Comments

  • A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs
    But further, and deeper, if you could learn a language before you used it, that would imply that there was a difference between knowing a language and using it. I can't see what that could be like - how could you show that you know a language without using it? — Banno
    Then an infant that learned its first word, "Mamma", now knows English even though it can't write the word nor even understands what words or language or English is?

    The infant is not even pointing to its mother with the sound from its mouth, rather emulating its mothers movements with their mouth to make the sound. Does that qualify as knowing a language?

    When does a sound become a word? Seems to me that you have to learn that distinction before using words.
  • A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs
    ↪TheMadFool
    Is it? I thought sex was physical. You mean to tell me that I've been having conceptual sex with my wife and not physical sex this whole time? Does that mean that my offspring are conceptual outcomes of my conceptual sex as well? I thought that they are physical outcomes of physical processes. Im really confused now.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    If one wants to make the case that consciousness is something special then you can't do it using language. — TheMadFool
    :up:
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    Seems to me that missing component here is memory. You need a space to store the symbolic relationships between the scribble/sound of a word and what it points to. The man in the room possesses memory. This is how he understands the language the instructions are written in.

    The memory of what to do when a chinese symbol enters the room is on the paper with the instructions. It retains the information of what those symbols mean, which is write this symbol when you see that symbol, which is not the same instruction set in a Chinese person's memory for interpreting these symbols. This is because symbol-use is arbitrary as you can use any symbol to point to anything. Limitations do arise, however, when you want to use those symbols to communicate. You have to not only remember how you are using the symbols, but how others use the same symbols.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    I think the person in the Chinese Room, his knowledge of language, any language for that matter, isn't important. If I recall correctly, he doesn't know Chinese at all. All that this person represents is some mechanical computer-like symbol manipulation system that spits out a response in Chinese to a Chinese interlocutor and that's done so well that it appears the Chinese Room understands Chinese. — TheMadFool
    First you say that knowledge of any language isn't important, then go on to explain how some entity knows Chinese or not.

    Seems like we need to know how the "mechanical computer-like symbol manipulation system that spits out a response in Chinese" learned how to do just that.

    Perhaps this isn't the the right moment to bring this up but the issue of Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles seems germane. The Chinese Room is indistinguishable from a Chinese person - they're indiscernible - but does that mean they're identical in that the Chinese Room is ontologically a Chinese person? The issue of Nagel's and others' idea of an inner life as part of consciousness crops up. — TheMadFool
    The difference is that the instructions in the room are not the same instructions that a Chinese person used to learn Chinese. People are confusing the instructions in the room with instructions on how to use Chinese. Since the man in the room already knows a language - the one the instructions are written in, he would need something that shows the Chinese symbol and then the equivalent in his language - you know, like how you use Google translate.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    At this point I'd like you to consider the nature of consciousness — TheMadFool

    I've already asked them to do that as well as define understanding, but they only seem willing to keep asserting their unfound notions.

    They also ignore the fact that the man in the room still understands the language the instructions are written in and how the man learned THAT language, and then they're failure to define understanding and consciousness, this thread is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Interesting how you can learn another language using your language, hmmm?
  • A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs
    ↪creativesoul
    The problem is that in order to use words, there has to be a commonly understood meaning with two or more people. Communication is what you use words for and It takes two or more individuals to communicate. If the listener or reader doesn't understand then you didnt communicate and you didn't use words. You just made noises or scribbles.

    Now, when two people are failing to understand each other who is at fault? Who is the one that is using words properly or not? To find the answer you look in a dictionary.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    Use. What you do with that string of scribbles. Think I've said that before. — Banno
    And we use scribbles to communicate. Think I've said that before.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    I think that if science was going to solve the Hard Problem, it would have made some progress by now. But we're still just as clueless about how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness as we were during Descartes' time. — RogueAI
    Like i said, it will require a change in the way we think about reality - like abandoning dualism, materialism and idealism. Everything is relationships, or information.


    Well it can certainly be proven that atleast our consciousness is due to the activity of neurons. Destroy enough of them and we cease to have consciousness. — debd
    But then you have to explain how neurons cause consciousness, or changes in consciousness. Is it a temporal or spatial change? How does something physical cause a change in something non-physical?

