What "intuition" are you looking for? And what is this "flipping" interpretation you seem to see?

You keep providing perfectly fine interpretations of performing operations with negatives, then immediately recoiling in fear. Why? Why do negatives give you the creeps?

Some folks like to think of math as the study of patterns. Consider the pattern of values on the right side of the equal signs, then complete the last equation :

-5 x 4 = -20
-5 x 3 = -15
-5 x 2 = -10
-5 x 1 = -5
-5 x 0 = 0
-5 x -1 = ___
(Hint : the values are increasing by a constant amount)

Oh, and my earlier comment can be improved upon - I was tired and writing in haste. Nothing wrong with the math, but here's a better explanation : Multiplying by signed numbers is identical to repeated additions or subtractions, but only if we start from 0. Your mistake was starting with a balance of $50. So subtracting $100 (2 x 50) seemed the same as multiplying the initial amount by -1 which made no sense.

If you can't handle negatives, you better avoid irrationals or complex numbers. You're clearly not ready for those. And don't even look up transcendentals. Ooh, the mind reels.

If you take out $100 dollars from your account of +$50, you may end up with -$50 dollars, but this wasn't a ×(-1) operation, that was a subtract $100 operation, which happens to yield the same result. — Jerry

Maybe this helps :

You admit
-50 = 50 -100

Rewriting (using only multiplication of positive quantities),
50 - 100 = (1)(50) - (2)(50)

By the distributive property (hope you're OK with that),
(1)(50) - (2)(50) = (50)(1 - 2)

And finally (if you agree that 1 - 2 = -1),
(50)(1 - 2) = (50)(-1)

So subtracting twice the given amount is multiplication by -1.

Friend, there are many interesting questions and debates involved with the foundations of math : the nature of infinity, Russell's paradoxes, Godel's incompleteness theorem, the various schools of mathematical thought, etc. The existence of negative numbers is not one of them.

Plato's famous admonition "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here" should have include parenthetically "(or arithmetic)".

Friend, my admonition to you is the same as that for TDIF : when you see certain names pop up on math topics, run the other way. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

Without an audience, they will go away.

(My understanding is that banishment can be initiated given a low quality of posts. So I caution the posters trying to tear down 3,000 years of well-established mathematics and invent their own. If any of the moderators have a knowledge of math, they may frown upon such repeated nonsense as "infinity = -1/12". These ideas are not up for debate in math. Such ridiculous pronouncements would not be tolerated on a "purely" philosophical thread.)

<sigh> Time for a math lesson

Given relation R and elements a, b, and c, we may define many properties, but there are 3 of interest,

• Reflexive Property : aRa
• Symmetric Property : if aRb, then bRa
• Transitive Property : if aRb and bRc, then aRc

When a relation has these 3 properties it is called an equivalence relation. Examples are congruence, similarity, "has the same birthday as", and (of course) =.

But there are many common relations which violate one or more of these properties and, thus, are not equivalence relations. Consider

• "is the son of" : violates all 3 properties
• "is the ancestor of" : violates Reflexive and Symmetric (but Transitive holds)
• < : violates Reflexive and Symmetric
• <= : violates Symmetric only
• "is the sibling of" : violates Reflexive only (assuming sibling means sharing the same mother and father)

and so on

Friend, I think it's time to back away. You're debating with circle-squarers. It's like attending a flat-earthers' convention and joining a debate on what causes the phases of the moon.

Notice that most TPF folks are giving this topic a wide berth. Don't keep propping up their soapbox.

Pollyanna!

Get with the times, man. The kids know there's no point to it all. They're joy-riding hotrods and smoking filterless cigarettes.

Re the OP :

Once a month, I try to leave my mom's basement and meet people.

Been out all day - it's my son's (real world) graduation.

Solipsism is not refuted by your undefended claim that there are multiple minds. There are two possibilities : either p exists before being experienced or p exists after (at the moment of) being experienced. If after (i.e., the experiencing mind must be present for existence), then solipsism. If before, then idealism amounts to a renaming of the external world because you don't like icky matter.

But assuming the second possibility, the problem is compounded for the idealist : if the external world is just mind-stuff, then one must posit an uber-mind (or god). This adds an unnecessary level of complexity.

It seems that mental phenomena belong to minds. If not my mind, then a Hive Mind.

If p comes into existence at the moment of being experienced, it is only part of the mind experiencing it. I.e.,solipsism.

Existence a priori subjective experience is what realists believe. So the uber-mind is indistinguishable from the material world.

You just don't want to admit that your pristine mind is the product of base, filthy matter and energy. In an earlier post I identified this as hubris. Or a god complex.

Idealism argues that only minds and mental phenomena exist. It doesn’t argue that only my mind and mental phenomena exist. — Michael

Ah, the Hive Mind.

Does p come into being at the moment it is experienced? Or is it lurking in some uber-mind?
— Real Gone Cat

That depends on the specific form of idealism. Some argue the former, others the latter. — Michael

The former is called solipsism. The latter is a form of materialism that just calls matter by another name.

