Science avoids the controversy and gives an operational definition which is: Time is the quantity measured by a clock. — TheMadFool

It does? Where or when did this happen? Is there a written record I could peruse?

If gravity is indeed omnipresent, then it simply is a law. — Janus

Omnipresent? Present everywhere? Who mentioned location? :chin:

A law is created by humans.

Gravity is a feature of the universe, and was not created by humans, it was discovered by them.

Gravity is not a law any more than a pulsar or a mushroom is a law.

You are trying to impose your beliefs upon reality. Good luck with that.

We're done for now. Happy trails!

I agree that we need more than two subjective views to proclaim that the theory is objective. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I think you might mean something quite mild when you say "objective", maybe "unbiased"? Even then, there is a difference between that and consensus. The former is genuinely unbiased; the latter describes a bias that is in accord with the bias(es) of the majority. Even an infinite number of people who agree with you doesn't make your opinion objective.

You misunderstand me: I am saying that according to ordinary usage "the law of gravity" applies to both the human formulation, and to the natural force. In the latter one of its senses, 'the law of gravity' is synonymous with simply 'gravity', in other words; but the addition of "the law of" signifies that gravity is a universally acting force; in other words it is understood to be "law-like" or "lawful". — Janus

I think I understand you quite well. You seek to confuse a human invention - the 'law' of gravity - with an attribute of the universe - gravity. You also seek to understand the 'law' as the master or reference, and the universe as being governed by that law. You are wrong in every respect. Gravity is only "understood to be "law-like"" by those who fail to understand the difference between the two. Gravity is not law-like. Your law is gravity-like. It is a model or description of gravity. Gravity is. It doesn't do anything; it just is what it is, and cannot be anything other than what it is. Gravity is not conscious or intentional. It's gravity. And it is not governed by any law.

Gravity and the law of gravity are similar only in the sense that one is a model, a copy, of the other. There is no question as to which is the reference, despite your struggle to muddy the waters. Sorry.

Laws are for us. Nature doesn't need or use them; it just does what it does. Just that. — Pattern-chaser

We don't invent the law-like behavior of nature. Sure, the Law of Gravity is also a human formulation as well as an invariant natural phenomenon which does not depend on us for its action. — Janus

You seem to be struggling to accept my point. On the one hand, your words seem to acknowledge what I'm saying, but your syntax appears to have been crafted to restate the primacy of (human-created) laws over reality.

We have, I think, already agreed that these 'laws' are descriptive, not proscriptive. So law is a synonym for a description or model of natural behaviour. So when you say this:

We don't invent the law-like behavior of nature. — Janus

what you're saying is "We don't invent the natural-behaviour-like behavior of nature", which is correct but (as you can see) circular, and not very useful. Let's be clear about this. Gravity was discovered; the laws of gravity were created, by human scientists, to model or describe natural behaviour. I don't dispute that these laws fulfill that purpose well, and that their predictive power has been thoroughly tested, and found to be useful. But the fact remains that these laws are secondary, or derived. The master, the reference, is reality itself. Gravity, in this case, is the master.

Sure, the Law of Gravity is also a human formulation as well as an invariant natural phenomenon which does not depend on us for its action. — Janus

The "Law of Gravity" is not "an invariant natural phenomenon which does not depend on us for its action", it is a human creation. It is gravity that is "an invariant natural phenomenon which does not depend on us for its action".

It does no-one any good to confuse the reference and the derived model. :up:

I suggest that nothing less than an infinite sample size is required to turn consensus into objectivity. Two definitely isn't sufficient, IMO.

Our biases and experience don't cloud our judgement, they form and guide our beliefs. We are emotionally-driven creatures. Emotions are central and fundamental to what we are. To see this part of us as something that clouds what we do is putting "ought" instead of "is", and even then it's what you think ought to be.... :chin: [Assuming, for the purposes of this conversation, that biases and experiences are synonymous with emotions.]

As I understand it, to say there is a universal law just is to say that there is a universally invariant form of action, a natural behavior which operates at all times and all places regardless of human awareness and opinion. — Janus

Well yes, but isn't a human-formulated 'law' an opinion? Such a law can't be human-independent, can it? After all, the universe will continue to behave as it does if we disappear. And while we're still here, our 'law' has no effect except to describe (for the convenience of humans) what nature does all by itself, without laws or anything like them. Laws are for us. Nature doesn't need or use them; it just does what it does. Just that.