    What language are the instructions in the Chinese room written in? Seems like the man in the room has to understand some language in order to know what to do in the room. If the man were one neuron then one neuron possesses an understanding of the language of neurons.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    That begs another question: why don't we have an agreed upon scientific definition of consciousness yet? Maybe 100 years ago that would have been asking too much, but at this stage in the game? It's remarkable we still can't define what consciousness is, and yet another sign that the phenomenon is outside the "realm" of science — RogueAI
    Because consciousness had been in the domain of religion as the soul for so long. Science seems to want to dismiss it as an illusion, but then consciousness is what is used to observe the world and theorize about what is observed. If consciousness were an illusion then so are all scientific theories as they are based on what is observed via consciousness.

    There have been many things considered outside the realm of science, but have eventually come under the fold of science. When science takes it seriously we should be able to have better theories. It will take a change in our view, just like other great discoveries like Newton discovering gravity, Einstein discovering the relationship between gravity and space and Darwins theory.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    The problem is more that "A nice derangement of epitaphs" could not be translated into Chinese without losing the joke. Hence, there are aspects of language that are not captured by such an algorithmic translation process. — Banno
    You didnt answer my question. What makes some string of scribbles nonsense? What makes some string of scribbles a joke? I understand English but didn't find that string of scribbles funny.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    ↪Kenosha Kid
    You don't read people's posts, do you? Yohan's post said nothing about disliking your argument. You also keep avoiding difficult questions.

    1. The mind is a brain function.
    2. For a brain function you need a brain
    3. However a brain doesn't require a brain function to exist. (not relevant)
    4. Therefor the mind requires a brain.     — Yohan

    Nope, seems pretty solid. If you accept premises 1 and 2, 4 follows. 1 is, as I say, the neuroscientific definition of the mind. 2 is self-evident. — Kenosha Kid

    from a physicalist point if view, we do not have brain function *and* mind; they're the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
    If mind and brain are one and the same then how can you say that you need one to have the other? Is the mind an effect of the brain? If so, then the mind and brain are not the same thing.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    ↪RogueAI
    Step one would be to define consciousness in a way that addresses why first person evidence of consciousness is different than third person evidence of consciousness.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    I think that consciousness or understanding or perception at a particular point of time is the function of the structural and physiological state of the neuronal network at that point in time. — debd
    What makes a neuronal network conscious but not a silicon network? Sounds like biological bias to me.

    Also, this seems to be 3rd person view of understanding. What is the 1st person view of understanding or consciousness or perception. I know I'm conscious, understanding and perceiving by different means than you would know I'm conscious, understanding and perceiving. Why?

    This suggests that consciousness is unlike all other physical properties. — RogueAI
    That does not, however, change my point about the internal mental states of computers forever being a mystery. — RogueAI
    Only because of thinking of mind and body in conflicting dualistic terms creates the problem in the first place.
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    How would the Chinese room deal with nonsense? How would it translate A Spaniard in the works? — Banno
    Is the problem that the sentence is actually nonsense, or that there are no instructions for translating such an arrangement of scribbles? What does it mean for some string of scribbles to be nonsense?
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    Am I reading this right..? Are you using the Chinese room argument to suggest that individual neurons aren't conscious? — Kenosha Kid
    Am I reading this right..? Are you suggesting that we have billions of conscious entities within one brain? I wonder, which neuron in my brain is my consciousness?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    That's a purely dualistic question: from a physicalist point if view, we do not have brain function *and* mind; they're the same thing. But from that dualistic perspective, it's a fine question. — Kenosha Kid
    Its not from a dualist perspective. I'm a monist, but not a physicalist or idealist. The point was why is there a difference in appearances of mind vs brain in the first place.

    Scientists tell us that colors don't exist outside the mind, yet we refer to colors when talking about the world. How do you know that we don't have the same problem when talking about the observed results of some QM experiment or observing brains?

    And you keep avoiding this question:
    I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions.
    — Kenosha Kid

    Does consciousness collapse wave functions or do brains collapse wave functions? And what is it about consciousness that allows it to collapse wave functions like "mechanical" devices do?     — Harry Hindu

    If

    1. Brains are physical objects and possess consciousness that collapses wave functions
    2. Physical, mechanical measuring devices (without consciousness?) collapse wave functions too.
    3. Brain activity and conscious activity are the same thing

    Then how do you know that mechanical activity isn't conscious activity if brain activity (which is just another a physical, mechanical device) is the same as mental activity?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Brain function is clearly not more fundamental than brain. For brain function, you need a brain. The opposite is not true. — Kenosha Kid
    Then why have a mind at all if all we need are brains and their functions?