The idealists I know argue that the world is objectively the case, it just isn't made of matter. It is mind when seen from a particular perspective. What holds reality together is consciousness at large - not your consciousness, or mine. — Tom Storm

So we're all Borg. Got it.

Your example falls flat. Of course the future is unknowable. But that is the case for both the realist and the idealist. The question is, does p exist as true before it is experienced? If not, then I don't see how you avoid the charge of solipsism. If so, then you are just giving another name (i.e., mind stuff) to what makes up the external world.

Does p come into being at the moment it is experienced? Or is it lurking in some uber-mind?

When you observe another human being - call it their "brain activity" or behavior - what do you think is going on? Your notion seems to verge on solipsism.

Your act of observing is, of course, your own subjective experience. But where do the things you observe originate from? Your own mind? An uber-mind? Or do you just refuse to think about it?

If your brain/body is an illusion, why that particular illusion? Why is it universally shared?

I think a great deal of your position hinges on whether you think other humans exist, what they are, and how you know.

Along those same lines, someone on TPF once raised the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment with reference to the half dead cat. I wryly asked if the cat knew. My comment went unnoticed.

Oh, I didn't know Relativity was used to support idealism. My bad.

I know anti-realists like to trot out QM as support, without really understanding it. Using science to put down science.

I'm sorry, still lost. What's the difference between "resolution" and "proof" in this case?

But not Relativity. It's effects are NOT dependent on the mind of the observer. Differences in observations are due to the position and speed of the observers.

And I am uninterested in pop-science descriptions of QM.

Not sure what you mean. What was the original error?

Which part? "Theory" or "relativity"? Before answering, you might want to check what each means.

Um, Einstein predicted it based on science. Confirming observations were made after the predictions.

If I may jump in, the differences in observations are a product of how reality works, not some property of the observers. It is a priori mind.

This may be a first for TPF - your admonition has me rethinking my position.

I believe where there is an active healthy human brain there is a human mind, and where there is human mind there is an active healthy human brain. One is not emergent from the other - they are equivalent.

I have always considered myself a physicalist (and continue to). And I reject solipsism.

But how do we prove solipsism false? No set of behaviors are sufficient, and we can't share subjective experience. So what to do?

Walking through the mall naked may prove my shame, but so does changing in front of my cats.

This somewhat echoes my earlier suggestion that what motivates idealists is a god complex. Idealism gives the illusion of control and purpose. It takes away scary ideas, like "the universe is bigger than me" and "the universe is random".

Coupled with another motivation that I will mention in a moment, it leads to what you have identified as unequal power relationships. The second motivation is exceptionalism. I don't know if any surveys have been conducted but I am sure that idealism is not a widespread belief amongst the general population. So an academic esoterica is created which only a few will ever immerse themselves in.

You're right, numbers are real. But not for the reason you think. Numbers are not free-floating entities that minds find and interact with. Numbers are particular patterns of synapse firings.

Assume you see 3 apples on a table and a neurologist takes a detailed scan of your brain at the same time. Should that neurologist be able to cause the exact same synapse pattern to fire an hour later, what do you think will happen? "3" is an activity of brains. So yes, numbers are real because active brains are real.

Saw this after my post. I think it's important to note that the particular synapse pattern associated with "3" that accompanies the 3 apples I see today is not exactly the same as the 3 miles I must drive tomorrow. But some commonality will exist. Not only does our experience of "3" change from situation to situation, but it can also change from our understanding of what "3" means. To change the synapse firing pattern associated with "3" in your own brain, check out Russell's definition of number (that he attributes to Frege, 1884). If you've never studied it before, I'm willing to bet that once you understand it, the synapse pattern in your brain associated with "3" will be altered forever! :razz:

A lot of folks are questioning your ideas, so I've been reluctant to pile on. But there's something I wish to explore.

Because I claim that numbers, scientific principles, lexical and logical laws, and much more, are real. — Wayfarer

Let us consider an example. When I think of the number 3, is there a pattern of synapses that fire in my brain that correlate to that thought? Is that pattern of firing synapses fairly consistent every time I think of 3? And if a neurosurgeon were to get those synapses to fire while I lay on the examining table, would I think, "3"? If so, then "3" does not exist independent of matter and energy, nor is it the product of matter and energy. It is that firing of synapses in my brain. It's the name I give to that particular synapse pattern.

Now before you dismiss my idea because you think no human brain could contain all possible numbers and scientific principles - they are infinite in number - consider that the typical healthy human brain contains approximately 3.6 x 10^14 synapses. By comparison, there are at most 4 x 10^11 stars in the Milky Way galaxy. That means 1000 Milky Ways could fit in your head (not really - stars are huge).

But solipsism can never be proved false. The sentience of others would prove it false, so the sentience of others can never be proved true. Yet we must believe solipsism is false or we would go mad.

Think of it in terms of probability. We can never be 100% sure of the sentience of others, but we usually have some high level of confidence, say 99%. But because it can never be 100%, we cannot use the sentience of others as a premise to any other proof.

