Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? — khaled

For me objectivity means unbiased. I don’t consider desiring truth to be a bias because it is essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance. Of course there are disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant. No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false.

There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on. — khaled

That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. People may mistakenly think otherwise, but that is only due to human error.

Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right? — khaled

I only added that to account for different types of “its.” IOW’s it depends on the subject. Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty.

That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong. — khaled

So you’re saying the most accurate models could still be wrong? I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained.

Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it? — khaled

A standard aims to determine something, correct? For instance, to use one of your examples, if the aim is to establish which of two novels has the fewest words, then the best standard would be one that actually counts the number of words. But having “the fewest number of words” as a standard for truth makes no sense, as the number of words is irrelevant to a thing’s truth value.

But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate? — khaled

I don’t think that. I don’t think that objective standards are implied by planets. I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth. Therefore, when considering whether or not a particular idea or theory is true, it is necessary to examine it’s methodology, because not all methods are even capable of arriving at truth in the first place. Therefore a standard is needed to determine which methods are capable, and which aren’t. And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something.

unbiased — Pinprick

And what does this mean exactly? And again, how does one know they’re unbiased (same question as at what point do we know we have reached objectivity)

essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance — Pinprick

Non sequitor. Everyone thinking does not logically lead to the point of thought being truth seeking. When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”?

disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant — Pinprick

So why are we having this conversation?

No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false. — Pinprick

That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in

That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. — Pinprick

All of these are statements true by definition. This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. If I define socnes as rifheos then it is obvious that socnes is rifheos but no new knowledge has been gained here. Similarly if I define a foot as 12 inches then a foot is 12 inches. No new knowledge has been gained here

Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty. — Pinprick

Your above examples aren’t new knowledge. Whether or not quantum physics is the best model for describing the world for example will never be known for certainty. No matter what theory we come up with we cannot know that it is correct, only that it hasn’t been proven incorrect yet.

I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained. — Pinprick

Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. Claiming that we have finally reached the “final form” of physics where nothing can be incorrect anymore is unscientific. Empiricism will never reach 100% certainty until time ends and the theory is still not proven wrong

irrelevant to a thing’s truth value. — Pinprick

I’m not following. What’s the truth value of Harry Potter? 27?

I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth — Pinprick

Believe what you want, but if you’re going to keep replaying to me I’ll keep defending my belief that there are no ways to arrive at said truth. Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)?

And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something. — Pinprick

“It must demonstrate how it arrived at the conclusion” =/= equal it must explain something

Let me ask you this then: How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory?

When I think of my mind, I think of my brain. I equate the two, or rather reduce mind to brain. [/quote]

If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could NOT have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They were clueless about the brain. They thought it cooled the blood. Because they could exchange meaningful communication about their minds, while at the same time NOT exchange meaningful communication about their brains, brains aren't identical to minds.

And what does this mean exactly? — khaled

That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc.

And again, how does one know they’re unbiased — khaled

By being able to justify your claims logically, rather than resorting to some preference to do so.

When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”? — khaled

Well, that would be a subjective truth, but otherwise yes.

So why are we having this conversation? — khaled

Lol, now you’re starting to sound like me.

That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in — khaled

No one believes something because they think it’s false. Therefore, people believe what they think is true. If truth exists, it must have an object that it is describing accurately (some feature of the world, a concept, physical object, etc.). Therefore, any idea/theory that aims at truth must explain something. Therefore the best ideas/theories are those that have explanatory power. What exactly do you disagree with here? Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? If so, please try to give me an example, because I don’t even see how a theory that doesn’t explain anything can even be considered a theory.

This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. — khaled

What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? BTW, those examples were meant to counter your statement that there is nothing that everyone will agree with. But, consider the example of measuring something. I can objectively say it is 12 inches long after I have measured it. I didn’t previously know the length of the object, but now I do, and because I used an objective form of measurement the knowledge gleaned from its use is also objective.

Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. — khaled

Well, at least partially incorrect, but I have no issue with this. But, this doesn’t mean every “theory” has to be disproven to be incorrect. Hitchen’s razor is a good example of what I’m getting at. Some “theories” aren’t really theories at all because they don’t explain anything, or because they simply assert premise(s) arrived at irrationally and draw whatever conclusions happen to follow.

Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)? — khaled

See above example of measuring.

How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? — khaled

Once. But, if there are changes in the environment that could have an affect on gravity, then the experiment would need to be conducted under those particular circumstances.

At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory? — khaled

One, unless something in the environment has changed. If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.).

If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could not have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They thought the brain cooled the blood. Therefore, brains aren't identical to minds. — RogueAI

I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”

That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc. — Pinprick

This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” which is begging the question. You’re assuming your conclusion.

By being able to justify your claims logically — Pinprick

Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. I can argue logically that abortion is bad because the fetus is a human being, but that premise “the fetus is a human being” is still opinion. It is still preference. And if you somehow come up with an argument as to why a fetus is a human being then the first premise of that argument must not be necessitated by a fetus being a human being (or else you’d be employing circular logic). So how do you explain THAT premise. You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever

Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? — Pinprick

2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. So are any ideas that are true by definition.

What exactly do you disagree with here? — Pinprick

Not here. But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with.

What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? — Pinprick

I would say no. But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge.

there is nothing that everyone will agree with. — Pinprick

Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error”

See above example of measuring. — Pinprick

Fair enough but I was thinking more of a physics theory.

Once — Pinprick

Ok so I now propose to you a theory:

Pens never run out ink

I have just written a line with a pen

Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect

Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time.

If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.). — Pinprick

But what if there are other variables other than the substance, time, etc that you don’t know about that WOULD let you walk through a wall. As you’ve stated it this is not a theory. “I cannot walk through wall X at time Y with variables A,B,C being equal to this and this and this” is not a theory it’s an observation. A theory generalizes from observations to highlight what variables matter and what are inconsequential. If you do ONE observation you can infer an infinite number of theories. That’s why you definitely need more than one. But even if you do many observations you can still infer an infinite number of theories. Occam’s razor only culls theories that add variables that cannot be changed or tested. If someone proposes that the gravitational constant is affected by how often we pray to God that is a valid testable theory. It’s just that when we pray it won’t change so that would make the theory wrong. However if someone claims that something will happen until the end of time how do you about proving that theory? At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time?

I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”

If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. This is patently absurd, seeing as how ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains.

This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” — khaled

If my personal views are irrelevant then I can still have them without them skewing my results. For example, if I’m measuring something, my religious, political, etc. beliefs will not influence my measurement. Therefore, my measurement is objective.

Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. — khaled

If you choose an untrue premise, then the argument isn’t logically sound.

You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever — khaled

Or, you’ll reach a premise that is also factual. Something like this:

Water is a liquid.
All liquids take the shape of their container.
Therefore, water will take the shape of its container.

This argument is logically sound and valid. It is also objective. This is an objective truth.

2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. — khaled

This does explain something. It explains what the value of “2” and “4” is, as well as what it means to add. Also, if this is referring to actual objects, it explains the quantity of those objects, or groups, whichever the case.

But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with. — khaled

I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe.

But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge. — khaled

If you don’t know how to add, and then you learn how to, don’t you now know something that you previously didn’t? Even counting can lead you to learn something. You don’t know how many pennies are in my pocket. You count them, and now you know. That’s new knowledge.

Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error” — khaled

If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans.

Ok so I now propose to you a theory:

Pens never run out ink

I have just written a line with a pen

Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect

Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time. — khaled

I think you should consider the opposite when making theories that presume eternal consistency. For example, you should see what the hypothesis “pens will run out of ink” concludes. Or that “when a force is acted upon an object, that object moves.” The conclusions of these experiments would provide causes. This would lead to the truth that force causes motion. If that is true, then it’s inverse(?) would also be true (that objects do not move unless acted upon by a force).