    Are electrons and their wave functions more fundamental than brains and their brain functions? If so, then are brains and other material objects just how these electrons and their wave functions are measured/modeled by the mind?

    How can you assert that brains are fundamental but not mind when you only know about brains by virtue of your mind. So far, the only place we know that brains exist is in minds, just like mirages and illusions.

    We can only point to the contents of our minds when speaking. How do we know that the contents of our mind are about the world to be talking about the world when talking about the contents of our mind?

    Scientists tell us that colors don't exist outside the mind, yet we refer to colors when talking about the world. How do you know that we don't have the same problem when talking about the observed results of some QM experiment?

    Is it other minds out there or other brains that are out there? Why do I experience the content of my mind but not the content of my brain like I would when looking where your mind is? When looking at you, why do I experience a brain and not another mind? It seems like mind is modeling other minds as other brains. If that were the case then mind would be fundamental, no?

    It comes down to how much you believe of your conscious experience is a model of the world rather than a clear window to the world. Is the world how it appears in consciousness, or is consciousness a model/measurement of the world?

    I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions. — Kenosha Kid
    Does consciousness collapse wave functions or do brains collapse wave functions? And what is it about consciousness that allows it to collapse wave functions like "mechanucal" devices do?
  • In Defense of the Defenders of Reason
    By characterizing a rational position, as an emotional position, the defender is trying to dismiss it without actually having to deal with it. — JerseyFlight
    Just a few months ago the common theme was to question the validity of reason being a method for obtaining truth. It seemed to me that there was an "infiltration" of reason-deniers whose aim was to discredit reason itself in favor of subjective, emotional interpretations of evidence for our origins and relationship with the world. "Subjective truths" is a commonly used oxymoronic phrase around here.

    Religion and politics and ethics are philosophical domains rife with emotion. Most of the problems in these domains stem from confusing their subjective "truths" with objective ones.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions. — Kenosha Kid
    It seems to me that you'd need a proper definition of consciousness to make such an assertion. What it is about consciousness that collapses some wavefunctions and not others?

    You word the above like the idea is astonishing. But it's extremely mundane and everyday. — Kenosha Kid
    If I intended to appear astonished, I would have added an exclamation point as well as the question mark at the end. I was merely asking for clarification of your prior claims.

    If I drop a pebble into the river from the bridge, I know I'm responsible for the result. I don't need to renew my responsibility to ensure that result. That the pebble splashes into the water is an inevitable consequence of me dropping it, not of my observing it thereafter. Likewise the boobies pattern is an inevitable consequence of me forcing the electrons to scatter in an in principle discernible way, not of my actually discerning it. It is thus the measurement apparatus, not the knowledge of the measurement, that is crucial. And this is the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is all I was saying. — Kenosha Kid
    My point is that the way the world, which includes some experiment, appears is dependent upon some state of consciousness and your visual system. How do you know that what you experience when looking at the results of some experiment is a product of only the results of the experiment and not about the state of your visual system and mental state as well when doctors use your report of the contents of your conscious experiences to get at the state of your visual system and not at the paper with letters on the wall? How much of the shape on the film is a product of the experiment vs a product of your consciousness?

    If what you experience doesn't include information about your mental and visual system, then how can you say that you are even observing (using your sensory organs) the results of some experiment? I'm not saying that consciousness reaches out and changes the results of some experiment. I'm saying that how it appears in consciousness is dependent upon more than just the results of the experiment, but dependent upon your mental state. How the results of the experiment appear in consciousness determines how the results are interpreted - physical, mental, particle, wave, etc. The fact that we are visual thinkers is another thing to take into account when interpreting the visual experience of some experiment.

    If you are forcing the electrons to scatter in a principle discernable way, then you are forcing the electrons to form the shape of "two boobies" - what you end up discerning. "Two boobies" is the result of a measurement, one that is made consciously. Who or what is measuring, or discerning, the shape on the film?
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    Both the man and the neuron have no understanding of chinese yet the brain will understand chinese, hence the room should too. — debd
    It seems to me that to solve this riddle, we need a concise definition of "understanding".

