brain) being two different things have no actual foundation outside religious ideas and spirituality.

I could stretch it to be a descriptive idea that aligns with me saying that consciousness acts as an "abstract" system and not an "object", meaning, a system that is an effect, much like a force in nature that doesn't exist as a tangible "thing", and instead something that acts upon, reacts upon and happens due to something. A consequence and a force that leads to other consequences.

But even so it appears out of and is linked to the body/brain, being a function by it and integral to it, and in every sense a part of it as a whole.

Calling it a blind spot is just as religious as when theologs use first cause arguments for God, pointing out that because science cannot explain the first cause, therefor it is as they say. Separating mind and body in the literal sense and not in a descriptive one, produces a similar predicament; a claim that something has transcended the natural world order of physical laws on grounds that cannot be explained or proven how or why. While a nondualist position points to a rational and logical unity of the mind and body, due to the massive empirical evidence that already do exist for what we know up to this point in research about evolution, our brain and body, the dualist has no actual empirical evidence that even hints at a duality between the mind and body exist, yet call out the nondualist to have a blind spot.

I would categorize that as a belief until there's actually anything to even hint in that direction. So far the evidence hints in the other.

Hence the mind-created world. — Wayfarer

I've read the entirety of your argument and it mostly just points out the limitations we have as humans in that our perception seem to block certain ways of understanding of reality. But that does not mean the mind and body are separated in the dualist sense, or that scientists are limited in the way you've argued (as I've counterargued earlier in this thread), it simply points out a limitation in our perspective and perception. A limitation that's built on externally observing scientists methods without insight into their active perceptions, perspectives and use of methods. As I wrote a few pages back; a mathematician or physicist well versed in math do not think about reality in the same way as people not versed in it. They structure concepts and ideas with other conceptual structures. We extend beyond our limitations and we can also not know what limitations can be overcome with future technology. Because of that those conclusions in your argument doesn't work. And pointing out that our perception is the source of how we believe reality to be isn't a revolutionary argument, it is true for those people who doesn't dwell on these things but that doesn't mean it is true for those who do, and it ignores the facts and operations that we use to control reality around us, facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception and which can be theorized, understood and controlled without us ever perceptually witnessing them. And the more knowledge one has of the physical laws of reality, the theories and how they play together, the more conceptually vivid it becomes and in such abstract ways that they do not reflect mere perceptually defined concepts.

Why would these preclude an identical systematical object producing consciousness? Surely an 'artificial' system which is based upon the current iteration of the human brain, in all it's complexity, would include all of the results of that developmental period, thus providing a commensurate system that 'takes into account' the goals which its development 'pushed toward'?

I'm not tied to that, so my question then becomes: How does the 'history' change the actual 'formula' which results in consciousness? Is this a meld of physical and non-physical properties? — AmadeusD

How do you create a brain without the history forming it?

Yes, if you copy a brain exactly and place that copy into an exact replica of the body it came from, then it would start to act in the same way. But it has to be exactly the same, otherwise it would probably break down completely, just like a person with brain damage.

Consciousness in us develop from our childhood, through life up until death. Neuroplasticity does not stop and the formation is part of developing everything about us. We need that development history to form a human mind. Just turning on a brain that has no history and is just a bunch of neurons that has no developed relations in terms of formed memories etc. will only lead to a hallucinating mess of a person.

That consciousness forms is one thing, but that it forms into a human mind requires the development to be identical to a human brain developing. How else do you differentiate between a human and any other life form? Our genetical programming that decides the developing cellular formation into the brain is based on evolutionary history and it decides "how we start" in life, but a newborn child is rather stupid, even compared to a modern AI system. It takes time for consciousness to form but it also needs the trajectory based on our evolution, which can be seen as another guiding principle.

If you were to copy a human consciousness, you might need to simulate the entire life. Starting with a newborn perfect copy based on some evolutionary template of a person in real life. Then let that simulation and perfect copy, within a simulated body, grow as a normal child until being grown and only then will you see a simulated human mind in action and fully functioning. That's the only way to go from scratch.

"guiding principles" "to form" "goal" I don't mean to be overly critical - do you mean these terms metaphorically or literally? — NotAristotle

Literally. But I'm not saying they are "decided" by something (read; someone). I'm talking about it like with the example of the flower. The guiding principles that push the flower's evolutionary mutations into replicating an insect it cannot see comes out of the binary chaos of an insect landing on it or not, defining which flower that gets to be part of the long lines of pollination through their evolutionary development. That is a guiding principles for their chaos. Same goes for the physical laws in the universe; they are probably only randomized constants that appeared at the start of time, math that ended up causing the entropic progression to be stable enough to form what we now observe in the universe and on this planet. That if our universe is one inflation among an infinite amount of others, there might be others where, for example, the fine structure constant is different and reality quickly breaks down.