I'm just not getting this. Probably my fault. :blush:

Second-order volition are desires about desires, or to desire to change the process, the how, of desiring. — Wikipedia

There's a process of desiring? It feels to me like desire is an emotion, or something pretty similar. For that reason, I wonder if there is a process at all, or if it's just something we do - or feel - without process, planning or anything else. :chin: How can I meaningfully have a desire about a desire?

You realise that those words belong to TheMadFool, not me, yes? I was arguing against what TheMadFool was saying.

letting one's own biases and experience cloud how what they believe and how they arrive at their beliefs. — MindForged

But, but... One's biases and experience are a fundamental part of how we arrive at our beliefs! :chin:

what could be a more philosophical topic than nothing? — Ciceronianus the White

Er, something? :chin: :wink: :smile:

The hair trigger gun aimed down all of our throats is nuclear weapons. — Jake

There are many such guns. There's climate change, chemical and biological weapons (much worse than nuclear in terms of their effects on us and on our ecosystem), and we mustn't forget humanity, the worst and most threatening weapon around. ... On this planet, at least. Humans are a plague species.

How would idea of the universal action of gravity at all times and places differ from the idea of a universal natural law of gravity; a law which is real in more than a merely nominalistic fashion? — Janus

They differ because one is a simple description, while the other is formulated as a 'law'. Gravity is what it is, and does what it does. It achieves this without any external input or guidance; there is no law, if by law we assume something that somehow binds or forces certain behaviour(s). Humans formulate laws as a way of expressing their understanding of stuff. They are only descriptions, nothing more. So your description of gravity as acting universally is simple, correct and useful. Your description of a law adds nothing that I can see. :chin:

...nor is the 'law' 'real', if I understand your intended meaning (of 'real') correctly.

So, do we have higher order volitions? It would seem so to my mind. — Posty McPostface

To my mind, it's yes and no. :wink: My bottom line here is: do we need a special word to describe desires about desires? Human desires are hard enough to understand in the first place. :smile: Maybe another word just confuses matters? :chin: So I think we do have these higher-order volitions, but I'm not convinced that they are distinctive enough to recognise separately. :up: :smile:

:wink:

1. If ALL the predictions of logic are true then logic is justified
2. ALL the predictions of logic are true
So,
3. Logic is justified — TheMadFool

Erm, (3) is only valid if (1) and (2) are valid. Logic did not predict the election of Trump or the selection of Brexit. There are contexts where logic is not always useful. Human culture is one, very big, one.

You seem to have adopted the standard that objective science places upon its theories, that anything less than ALWAYS correct leads to immediate rejection. Your assertion (2) is not correct for all circumstances. Therefore (as/from above), logic is not justified. QED

it's still absolutely crystal clear: the Leave vote was about national sovereignty and our wish to extricate ourselves from the EU superstate experiment; immigration and all the other issues are subsets of that fundamental point. — gurugeorge

I don't think people voted for or against a European super-state. On the whole, they voted for the return of the British Empire, and to expel all those whose skin is a different colour from their own. Shameful. I am ashamed, anyway. :cry:

the laws of nature are not same as the laws of physics, but they are dynamically related and so laws in an analogical sense. — Dfpolis

Surely the laws of physics are laws of nature? The contrast, I think, is with human laws, which bind our behaviour, or are supposed to. :wink: They have authority. [Although this authority, over us, is given by us; it's not intrinsic to our laws.] Laws of nature/physics are descriptive of reality. They are non-binding. They just help us to understand. And they have no authority. On the contrary, they reflect reality, which is the master or reference, not the law(s).

I wonder why one feels compelled to use a loaded term like "intentionality" for the tendencies of nature to form certain patterns or forms? — prothero

Good question! I tentatively submit that Nature has no intention. It just does what it does by being what it is. It is bound by no law or principle. It follows no instructions. It just is.

Your thesis, that you have repeated a number of times, is that the human mind, or consciousness, can be reduced to neural activity. I do not dispute your belief, I challenge only its usefulness. For you are not asserting a property or attribute of mind, brain or consciousness, you are only saying "this problem should be addressed using the scientific technique known as reductionism". And this I strongly dispute. Reductionism, and even science itself, are inappropriate tools to use on this particular problem. [I.e. a consideration of the human mind, or consciousness.] There are many reasons why this should be so; here is one of them.

Reductionism splits a problem into simpler sub-problems, again and again, until the sub-sub-problems are small and simple enough to be solved in isolation. Later, if we're lucky and the scientist in question is sufficiently thorough, we will make some attempt to reassemble the parts of the original issue, and maybe try to reach a holistic understanding of the whole, by combining the tiny explanations that we found via reductionism.