    The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese.
    Then the Turing Test isn't very good at determining some system's understanding of some symbol-system.

    Ironically, the instructions themselves is a symbol-system and the man in the room understands the instructions, but not Chinese, so the instructions are not for understanding Chinese, but what do when you see a certain scribble.

    So the man in the room does understand something, but not Chinese. This leads one to posit that understanding is possessing instructions for interpreting some symbol.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    The experiment above still distinguishes between such systems that demonstrate consciousness-dependence and those that don't. — Kenosha Kid
    I guess it depends on what we mean by "dependent" and which scientific theory of consciousness is being used to show that the system isn't dependent on consciousness, right? So the design if the experiment is dependent on consciousness, but the results of the experiment arent?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Oh, dear. Harry, please consider this: cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

    You and your scribbles. Do you have any idea how BOOOORRRRING that is?!?!

    Anyway, I’ll be happy to discuss this stuff with you, as soon as you see the point actually being discussed.     — Mww
    How are they my scribbles if you're rejecting that I had something to do with causing their existence? I'll be happy to discuss this stuff with you when you think about what you say before typing it and submitting it. What is being discussed is Mind, Matter and Dualism. If you dont include Mind in your explanation then you're explanation is missing what is being discussed.

    If there is no causal relation between the world and your mind then how can you say that you can observe the results if some experiment that is apart from your mind? Is observation not a causal process? There would be no reason to assert that what you experience is about the world in any way. Hence any interpretation you have wouldnt be about the world either. Materialism ends up pulling the rug out from under itself by ignoring consciousness - the very thing that interprets the world as being physical.

    An experiment that does not demonstrate a dependence on consciousness where it is claimed there should be one. — Kenosha Kid
    I already showed that the experiment is dependent upon it being conceived in a mind before its assembled with "mechanical" devices that produce results for conscious beings to observe. How does a conception become an experiment that isn't dependent upon the conception? How does a non-mechanical idea become a mechanistic experiment?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Sounds like consciousness is deeply involved to me.
    — Harry Hindu

    And yet the experiment proves it is not.     — Kenosha Kid
    Then that is your problem because you keep using referring to mental properties when describing the experiment, as I pointed out. So maybe the problem isn't a misunderstanding of QM, but of language-use? Maybe it's a problem with how scientists are using words as well because they talk about photons knowing that they are being observed.

    Beyond the broad gist that is unscientific, I have no idea what you're trying to say. — Kenosha Kid
    Then I have no idea what you are trying to say by bringing up this experiment in a thread about the fundamental nature of reality. What is it that you are trying to show if not some understanding about the fundamental nature of reality?

    How can any understanding of the fundamental nature of reality NOT include some kind of explanation, or definition, of consciousness? When the only thing that you can ever talk about is the contents of your conscious mind, which includes your observation of the results of the experiment, then how is it that consciousness is never involved?

    With all that, beginning with that double-damned double slit, it’s easy to see where human consciousness could be deemed responsible for the actions outside itself. Leave it to a human, to attribute that of which he has precious little understanding, as being responsible for that of which he has, arguably, only slightly more. — Mww
    If consciousness can never be deemed responsible for the actions outside itself, then how is that these scribbles appeared on this screen, or are you saying that the scribbles on this screen are part of your consciousness and not outside of it? How did your intent to say this result in these scribbled appearing on this screen if human consciousness isn't responsible for the actions outside of itself - like you typing a post and the post appearing on my computer screen?

    Either consciousness is everywhere, and nothing is outside of it, or things outside of consciousness can't interact causally with consciousness. If the former, then you are arguing for solipsism. If the latter, then how is it that an observer can know about the results of some experiment that lies outside of it's consciousness, or move past conceiving of an experiment to it existing apart from the consciousness that conceived it? It appears that the lack of understanding here lies in your language-use.

    How did the the experiment begin if not as an idea in someone's mind? It's incoherent to assert that consciousness isn't involved when it has been involved from the beginning to the end in conceiving of the experiment and then observing the results. If you want to ignore consciousness and it's relationship with the fundamental nature of the world you are attempting to explain, then you are only doing a half-assed job of explaining the fundamental nature of the world.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    None of this impacts the particular thought experiment described. QM is a statistical theory. If there is a possibility of getting stripes instead of boobies, then as you repeat the experiment you ought to get stripes some of the time. Claiming the film is in superposition until observed is experimentally falsifiable. — Kenosha Kid
    Sounds like consciousness is deeply involved to me. QM attempts to describe reality. The equipment and the human observer are all part of reality. What the experiment attempts to show is what electrons behave like at the quantum level. The equipment and human observer are composed of electrons. So, any conclusion that you reach as a result of the experiment would apply to your human body and the equipment, including the film.