At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time? — khaled

I don’t really know if you can, but if you’ve tested every possible counter theory, and they’ve all failed, then what is left to doubt? But of course that just shifts the issue to knowing when every possible counter theory has been tested. I guess the point is that science isn’t meant to be static, or that 100% certainty isn’t possible (although Decartes’ cogito may be an exception). But does this have any relevance to whether or not explanatory power is the best criteria for judging a theory? Or that theories with no explanatory power must be refuted before they can be considered false?

If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" — RogueAI

Because you’re not being understood. I’ll elaborate my confusion:

I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. — RogueAI

What do you mean by talk of brains/minds? Does talk of brains mean talking about things like neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters? Or does it mean talking about things like thoughts, memories, and ideas? If the former, then no ancient Greeks couldn’t talk about brains, because they had no knowledge of the existence of neurons, etc. If the latter, then of course they could, but that is really talking about the content of brains/minds. Think about a cup of water as an analogy. We can talk about the cup itself, it’s size, shape, material, etc.; and we can talk about its content, the water.

ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains. — RogueAI

They could talk about the content of their minds/brains, but not about their brains/minds themselves. But that is only due to their ignorance.

I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe. — Pinprick

If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans. — Pinprick

That is literally all I was saying.

If brains are identical to minds, then talking about brains is the same as talking about minds. If X and Y are identical, then talking about X entails talking about Y, and vice versa. For example, talking about bachelors is, necessarily, talking about unmarried men.

Do you believe brains are identical to minds?

I feel like the "all is mind" position is a cop out position or even just laziness. — Chaz

I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind.

Unfortunately, the new common usage in high tech has caused many people to forget that "Information" is actually Mind Stuff : ideas, thoughts, imagination, intention, etc. Nevertheless, some cutting-edge scientists have concluded that everything in the universe, both Energy & Matter, is a form of Information. This is not yet a mainstream theory, but it makes sense to me. And it may help to explain how Minds evolved from Energy and Matter.

Years ago, one early quantum physicist exclaimed in surprise, that on the quantum level of reality, particles are "nothing but Information" (i.e mathematical). Look into the works of physicists Paul Davies and Seth Lloyd to see if their conclusions sound like "cop-outs" or new insights into reality. :nerd:

Origin of information :
First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English infformacion, informacyon “instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind,” from Middle French, Old French informacion, information “criminal inquiry,” from Late Latin informātiō “teaching, instruction,” from Latin: “sketch, first draft; idea, conception”; see inform1, -ation
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

Everything is Mind Stuff? : So here's the deep question: Is information the ultimate constituent from which the cosmos is constructed?
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Is it possible that everything is made of information? : Yes. Some influential physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, strongly theorize that the entire universe is comprised of bits of information.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-everything-is-made-of-information

Why information can't be the basis of reality : A growing number of scientists, Gleick writes, are beginning to wonder whether information "may be primary: more fundamental than matter itself." . . . But the everything-is-information meme violates common sense.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-information-cant-be-the-basis-of-reality/
Note : Science is not based on Common Sense, but on Extraordinary & Exceptional Reasoning.

I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind. — Gnomon

Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa.

Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa. — PoeticUniverse

Technically, you are correct, but I was not speaking as a physicist. Mass is indeed an inferred immaterial property or essence of Matter. But humans never experience raw Mass. Like Information and Energy, all of our experiences are with the material containers of properties, qualities, and Information. :joke:

:lol: I’m a dumbass sometimes...

Do you believe brains are identical to minds? — RogueAI

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however.

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however. — Pinprick

The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental.

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist, only brains do. Until some sort of evidence can be presented that shows minds, of the metaphysical/immaterial variety, are even possible of existing, I see no reason to change my belief. I’m always open to the possibility that there is evidence that I’m not aware of, however.

Nonsense.

The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental. — Yohan

Why?

Nonsense. — RogueAI

How?

The most direct refutation remains Stove's Gem. — Banno

Stove's "Gem" is a bit over my head. But how does he accommodate Einstein's Relativity ?''