So, these principles are formed and they inform how chaos grows and what properties emerge. Either as basic principles like physical laws for matter and reality, or as more complex systems acting on systems like evolution guiding how the plant is able to produce a shape and color that replicates something it cannot see out of a binary reward and punish-contact with that object over time.

Consciousness emerging from anything we currently know of, seems magical to me.
The idea that a system which mimics hte brain can result in conscious experience seems to comport with the fact that the brain does either produce, or receive consciousness. What's special about hte brain?

I realise, that is the question to some degree - I just have no reason to think it is yet. — AmadeusD

Although wonderer1 and Christoffer may disagree with me, I think it is not possible. And I think it is not possible because of the kind of history that is needed, specifically a biological history, for consciousness. This may be more of a local, as opposed to a global explanation, of why one system is conscious but not another, but I think a historical explanation is adequate.

I am of the opinion now that consciousness may be fundamentally physical, at least I have no qualms with that being the case. — NotAristotle

No, I'm not disagreeing with this. The idea that any system can form consciousness is closer to Panpsychism. But as you say here with "history" is what I mean by guiding principles, something that affects a system to form complexity in a certain way. Such principles seem to be either fundamental as in physical laws, but also systems acting further on the formation of other emergent systems, such as consciousness. As I described in how we can theorize why humans developed this type of consciousness that we have. An evolutionary path that directed towards a certain goal for us, in my example, an evolutionary trait of adaptability.

Just like my example with the flower forming to a shape and color it cannot see, but still develop, so can our brain and body develop info a form that acts according to the need of adaptability.

Going further, it may be that our minds evolution has to do with predictions only. That our consciousness only acts as a predictive system. That every need, want and behavior that we do is fundamentally linked to prediction out of the need for adaptability, even if we do not perceive any of those driving forces for our psychology. But if you break down the behavior of a human to each and every part. The reason to have memory, the reason we act based off it and handle our emotional world, it seem to be driven purely by a predictive nature. Much of a child's psychology in their development phase seem to focus on forming a functioning mental capacity for predictability of actions they do. Starting off with the fact that they cannot predict or visualize your existence if you hide your face. The extreme amount of growing neural connections during this phase would suggest that the complexity that forms around this simple function may contribute to much more advanced forms of internal computation with that as its core driving force. As a grown up there are constant advanced predictions in which we plan long chains of behaviors for a certain goal and that goal rewards us in some manner. Comparing it to nature, rewards and punishments within natural systems guide both evolution and behaviors of animals and plants and through the context of this, it may be that our consciousness has a much simpler basic function that in its emerging complexity forms all this chaos of human behavior and thought processes.

But that's another story and its own topic that focus more on psychology and evolution than purely emergence and consciousness as a system.

I'm just looking for what it is that makes something emergent. Mainly as opposed to reduction. — Banno

Well, this is the main question. If you reach an answer then let everyone in the scientific community know because that's the key to all of it. We know and observe emergence everywhere in contemporary science because that's where we've ended up through our constant exploration of reality. I think that through the history of science it's logical that we've used a reductionist approach because we started off with these questions about reality when we could only use our perception binding those questions. The tools of research has developed along the line of our understanding and discoveries and for the majority of the history we've always been able to "zoom in" further.

Then we reached a point in which zooming in more lead to more questions than answers. It's basically like we've worked on a fractal form and it looks defined and smooth but when we zoomed in it just kept going and the fine structures seem to form further complexities and soon our understanding and math breaks down into such large numbers that it seems infinite and chaotic instead of understandable by our minds.

It behaves as if reductionist systems act in logical sync with our ability to understand until a form of singularity of complexity happens in which the parts just become the sum of it all and we can only view it as some kind of new system or object. But it keeps going and we can extrapolate these complexities in every dimensional direction which makes it hard to pinpoint a defined point of reference as it's not intuitively easy to do so. We can only talk about these things in terms of simplified communication, but the complexity folds and twists throughout reality in ways not easily defined, all parts are included, nothing is outside of anything.

The major problem is that we humans think in these terms, we recognize patterns and categorize everything. It's part of or maybe even governing all of our psychology and we may be entirely dependent on this categorization in order to function.

We ask ourselves why computers aren't more complex than our mind, but computers does not work in categorized forms. It brute forces "all particles" into its calculation of its reality, which quickly overloads its computation capacity.

