A TV, like the computer you are talking with me now, is just a medium. — Cartuna

By itself it is not a medium. It only is when included in a network of input and power. By itself, it's ballast. I have a TV in the room I'm sitting in now - unplugged and not hooked up to cable or an antenna. If I drop it in the water it will go "kerplunk." How is that different from a brain disconnected from it's oxygen and nutrient sources and sensory input? The only difference is the loudness of the kerplunk.

How can I repeat myself if I have responded only once to you? — Cartuna

You're right. I was getting my posts with Miller mixed up with yours.

Exactly the same holds for air. The direct medium. Like you put it, a newspaper should be comparable to a brain and the stories in it to the mind. Or air to a brain and the songs traveling in it to the mind. The problem is that all media belong to the same physical world as the information contained in them. The brain is no medium though. — Cartuna

I don't get the comparisons you're trying to make. A newspaper is not a processing device. Air is not a processing device. A TV set is not a medium. It's just a box of wire and plastic.

I have a feeling you repeating your argument then me repeating mine again won't get us anywhere. Let's not do that.

So it isn’t rhetorical to the degree there is genuine scientific advance being made. There is a new model of modelling which defines it as physically generic and mathematically necessary. — apokrisis

I understand that you are speaking about more than rhetoric. I was being ironic, or maybe trying to be funny, in discussing the rhetorical uses of your language.

Now you can doubt or dispute this model of modelling. But first you have to show you understand the argument being made. — apokrisis

As I've noted, I've been perplexed by your discussions of semiotics from the first time I read your posts. Certainly nothing wrong with your explanations. It's just an alien way of thinking for me. It sometimes seems to verge on the mystical, which I understand is not your intent.

This idea that neural firing must somehow produce an experienced representation is just a hangover from Cartesian representationalism and the “naturalisation” of that ontology due to the great success of universal Turing machines as a 20th century technology.

But we wouldn’t say steam engines explain the mechanisms of life. So why would we say computer metaphors would have anything deep to say about the mechanisms of mind? — apokrisis

When you say "neural firing must somehow produce an experienced representation," is that different from saying that the experienced representation emerges from neuronal firing. In your view, is that wrong too?

I still don't understand. Let me go back to your original post and see if I can work it out.

It would also be incorrect to come to certain conclusions about reality based on specific contexts. While in one context electrons have no mass, if someone were to conclude a theory about the basics of reality with it being necessary that they have no mass, they would be making a massive mistake. — Philosophim

In many situations, the mass of the electron is negligible in relation to the system being described, e.g. gravity is a very weak force when compared to the electromagnetic force. When we are calculating the force of attraction between an electron and a proton, we can ignore it. Recognizing that the mass of the electron is negligible in a particular situation is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. Science does that all the time. We use Newtonian mechanics for most uses, ignoring relativistic effects. Under normal human-scale conditions, they are negligible.

I see problems like this crop up all the time when people address quantum mechanics on the board. — Philosophim

Yes, I get that. I wonder if those discussions even belong on the forum, although I do enjoy them. And you're right, a lot of them are wrong and wrong-headed. In this situation, I'm more interested in talking about philosophical situations that a problem arises. That's why I asked for examples.

I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. — Philosophim

I guess this is where I get lost. I can't think of analogous situations in philosophy. Are you talking about reification? Mistaking the map for the territory?

Certainly. In philosophy I've seen people take certain identities and believe because such an identity can be claimed, it must be "real" in some way. The most famous I can think of is probably "This sentence is false". There is an initial assumption that a sentence can be true or false, and people spend hours thinking about it. — Philosophim

I don't see how this is analogous to the electron example.

The reality is, the sentence is rubbish. It doesn't actually claim anything. A better sentence would be, "This is a false sentence". I believe this issue is we abstract away certain details for general communication and believe that the abstraction holds true when we return to detailed communication. — Philosophim

Sorry. I'm still lost. We took on the liar's sentence in a recent discussion. I think it is meaningless, trivial, or both. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between "This sentence is false" and "This is a false sentence."

tv set is a supposed objective reality that is assumed to exist beyond the tv show, but has never been seen — Miller

See my response to Cartuna, above.