    I have never disputed that a conscious observation can or would collapse a wavefunction. The claim was that consciousness is essential for wavefunction collapse. This is what I hope I have demonstrated is false. — Kenosha Kid
    You haven't because in order to do so, you'd have to define consciousness. If my claim is that consciousness is a measuring device, then how do we know that some other measuring device isn't conscious as well? If consciousness is simply a processing of information in memory, then "mechanical" (your term that I questioned your use of and which you have not clarified, not mine) devices qualify as conscious.

    There is no scientific theory of consciousness? Are you absolutely sure about that? Do you not instead mean there is no complete theory? That is true, and my wording reflected that. — Kenosha Kid
    No, I mean that there is no falsifiable theory, which basically means that there is no scientific theory of consciousness, only philosophical ones.

    You are talking about the mind interpreting the world. Mentalist interpretations of QM imply the mind directly affecting the world, e.g. reaching out and collapsing the wavefunction. — SophistiCat
    The mind does directly affect the world, and the world directly affects the mind. The experiment started off as an idea in some mind. The experiment is designed in such a way that produces results observable for human sensory organs. So for KK to claim that consciousness isn't involved is utter nonsense.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Why would you need a theory of consciousness to examine an experimental setup where consciousness is absent? That's absurd. — Kenosha Kid
    Again, you'd have to define consciousness to assert when it absent and when it isn't. If it were absent at what point do you observe the results. If the results are on a sheet of paper, is not the paper composed of electrons? When does the wave function of the paper containing ink marks collapse - when looked at by human eyes or when it was printed out? Did the printer collapse the wave function?

    When the doctor asks you to look at a sheet of paper on the wall and report what you see, they are trying to get information on the state of your visual system, not the sheet of paper. This is because your measurement of what is on the wall contains information about the state of your measuring devices - your eyes. The same goes for the results of the experiment.

    There's no gap. Not assuming that non-living objects are unconscious is consistent with every single element of scientific understanding of consciousness. Yours is the outrageous claim. I defend your freedom to believe incredible things, but don't push your burden of proof onto me. — Kenosha Kid
    So no, my idea that consciousness is a measurement isn't outrageous. The fact that you claim that there is a scientific understanding consciousness when there Is no scientific theory of consciousness is a joke. Don't confuse me with Khaled. I am not proposing that consciousness is fundamental or creates reality.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    You hadn't cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing WITHOUT conscious observation until now. — khaled
    Who says that
    ↪Kenosha Kid
    actually cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing without consciousness? Wouldnt they have to provide a theory of consciousness to assert such a thing? Its interesting that KK is avoiding that, yet still want to assert that consciousness doesnt necessarily collapse the wave function. KK has to assume that some measuring device isn't conscious - whatever that means as KK is unwilling to address it so they are leaving a huge gap of an explanation in their explanation.

    Isn't the film another measuring device in the experiment? Is not every process some electron interacts with a measuring device as the effect some electron has on something else is a measurement of some kind if state of the electron at some point in time. But then isnt it also a measurement of the state of the detector as well? Is not the human body and other measuring devices composed of electrons? In other words, and interaction between 2 or more things results in effect that provides information, or a measurement, about all those things not just one of them.

    So what is it about consciousness that allows it to collapse the wave function sometimes but not other times? What is it about measurements that collapses the wave function?

    What if we replaced some of our biological parts with mechanical parts and observed the experiment? Would the wave function collapse for an observing cyborg?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Precisely! But, since Causal Information, or as I call it Enformy, includes both cause & effect, it is responsible for both Mind and Matter. Matter is the result of energy relationships (e.g. E=MC^2; hot/cold), while Mind is the awareness of those relationships (e.g. meaning). So, in answer to the OP, Information is "dualistic" in nature : both Matter and Mind, both Energy and Entropy. But it's much more than that. Information is Matter & Mind & Life, and everything else in the world. :smile: — Gnomon
    I think it is a practice in anthropomorphism to single out mind from the rest of reality. Mind is just one type of processing information and matter is the other types of processes.