A good example of this is how video games and rendered CGI differs. In a blockbuster movie that uses complex physics simulations and 3D rendered graphics, those are calculated more by brute forcing the simulation of how reality functions in terms of light bounces and kinetic movements of objects. But such calculations can take hours for each rendered frame in a sequence of 24 frames per second. In a video game, the goal is to reach the same level of fidelity, but rendered in 60 frames per second. So in order to do that, all the physics calculations, light bounces and simulations of natural phenomena requires improved efficiency. By categorizing each system with more broadly defined principles, they still sell the illusion, but function with less computational demand by lumping together things like light bounces into millions of less photon paths that gets evened out mathematically instead of using the precision of higher numbers. The result becomes less realistic, but much more efficient.

They categorize and group together the calculations just like how our mind categorize and makes the ability to comprehend reality more efficient than detecting all parts of the systems around us.

I believe this to be what Wayfarer also points out in his idealism argument, that a big problem in science is the inability to research past this categorization perspective. But that's what needs to be done in order to progress further; we can visualize emergent phenomena with these visual math examples, like @jgill demonstrated here, but that's only through the visual categorization that we are psychologically bound to and its good for communicating the idea, but may not be where more advanced forms of emergence occurs.

Emergence demands us to look closer at interactional bonds, how systems flow in sync and how those synced properties generate larger consequential behaviors in the emergent system and how those larger behaviors form the mechanics of the larger set. It is more gradual; a gradient in which the categorization of an emergent phenomena does not equal something we can easily perceptually categorize. It may therefor be that we have emergence everywhere in reality, but we don't notice it easily because we are categorically bound to only notice what is obvious to us through our psychological limitations.

Basically that we are fooled by easy to observe (because of our limited psychology) phenomena when the actually meaningful emergence happens outside of such psychological categorizations.

As we can see in how criticality functions, it doesn't directly show any easy to observe reasons, even if we can measure emergence happening in the a larger complex set. It's only when we measure the system mathematically where we can find the root causes for emergent behaviors. So, in order to find the causes and the links between the parts and the emergent behavior we need to view past our categorization psychology and view these systems more as an ocean of complexity that flows through our entire reality and that mathematically ends up in focus points of mathematical balance and stability forming new behaviors affecting other systems that in turn builds new formations and so on.

Basically, we need to somewhat brute force our calculations to spot how it works, which is why our computational ability right now may be too slow to be able to do so. If we ever solve quantum computing properly, this may be one of the key areas we can use it for. As it, theoretically, would be able to handle such extreme computations and reach a simulation of a system to the point where it knows all individual parts and can trace them in a complex system that reach a point that spawns emergence. Being able to map that complexity would give us the answers, but we can't get them through normal categorizing explanations. It needs to retain its inherent complexity in the explanation itself.

This is why I'm skeptical to the notion that we are never going to be able to map this or explain it. Because its a problem of computational power. Compared to something like studying the Planck scale with particle colliders, that is a problem of energy in the collider reaching the size of the galaxy. But computing criticality and emergence only requires an extreme increase in computational power that seems attainable with what is researched on in computer science. There's a good change that we will solve quantum computing this century and the algorithms already used with normal computing power right now almost function on the edge of the ability to simulate rudimentary emergence. Me saying that we might never be able to is only in respect to the scientific scrutiny of never projecting absolutes as statements of truth.

That equation was just some messing around with the system. Emergent events are what emerges out of the chaos, not the chaos itself. If it forms a balanced shape that keeps appearing based on initial principles that kicks the complex chaos towards that form, then you have an emergent phenomena. Not a complex one but in principle. But that would require a huge amount of manual trial and error.

But finding an equation that function as a foundation for all emergent phenomena would be a monumental discovery and messing around with the Lorenz system wouldn’t lead to that. Such a discovery would be on par with the Lorenz system itself or rather even rival the most important equations we have since it would enable us to manufacture emergence in any system we like.

I highly doubt such an equation exists or is easily attainable though, seen as we only just started decoding things like criticality recently and we don’t know if each and every emergent system is unique in how it produces its emergent phenomena. If they’re all unique for their own composition then there wouldn’t be one single mathematical solution but unique ones per each and every emerging system.

But we can also argue that things like the fine structure constant functions as a guiding mathematical principle for complexity, shaping fundamental physics of our reality forward into emergent new forms. Depending on how essential emergence is in nature, if it is an integral part of everything, then finding a holistically governing equation would be like finding the equation to end all equations.