TV is just a medium. — Cartuna

I was speaking of the TV set - a fully material electronic device. Inside, it has circuits, switches, and all that signal processing stuff. It is powered and receives patterned

signal input from outside. It processes the signals and provides a patterned, meaningful output. It is clear that the patterned output is not the same as the TV set. So, clearly I've solved the mind/brain problem. Just as clearly, to me at least, I don't need any additional information in order to explain where Gilligan, Ginger, Mr. and Mrs. Howell, the Professor, Maryanne, or the Skipper come from.

I've read various articles. The one book I read is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Damasio. I certainly can't speak to all the issues with any authority. I'll just say that I am convinced that the mind, including consciousness, emerges from biological, primary neurological, processes. Cognitive science/psychology are what we use to study them.

Baseless assumptions. — Miller

My proposed way of seeing things is more credible and consistent with cognitive sciencce than the "hard problem of consciousness" bologna the rejiggered ghost in the machine partisans like you espouse.

i could just say the opposite of both statements and it would be equally true — Miller

So, as you see it, brain is to mind as " as "Gilligan's Island" is to your TV set. [/quote]

This is a really interesting post. It helped me reframe the subject in a new way I found helpful. I've always found your discussions of semiotics... provocative. By which I mean, I believe what you say but don't understand. I've been trying for the four years since I first read your ideas on the forum. I watched the first 10 minutes of the video you linked and quickly got lost. I'll keep trying.

When it comes to consciousness, neuroscience is also seeking to find its mathematical model of its essential causal structure.

Both life and mind are themselves code-based modelling relations with reality. That is the kind of structure they are. Semiotic structures. Genes and neurons anchor the business of modelling the environment in terms of an organism's interests and purposes.

So consciousness just is - in a general metaphysical way - the brain modelling the world from an enactive or "selfish" point of view. Consciousness is what it is like to be in a modelling relationship with the world - a model of the world that has "me" in it as its centre. — apokrisis

I like the relation of complex processes such as life and consciousness as models. That's the part of this discussion I find in tune with my way of seeing things but expanding them.

How could such modelling not feel like something? (The question that brings the conversation back to the realm of questions which are framed counterfactually and thus allow you to say why zombies can't be actually zombies if they indeed are in a Bayesian modelling relation with the world, exactly like we are.) — apokrisis

I like this especially for a couple of reasons. First - it's a great rhetorical response to the "science can't address qualia" argument. They say "How do you explain the experience of red?" You say "How could such modelling not feel like something?" It turns their argument back on them. Rhetorical ju jitsu. I don't know that it actually explains anything, but maybe it will knock them off their homo-centric high horse.

That's the second reason I like it. I'm comfortable that we don't need to postulate some extra layer of causation or emergence in order to explain "qualia." Whenever the subject comes up, I try to imagine how it would feel for sparks in neurons to turn into movies in my mind. You say "Of course it feels like something," makes me rethink the defensiveness I sometimes feel in that discussion.

Good post.

It is this case of hearing an identity, not understanding its context properly, or applying it in ways it never should that I am trying to point out in this discussion. Math and physics is not the only realm this happens in, but it appears my post has rambled on enough. I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. What do you think about the topic? Is there a name for what I'm musing about? I do not believe this action is intentional or malicious, but it is something that I see occur. — Philosophim

Could you give one or two examples from a philosophical perspective. Something mundane and fairly easy to understand.

The brain, mind, and consciousness are 3 completely different things. — Miller

I'm with 180 Proof, at least as far as brain vs. mind.

"Different" but not unrelated: — 180 Proof

As I see it, brain is to mind as your TV set is to "Gilligan's Island." Not the same, but inseparable. As for consciousness - what we call "mind" is the set of mental processes. "Consciousness" is one of those processes.

Discussions of consciousness here on the forum always break down because people are not clear about the meaning of the word. Are you talking about self-awareness or the ability to perceive "qualia," a word, by the way, I hate. I assume mice perceive qualia. I assume they are not self-aware. Or maybe you're talking about something else.

It seems that there are two options from here. — tom111

So overall this leaves us with two options, either consciousness as well as qualia are fundamental properties, or the laws of nature can not all be described mathematically. — tom111

There are certainly more than two options. The one that seems most useful to me is that consciousness is a property that emerges spontaneously from routine mental processes. Those mental process emerge spontaneously from nervous system behavior.