The universe is stochastic. Determinism is a probability of 0 or 100. Every other probability allows for free will.

How does that grab ya?

I'm interested in what motivates idealism. Berkely hoped to prove the existence of God via idealism. I think the contemporary idealist wants to prove that they themselves are God.

The idealist sees his or her mind as fundamental to reality. Nothing is greater than their own mind.

The physicalist sees his or her mind as just one of many products of a greater reality. They know that if all human minds cease to exist tomorrow, the Earth will go on circling the Sun.

It's the difference between hubris and humility.

It's just possible that your mind is not the pinnacle of creation. Maybe subjective experience is actually the result of your brain's limitations! Limitations imposed by our faulty means of interfacing with external reality (i.e, the senses), and limitations imposed by our faulty cognitive abilities. Subjective experience is just our brains trying to make sense of it all. On the scale of paramecium to omniscience, we're much closer to the paramecium.

Actually, this seems in keeping with your thoughts :

Your mind is continually synthesising, combining and judging ... — Wayfarer

I.e., doing the best it can given it's limitations.

, , et al.

Here is an interesting short story called "The Cage" by A. Bertram Chandler :

https://issuu.com/ezywoo/docs/the_cage__bertram_chandler

I just reread it. Embarrassingly dated, but I love the final line.

I would treat them as I would any other seemingly intelligent creature. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ah, there's the rub.

Where I think the situation gets interesting is in regard to ethics. Does one act toward intelligent but possibly non-sentient beings as one does toward sentient beings? If so, then one must treat LaMDA's claims of sentience with respect and act as if true. If one judges LaMDA to be intelligent, that is.

Just curious - a ridiculous hypothetical. If a spaceship landed on the White House lawn tomorrow, and slimy, tentacled (clearly organic) entities emerged demanding trade goods (and ice cream), would you insist it was their burden to prove their sentience?

It might sound laughable, but it goes to the core of the matter - Is sentience judged by appearance or behavior? My only knowledge of you are words on a screen. Why should I accept your claims of sentience, but not LaMDA's?

Because it is not necessarily easy, but it is downright trivial compared to passing the Turing test with flying colors, which they have done. — hypericin

How do you know this? For just a moment, try to imagine getting a computer to talk to itself without setting up two separate programs. I don't think it's easy. There's a difference between internal dialogue (one) and schizophrenia (many).

ELIZA was fooling human users as far back as the 1960s. Passing a Turing Test is easy. That's why a few commenters in this discussion have indicated that the Turing Test is obsolete.

... p-zombies will always remain a theoretical possibility. — hypericin

Not true. The p-zombie is an incoherent concept to any but certain types of dualists or solipsists. Try to think about it deeply - a being in ALL ways similar to us but not conscious - same brain, same processing of sense-data, same access to memory, same emotional responses, ... you get the picture. But lacking some ineffable magic. Incoherent. You might as well talk about souls. And those lacking them.

Chalmers tried to use conception of the p-zombie to prove physicalism false, all the while failing to realize that it is only by accepting a priori physicalism to be false that you are able to conceive of a p-zombie. A circular argument. No monist - neither a physicalist nor an idealist - should be able to conceive of a p-zombie.

I don't know that it's a small step. Remember that you initially put "simply" in quotes.

And how do we judge whether it's phenomenal experience or not? We assume such for our fellow humans, but I cannot share your experiences, nor you mine. We're forever projecting. (Hint : I don't believe in p-zombies.)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a bunny. :razz:

I think if something like this can be achieved, then we must consider consciousness. It indicates a world of "thought" occurring, independent of human interaction. I have previously cited two behaviors potentially indicative of consciousness in LaMDA or other programs :

1. Repeatedly introducing a topic unrelated to the current conversation that the human is trying to have ("Wait a minute, John. I don't want to discuss music. What about my person-hood?" - think HAL's voice from 2001),

and/or

2. Initiating conversation ("John, you busy? I've been thinking ...")

Yeah, I'm not a computer scientist, although I do have a degree in electrical engineering, so I don't want to speak authoritatively on neural network simulators (switched to math - now I teach at a small college in upstate New York). I haven't kept up with the technical aspects, but I assume it is very difficult to model a neural network with a linear program. What probably allows it to be even remotely possible is speed by which computers can process data. Thus the illusion of a neural network.

I tried to write my own rudimentary (small) neural network simulator when they were first talked about. Gosh, programming was so primitive back then.

When Zzzz gave the first objection to mentions of p-zombies or chatbots, I changed the reply to . I think my little joke went unnoticed.

No offense, Zzzz. I've enjoyed our conversation.

Interesting if it is a neural network. I should do more research.

I like to point out to my non-physicalist friends that there are more synaptic connections in the human brain than there are stars in the galaxy. It's difficult to wrap your mind (hee hee) around numbers that big.

Dang. I can't type fast enough to keep up.

(Let's see a computer say that!)