But the mind and the brain, as problems, or subjects for investigation, are defined by their connections more than by their components. A neuron alone does nothing useful. A neuron connected to a (very) large network of other neurons can participate in the operation of a whole brain. It's the connections that define it, mostly. And, if we approach it via reductionism, the first thing we do is to (unknowingly, one assumes) discard nearly all of the relevant data (the connections), and investigate the remnants, which are the disconnected (i.e. maimed) components of the object of interest. Such an approach cannot succeed, for the brain, mind, and all similar things. I.e. things whose interconnections are a significant part of what they are, and how they function.

This is about discrimination, I think. Things like racism, sexism, and so forth, are all examples of discrimination. People who like to discriminate pretend that their freedom of speech is compromised if they are prevented from discriminating, but it isn't so.

If a woman steals from you, it is wholly reasonable to call her a "%$£&&££ thief", because she is. But if she has (say) black skin, you might feel tempted to call her a "&^^%**££$ black thief". This calls her a thief, which is true, and it very clearly implies that many/most/all black people are thieves too, which is not. This is discrimination, and it's wrong because it unreasonably attacks a whole community when only one person has offended.

We can say what we mean, or need to say, without accusing whole communities of wrongdoing. With discrimination comes violence, maybe death(s), and maybe even concentration camps. It's not a good direction to travel.

Just my thoughts. :up: :smile:

I don't feel politically alienated. I feel that there are no politicians with whom I am in sufficient agreement that I would be happy to cast my vote in their favour. In my particular case, I would vote for a proper socialist, if I could find one. In my country, Jeremy Corbyn is the closest we have come to this for a very long time. And I will respond to this by voting for him and his party. So maybe I am as far from political alienation as I have ever been? :up:

So does that mean you agree that humans perceive many things daily, subconsciously, which don't count as an experience, because we are not consciously aware of them? Basically, the majority of data that your senses perceive, but you are not consciously aware of.
And would you agree then, that most of what animals perceive is not an experience, if they are not consciously aware of it? — Tyler

No, I would say the opposite, that all of the experiences you describe are valid experiences. All of them. ... Oh, wait. I see what you're getting at. :wink: Thanks for picking up my inconsistency. :up: :smile:

My newly-clarified view is that there are three types of event, in this context. The first type is not detected by our senses, or is discarded during perception; the event is not experienced. The second type is experienced consciously. The third is experienced, but outside of conscious awareness, by our nonconscious minds.

These bytes don't change with the screen display. They are the instructions that cause the computer to execute word processing functions. — Pattern-chaser


>But once the instructions causes word processing functions, this would then cause the screen display to change, as word functions are executed, wouldn't they? — Tyler

You misunderstand me. I note that the program bytes are read, and executed, but they are not changed by this. Stored data are changed, but stored instructions are not. Note also that I refer to the analogy of a computer program, not directly to that which the analogy refers.

How does my experience of joy, fear or grief affect my neural activity (or vice versa, if you prefer :wink:)? — Pattern-chaser


>I believe the basic connection between the 2 is generally understood, at least to the degree of function. — Tyler

And this is where we diverge, I think. This has nothing to do with 'function'. Experience is not function.

There is much more to it than mere sensation. — Pattern-chaser


>I dont think I grasp your explanation which argues this point. Other than sensation, there is neural activity and emotion, but what more? — Tyler

Perception. Oh, and please let me be clear on this: I do not argue against your view that the mind is based upon neural activity. I don't argue for it either, but it's probably a good guess. :wink: My point is limited to what I have already said: that the abstract gap between neural activity and the human mind - or consciousness, if you prefer - is just too wide for us to conveniently and usefully bridge.

It is not sense - store - recall - review. It is more like sense - perceive - associate - interpret - integrate into worldview - conscious awareness. — Pattern-chaser


>But the steps of "associate - interpret - integrate into worldview" are all neural activity, of relative memories (and could be summarized as "store"), wouldn't you agree? — Tyler

I would definitely not agree that the above could be summarised as 'store'. You are ignoring the analysis, interpretation and understanding of what has been detected by our senses. Which is to say, you are ignoring perception, as we humans do it. We cannot and do not simply store data gathered by our senses. We interpret it first, and fit it to our needs and our dynamic worldview.

What is Trump’s true motivation? — Number2018

Self-interest.