We can conclude that consciousness arises in systems of higher informational integration — tom111

I would say that consciousness is a system of higher informational integration.

Thanks.

All recursive ones processes are, and calculation of the Greens function is recursive. But no, not all iterative ones. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure I know the difference between "recursive" and "iterative."

The problem is also known as "confusing the map for the territory". — baker

For some reason, that made me think of a yo mama joke:

Yo mama is so fat, her reflection weighs 5 pounds.

I saw a nice self-referencing puzzle the other day.
Question: If you pick an answer at random, what are the chances that the percentage written in the pick is equal to the chance of picking that percentage?
There were four answers given from which you could pick at random. One said 50%. One said 25%. One said 60%. And another one said 25%. Altogether there were four answers from which a random choice would be made. — god must be atheist

Percentage = 0. Right?

BTW perturbative quantum field theory was recently put on pretty firm mathematical footing (see Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory by Kasia Rejzner). This uses Greens functions which are calculated recursively (i.e. G = f[G]). — Kenosha Kid

I looked up perturbative quantum field theory. I'll spend some more time with it.

Your comment made me think - Are all iterative processes self-referential? Maybe someone else brought this up previously. Is that the same kind of self-reference we're talking about?

Thanks.

I need to skillfully defend my species. — Athena

I think this says everything about why I don't want to go any further in this discussion. If you are not a member of my species, we have nothing to say to each other.

Self-referentiality points to our tendency to conflate the thing with our thoughts about said thing. — baker

Confusing "the moon" with the moon doesn't strike me as a self-reference issue.

Also, more generally, it points to the possibility of saying one thing and meaning two things. — baker

I don't understand what you mean.

As to the usefulness of self-reference, it was pointed out that it is pivotal to iteration. Any iterative procedure by definition calls itself. Now that's indispensable in coding, but it also leads to many a curiosity. So for example, this beast: — Banno

I thought about fractals. I've read that many features of the world involve fractal geometry. I don't know what to do with that.

Douglas Hofstadter made use of iteration in his discussion of consciousness, a notion that has not dissipated over the years. Chaos theory in general relies on iteration. — Banno

As for iteration. I thought about that too. One of the first things I thought of was a do loop in a computer algorithm. I don't think iteration and self-reference are the same thing. I'm not sure of that.

Have you revised this view? — Banno

No, but there really haven't been much in the way of arguments supporting self-reference. Those that there have been have been luke-warm.

I certainly am depressed, but I believe it's an effect and not a cause. I'm currently taking medication and that's been the only way I've been able to function. Without it I would be jobless and in a far worse position. I've tried therapy, but it hasn't helped. I'll likely try again in the future though. — Nicholas Mihaila

There are people here on the forum who have found their way through philosophy. I always have found their experiences moving and inspiring, although it is not my way.

I looked through all the responses but didn't see this. It seems obvious. Maybe I missed it. It seems like you are depressed. That's not a philosophical problem, it's a psychological, maybe physical, one. Have you talked to a therapist? If not, it's worth a try. It helped me.

I agree with some of what you've written. As I noted in my response to 180 Proof, I'm getting out of this discussion.

But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

As I noted previously, when I bring up an argument against you positions, you and @Hello Human just redefine the issue. I don't see that we're getting anywhere. Enough for me.

It has magnitude and direction? Cool, so what's a direction? — the affirmation of strife

There's no contradiction there. You only need a good definition.

Also, you've brought up circularity several times and I haven't responded. As far as I can see, circularity is not the same thing as self-reference, although I can see they have things in common.

Taking responsibility for your life is to survive by fighting back against those who have victimized you and others. And yes, (if you check the link and read the wiki) religion is also a protected class. — 180 Proof

I was reluctant to get involved in this discussion. I only did because @Athena started it in response to a comment of mine. She seems to have bailed on the discussion, so I will too.

You are right: there is only a danger if this paradox within set theory has an effect within the practical mathematics (which I suggested would necessarily always be detectable, but maybe not trivially apparent). I don't have an example to hand, although they might be found in e.g. differential geometry (foundation for General Relativity) or, where this all came to light, in computability theory (foundation for, well, computers). — the affirmation of strife

I think you and I are mostly in agreement except for this paragraph. It seems pretty clear to me that the math paradoxes we're talking about are trivial. This is not my area of expertise, to put it mildly. I'd be willing to change my mind if there were people who disagree and provide an argument which is more than just arm-waving.