Relatvity and Reality : We take our own personal orientation for granted most of the time, (especially when we are overseeing an abstract equation or model of everythingness), but to model everythingness absolutely faithfully, we would need to include this very strange, but very ordinary state of affairs that we know as ‘being here’, or ‘our presence’; consciousness. . . .
It is for this very reason, that purely mathematical approaches to understanding the universe as a whole and consciousness are ultimately doomed. Their rigidity arises from a reference frame which is intrinsically incompatible with the floridly eidetic and creative frame of human privacy.
https://multisenserealism.com/thesis/7-space-time/relativity/

Note : this site is also above my pay-grade.

The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? — Pinprick

Yes. I came to the "all is mind" conclusion from the evidence of Quantum and Information theories. The "hard problem" of how Mind and Consciousness emerged from insentient Matter and amorphous Energy can be explained by applying information theory to Evolution. This is not a religious belief, but a philosophical theory, based on cutting edge science.

If the essence of Energy & Matter is abstract Information, as several physicists have concluded, then we may infer that our world was Enformed by some kind of Mind, and actualized in the Big Bang. My thesis resulted from following such evidence to the conclusion that our Real world is essentially an Idea. But then, a materialistic mind-set cannot "see" essences with the body's eye, so will be incredulous of such nonsense, as "seen" by the mind's eye. :nerd:

To Enform : to give meaningful form to; to create -- as a sculpture from clay or marble

Integrated information theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

Reality is not what you see : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

To be specific, I don’t believe minds exist — Pinprick

Then you’d be a robot which I doubt you are. I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. Not very scientific of you to ignore the most fundamental observation that preceded all others “I, a MIND, exist”. I never get theories that try to say the mind is the brain. You can say the mind is caused by the brain but you can’t say the mind is the brain. As rogueAI said, you can talk meaningfully about minds without knowing how brains work.

Not very scientific of you to ignore the most fundamental observation that preceded all others — khaled

The critical point is, that it is not an observation.

"I exist" is not an observation? What is it then?

You tell me! If it was an observation empirical science would not be the enemy, right?

Do you really think you're mindless? No, you don't. So, why waste people's time on such idiocy?

You tell me! — Heiko

I told you already. It's an observation. You disagree. So YOU tell me what you think it is.

If it was an observation empirical science would not be the enemy, right? — Heiko

I don't see how this makes sense. When did I say "empirical science is the enemy" first of all?

Are you implying that if something is not explained by empricial science it is not an observation? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Empirical science is the attempt at explaining observations. If it can't explain an observation you can't just pretend the observation doesn't exist.

Qualia has yet to be explained by empirical science. That doesn't make it not an observation. It's so weird to me that people would rather pretend that they are zombies than admit that a purely materialistic view of the world doesn't make sense. To be honest it makes me think "Maybe this people really experience no qualia" sometimes. Looking at you daniel dennett.

I told you already. It's an observation. You disagree. So YOU tell me what you think it is. — khaled

I am just what wondering that Descartes got famous by stating something obvious. I didn't think that it was meant merely descriptive. Well, you learn...

Are you implying that if something is not explained by empricial science it is not an observation? — khaled

Hmm, as you are talking about ontics there is no difference at all.

I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. — khaled

I’m not doubting consciousness, only that it derives from “mind” as opposed to brain.

Do you really think you're mindless? No, you don't. So, why waste people's time on such idiocy? — RogueAI

I’m being sincere, but you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself. You posit minds exist, but can’t or won’t define them. You also can’t or won’t provide evidence of their existence. You seem to have no problem disparaging my comments, but again won’t or can’t explain why. I’m willing to learn about your position and consider it. Are you willing to explain it?

For what it’s worth, if the only reason for believing in minds is that they explain consciousness, then how is this anything more than a “god of the gaps” style argument? “Brains can’t explain consciousness, but minds can, therefore minds exist.” All the while completely overlooking or ignoring the fact that minds themselves require an explanation. Hitchens’s razor seems to dispose of this rather quickly.