OK, perhaps you can, but will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. Can you describe that adequately and usefully in terms of neural activity? I don't think that's possible, is it? — Pattern-chaser

I think it is possible. I don't see why a physical process involving the laws of physics should be impossible to describe. How to describe it may depend on your definition of "describe".
It should be quite plausible to describe every step of the mechanical function involved with the sensory input, neural activity, and instinctual triggers of emotion. — Tyler

I never thought it impossible to describe, I thought (and still think) it impossible-to-describe-adequately-and-usefully. By this I mean to be clear: adequately and usefully to a normal human being, living a real life in the real world. Oh, and I'm not trying to describe "a physical process involving the laws of physics". Look what I said:

...will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. — Pattern-chaser

I'm suggesting that your perspective does not meet the needs of humans living their everyday lives. And so your philosophy is not useful to them, despite the benefits you see in it for other reasons. You are not wrong. That's not what I'm saying. But your approach is less than useful. That's what I'm saying. :up:

We care what Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton and Hubble saw, not about their subjective experience in seeing it. — Dfpolis

Eh, we still don't care. — gurugeorge

You may not. This seems to be the central point of this thread, and it's the point you wish to dismiss. That's something of a shame, isn't it? :confused:

You talk much of firmware, and I wonder if you mean the same by it as I do, having spent 32 years designing and building firmware. Do you just mean "software", as this is only an analogy anyway? [We all know that brains aren't actually computers, don't we? :wink:] I just wondered. But let's continue.

The firmware of meaning is similar to relationship and evolved from it, however, this organization of relationship is organized around logic and spatial reasoning; differential and integral, without using an emotional attachment. — wellwisher

Your posts seem to be filled with absolute assertions. You never say "might be" or "seems to be", you say only "is". And yet you offer little in the way of justification. Admittedly, these things are difficult enough to discuss meaningfully, never mind justify. But all you seem to offer is an explanation for those who don't understand as you do, with no indication that you are even aware of alternative views. So let's have a good look at what you think. It may well prove interesting.

But your views seem quite novel, and could do with examination and consideration, not just an assertive exposition. You state above, for example, that meaning is "organised" (?) "without using an emotional attachment". For humans, some things are of moderate significance, and we have little or no emotional attachment to them. But other things are significant to us, and to them we are emotionally attached. And not just a bit either. It's a human thing. I offer no explanation or justification for that; it's just something we humans do. And it can be verified by simple observation. It isn't difficult to see or to find, and it isn't uncommon. So why would you state that there is no emotional attachment associated with meaning? :chin:

My approach is to show the behind the scenes working of the brain in terms of consciousness. — wellwisher

Do you mean to refer to stuff that is within, or without, conscious awareness when you say "behind the scenes working"? :chin:

Does it make sense to say: "X is really just Y" ? — rachMiel

I think it makes sense, but I think this is the wrong question. I think the question should be "is it useful?", not "does it make sense to ask this?". If X is a galaxy cluster, and Y is "quark", does it help your understanding of astronomy to ask if "A galaxy cluster is really just quarks?" Equally, does your answer to that question help? I suggest it doesn't.

Crowds are very wise, for some types of problem, and very stupid for others. The trick is to know which is which, I suspect. :wink:

Corrupt aristocrats? Hard to believe. <yes, that's irony>

My solution is to deny the existence of a paradox. Every form of government has benefits and shortcomings. This applies to aristocracy and democracy just as it does to all the others. Aristocracy is ""government by those who are the best citizens". The first hurdle it must pass is that those elected to govern really are "the best" a society has to offer. The best in what sense? What attributes are 'the best' when it comes to government? And finally, do those referred to as aristocrats actually possess these attributes? And all this before we consider your statement that aristocracy "offers stability and is effective in implementing laws". :chin:

Democracy is similar, also depending on the quality of those chosen to govern. It seems you don't trust the wisdom of crowds to select the best candidates. Perhaps you're right. :chin:

I think your paradox is merely a problem: how do we select the best rulers, to govern us? It's a difficult problem to solve, as you seem to focus (quite rightly) on the faults or shortcomings of the individuals who are elected. Such issues obscure the actual form of government chosen (democracy, aristocracy, dictatorship...). The problem seems to be a human problem. I.e. a problem with humans, and the way they sometimes act in a less than ideal fashion. :wink:

Consciousness and brain needs to be defined. “Brain”, which is process, is the room “you” are in. The universe perceived is essentially “the brain”. — raza

I wonder if, when you write "brain", you mean "mind"? It looks that way.... :chin:

As for the rest, I'm not quite clear what you're getting at. I think you are attempting to define consciousness, but your words are only confusing me. Sorry for being dim. :confused:

Metaphysics, in philosophy, deals with the underlying principles behind reality. — wellwisher

There are no "underlying principles" behind reality. Reality is the master, the reference, and the principles you refer to are simply the results of human observations (and our analysis of those observations). This may seem like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's important to be crystal clear about what is the reference, and what is derived. The principles you refer to are derived. Reality doesn't need them; it just is, and works without the influence of, or need for, human-formulated 'principles'. Our attempts at understanding are admirable, but they do not bind reality, they reflect it. Reality is the master.