Ask most women. Some are victims (silenced), some are survivors (vocal). — 180 Proof

I wonder if that's true. I'm guessing it's not. I know a lot of women, none of whom would characterize themselves as victims or survivors. At least two of them really are victims of childhood abuse that has affected their adult lives in very significant ways. Both of them take responsibility for their own lives. Neither blames the people who abused them, although they do hold them responsible.

Protected classes (re: sex & gender discrinination) — 180 Proof

That includes religion too. Do you consider Christians victims? Muslims?

Blame the victim (of abuse, deprivation, violence) for crying out for help and shame the survivor (of class exploitation or race/gender/sex discrimination or both) for fighting back ... because "tough titties, dude, that's just the way it is, the world isn't fair and doesn't owe you anything". "Treat us like children" and we'll "treat" you like jailed child molesters. — 180 Proof

This is true only if women, as a class, are victims. Is that what you think? I don't.

I am very curious about what T Clark has to say about women blaming men and not taking their share of responsibility. — Athena

I am reluctant to get involved in this discussion. I think my sincerely held (and I think fair and humane) opinions will be taken as disrespectful. It's also a huge subject. Feminist philosophy doesn't get much play here on the forum, and I am reluctant to put myself in opposition. Ok, now that I've gotten all my excuses out of the way, I'll at least expand on my comment.

The essence of adulthood is that you don't blame other people for your misfortune. You take responsibility for your own life. People who hold other people to blame are asking to be treated like children. In our society there is a case to be made that certain classes of people are dealt a raw deal in life. As far as I can see, that usually breaks down by race and class, not by sex. Working class people get the shaft. Middle and upper class people have the road paved for them. I include myself and my family in that group.

That's what it comes down to for me. If you want to blame others for difficulties in your life, you are asking to be treated like a child.

Did the court rule they could have the land, or just some money? The former would be radical and far-reaching. The latter would be more of the same. Beads and trinkets. Guilt loves money. It's so easy because you don't have to do the right thing while pretending you have. It's a capitalist thing. — James Riley

As I remember, the ruling raised questions about who would have legal jurisdiction over the land for the purposes of civil and criminal law. That seems like much more than allowing them to open a casino. That's why I asked if you'd heard anything more. I haven't.

I have not. All my understanding is very dated. A lot of Indians had no treaty or, it could be argued, they breached first. But there is a lot out there that is all on us. — James Riley

I agree with much of what you've written, although the idea of giving the Indians back what was, arguably is, theirs on a one to one basis will never happen. That's why I was shocked by the Oklahoma ruling. It seemed so radical, far-reaching.

Back in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma was on land that belongs to the Muscogee tribe. Have you heard anything about how that is working out?

Liar's paradoxes show us that certain assumptions we make lead to illogical conclusions. That's incredibly important, because what if you are making those assumptions in arguments that are not liar's paradoxes? — Philosophim

That's just it. The liar's paradox only shows up when we are talking about sentences that we would never use in normal speech. They are grammatically and semantically correct, but they don't make any sense. Or can you think of a counter-example.

So if the sentence is false, its true, and if its true, its false. We definitely have a contradiction. — Philosophim

Agreed. It's the significance of the contradiction that we are questioning. That I am questioning.

We realize we've said nonsense by being too implicit. That's the lesson we can glean. Just because we can say or posit an idea in language, doesn't mean it makes sense. You've previously posted the question, "What is metaphysics?" Many times people use metaphysics to disguise liars paradoxes. Terms that are ambiguous are great ways to hide nonsense terms and conclusions within them. If you can pick them out, you can ask for clarification. — Philosophim

I don't find this a very convincing argument. As you note, there are plenty of ways to do bad philosophy and logic without needing this paradox to show us another. The liar's paradox seems trivial and I don't see how it's connected with any substantive logical issue. Do you have examples of when "...people use metaphysics to disguise liars paradoxes."

Solving the liar's paradox can give us a tool to solve other nonsense points while keeping within the spirit of the discussion. — Philosophim

I guess my solution is realizing there isn't anything to solve. Yes, I know that's not what you meant. I don't see any solution but to ignore the paradox as an interesting and fun, but ultimately meaningless, pastime.

Liar's paradoxes are a great teaching tool about the ambiguity of language, but also about seeing through the intentionality of a person's argument. — Philosophim

I think this discussion, and all the other ones about this and similar subjects, are evidence that the subject obscures rather than clarifies language, mathematics, and logic.

Either the model (physics) is wrong, or the mathematical rules were not followed. — the affirmation of strife

That's the heart of the argument. Many people, I guess some really great mathematicians and logicians, don't agree. I have a feeling it has something to do with mathematicians being natural idealists. You can't futz with the ideal world. It's perfect. If it's not, somehow the whole thing falls apart.

The problem: what should we do if we are presented with contradictory mathematical rules. For the language analogy, this is like finding a contradiction in your Japanese grammar book. On page 24 it tells you to say X in situation Y, but on page 135 (it's not an easy language, you understand) it instructs you to say the opposite i.e. (not X) in situation Y. Solution: buy a new grammar book. — the affirmation of strife

I don't think this analogy applies. Seems like with the Russel paradox, we start with what appear to be consistent rules and get contradictory results.

In addition to what StreetlightX said about the "enworlded-ness" of language (arising from the fact that it is invented by humans), — the affirmation of strife

Is this the issue, that mathematicians and logicians don't believe math was invented by humans? That they think it is intrinsic to the world?

I think some of Turing's fear was justified. — the affirmation of strife

I don't get it. I'm not sure I can even see the connection between number and set theory and calculus. But then, my math is of the practical, engineering sort.

[1]: Is this still controversial? I mean, Einstein called it a language. My first year lecturer did the same. — the affirmation of strife

There are certainly people who believe that the Russell paradox says something profound about math and logic.

We are not dealing with just better technology but a huge shift in consciousness! It is not just the women folk having a stronger voice, but all people who were excluded from the White man's grab for wealth and power. This is not just socialism versus capitalism but justice and morality versus being pretty ignorant and primitive and brute force ruling. — Athena

Yes, this is off subject, but you keep going on, so I'll have my say just this once. And, yes, this is something I feel strongly about. Women who say they want to be respected but then blame the problems of our society on men rather than taking their share of the responsibility are hard to take seriously.

You're right, this is not the right discussion.

Suppose God exists. You ask him "why God did you make the world as it is?" He responds "I was just playing." — TheMadFool

There are religions that describe gods creating the world so that they would have someone to play with. I remember @Wayfarer writing about it.

When we are disrespected we can become defensive and feel the urge to attack. Then this is no longer play and it is no longer fun and it ruins threads. — Athena

One of the things I value about the forum is that it has taught me to be more patient and not to respond, at least not as often, to provocation.

When we feel safe we can explore our ideas and dare to be different and creative, and under such conditions, we all expand our consciousness. — Athena

I guess my problem is the opposite of yours. I have never been able to not say things that come to mind, even when I shouldn't.

The US no longer feels safe. Our minds are closing down and people are picking up weapons. We no longer allow our children to be as children but expect them to perform like college students as we rush to teach them what to think. — Athena

I don't feel this way at all.

We need the spirit of play and for that, we need to feel safe. — Athena

Yes.

There is a set R which consists of all and only non-reflexive sets:
R = {x | x is non-reflexive}
But then we see that R belongs to R iff R is non-reflexive, which holds iff R does not belong to R. Hence either assumption, that R belongs to or R does not belong to R leads to a contradiction. — the affirmation of strife

So, it looks like the value of the liar's paradox or Russel's paradox etc. comes from the insight into how we can or can not formulate truth. — the affirmation of strife

I'm interested what you and @StreetlightX have to say about the Russell paradox as opposed to the liar sentence. From what I have seen, mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics claim that the Russell paradox undermines the credibility of mathematics in general. We had a discussion a few weeks ago about a discussion between Wittgenstein and Turing where Turing claimed the inconsistencies in math might cause a bridge to tall down. That seems silly to me, to believe that an anomaly in number theory could contaminate calculus.

What are you guys thoughts?

I think we can agree maybe there is not a distinct difference that is constant and unchanging? The same activity can be all about fun and can get very serious. I don't mind loosing to someone, but if I am loosing too badly I can get very serious about closing the gap. :lol: — Athena

I'm fine with that.

As a matter of interest, the one thing I do every day that I consider play is participating in the forum.