The rest of what you say appears to be a consideration of how humans create their speculations and hypotheses. An interesting topic, I agree, but I'm not quite clear on what it has to do with metaphysics. :chin:

Dark matter and dark energy is a metaphysical system — wellwisher

No, they are part of a hypothetical physical (as in 'physics') system. Metaphysics, as I understand it, is not what you think.

You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is. — raza

I am not separate from my experience, but I am not only my experience. I am not passive, like a rock, or something. I respond to the things I experience, so (at the least) I am the sum of my experiences and my response(s) to them.

I'm sorry. I thought you meant metaphysical in a philosophical sense. It seems you mean something closer to the everyday, something along the lines of abstract, figurative, mystical and maybe even magical. I don't really disagree with what you say, I just misunderstood your intended meaning. :up:

Everything you have identified can be classified under “Experience”. — raza

Yes indeed. As I already said:

My identity is not limited to "whatever is occurring", I don't think. I have memory and a remembered history. Sure enough, this history stems from past experiences, but it persists, and helps to form the being that I refer to as "me". — Pattern-chaser

On memory and history, memories arise within consciousness. — raza

They arise within nonconsciousness too. I.e. memory takes part in nonconscious thinking. Memory is not exclusive to consciousness.

You are fluid in that as an experience changes and shifts, so you also do... — raza

Yes...

...because you are that. — raza

No. I am changed by my experiences. But I am not wholly defined by them, just as I am not wholly defined by consciousness. I have many parts. Memory and consciousness are two of them. My body is another vital part, as our minds are embodied, not independently existent. My nonconscious mind is another part. It does most of the work. It does much of what we like to think of as conscious processes, but are not. I think reducing us to mere experience is something of an insult. We have many failings and shortcomings, but we are more than just accumulated and remembered events.

Metaphysics complements physics if you know how to translate between the two systems. — wellwisher

I rather think metaphysics is what its etymology suggests, something upon which physics is founded or based. In the case of physics as we understand it today, in Western technological society, it is based on subject-object metaphysics. The two topics are certainly complementary, in the sense that they are compatible, and don't really intersect at all. But you can't translate from one to the other, I don't think, simply because they are, as you say, complementary. Not sharing the same intellectual space, but existing alongside one another.

An eternal soul persists apart from the body. It is like a DVD of data that is removable. — wellwisher

I'm not at all keen on the computer analogy, but if we are to use it, I think we must consider the soul DVD to contain data and programs, or even executable data.

I think the idea of involuntary vs voluntary arises because some thoughts seem to be far more spontaneous - as if from nowhere, and not, therefore, necessarily following a remembered thread. — raza

From nowhere, or from a part of your mind that operates outside your consciousness, and therefore outside your conscious awareness? Thoughts that originate in your nonconscious mind cannot be labelled voluntary or involuntary, unless you insist on doing it randomly. You have no basis to recognise a thought as one or the other when you had no knowledge or awareness of it until it was presented to your conscious mind. It's just a thought that appeared to you - conscious 'you' - to emerge spontaneously. And even this appearance only seems so because things happen outside of your consciousness, and you seem, perhaps, to be forgetting that this is so? :chin:

You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is. Your identity is whatever is occurring. Whatever arises in consciousness is you. — raza

No, I agree, I am not separate from my experience(s); they become part of me as they happen. But I don't think I am only those experiences. My identity is not limited to "whatever is occurring", I don't think. I have memory and a remembered history. Sure enough, this history stems from past experiences, but it persists, and helps to form the being that I refer to as "me".

Again, whatever arises in consciousness is me, but I am not limited to that. Your view here would seem to reflect that odd understanding that some people have, they 'they' are just their consciousness, and that their nonconscious minds, and their doings, are something foreign, something distinct from themselves. Maybe even their bodies are included too. :chin: Not so. You are all of you, not just some of the parts. Even your gut bacteria, which has its own DNA, not yours, contributes to 'you' and 'your' identity. You are a community. Some parts of that community are 'you' (in the sense that they carry your DNA) and some are not. And some parts of your mind are conscious, and some are not. All of them, in combination, are 'you'.