    Information and meaning are the same thing. They are both the relationship between cause and effect. So you could say that meaning is fundamental.

    Intentionality is the process that uses information, or values information. The information/meaning is there prior to interacting with intention, and coupled with the process of memory, the process of mind emerges.

    While I understand the notion of ‘information’, it is the question of what information is without the existence of mind that is problematic.

    In my view it is relation that is fundamental.     — Possibility
    Relationships (cause and effect), process, information, are all terms I think more accurately get at what is fundamental.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    According to the copenhagen interpretation (as i understand it) You can't know that so don't assume it it's unscientific. Had the wavefunction only began to collapse when the first human opened his eyes you'd get the same universe. — khaled
    Sounds to anthropomorphic to me. Humans weren't the first organisms with eyes, nor are eyes the first sensory organ (measuring device) to have evolved.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    the purely mechanical measurement — Kenosha Kid
    I don't know what you're trying to show with this phrase. How is the human body, including the brain, not mechanical? How do non-mechanical things interact with mechanical things? How is a non-mechanical observation made of a mechanical measurement?

    A system begins in state A. An automatic spin measurement is made and printed a minute later that says it is in state B. A conscious measurement is a minute after that showing it to be in state A. A minute after that, someone reads the sheet of paper. — Kenosha Kid
    And how do we know that the difference in states is a characteristic of quantum processes rather a difference in measuring devices being used to measure some state?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Materialism is nonsensical as it simply relegates consciousness as some kind of illusion yet asserts that the world is how it is observed by consciousness. How do you get minds from brains or vice versa?

    Idealism is just as bad as it is more of an anthropomorphic projection of the human mind onto the world.

    Dualism is flawed as it requires an explanation of how mind causally interacts with matter and vice versa.

    With that said, I think that information is fundamental, and information is the relationship between cause and effect.

    It states that it occurs when a measurement is taken. It does not stipulate a requirement on consciousness. The process of measurement is considered mechanical, not mental. — Kenosha Kid
    It also says when an observation is made. So what it seems to stipulate is that consciousness is type of measurement. Measurements are only setup and used by conscious beings. How is a measurement taken without the idea of measurement?
  • The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    There was no such thing as a constitutional court at the founding. The idea that the Supreme Court had the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional was something the Court made up. Once they gave themselves that power, the next question was how they were going to interpret it. No one method of interpretation is obviously correct, so the one chosen will necessarily be subjective. — Hanover
    ↪Hanover
    ↪Banno

    "Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system."
    uscourts.gov
    ...and the Judiciary Act was signed by Washington as the first President - a founder. The "founding" could be said to entail the years that Washington was President and then resigned - establishing a precedent that should have been recognized by all politicians since the "founding".

    With Congress having the power to "ordain and establish" the judiciary system and the emergence of political factions that Washington warned against, the judicial system is not what the founders envisioned. The judges have become pawns for one of two political groups - interpreting laws based on promoting some political ideology rather than on the unique conditions of the case before them at any time. Isn't that what the blindfold on Lady Justice is for? For the Republicans and Democrats to be flaunting the fact that they are choosing "conservative" vs "liberal" (strange names for two groups that aren't entirely conservative or liberal) judges just shows how stupid we are as citizens.
  • Wittgenstein's Chair
    And sensations are notoriously hard to define with words. — Olivier5
    This is a strange thing to say considering that words are themselves visual and auditory sensations. What does it mean to define sensations with other sensations (scribbles and voices)?
  • Wittgenstein's Chair
    ↪Olivier5
    I dont understand what you mean by "beyond language" as we are informed of states of affairs by looking and listening - it doesn't matter if what we are seeing and hearing is scribbles and voices saying "it is thundering and lightning" or seeing and hearing thunder and lightning.
  • Wittgenstein's Chair
    ↪Olivier5
    I don't see how it lies outside the language sphere when language use is an instinctive behavior for humans. It stems from the fact that we use our brains to interpret sensory data, of which words as scribbles and sounds are a part. Interpreting a scribble on some computer screen really isn't much different from interpreting a flash of lightning.
  • The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    . I honestly see nothing wrong with a "conservative" judge if they are a good judge. — Philosophim

    Her wish was that she survive this presidency so that her replacement might be decided by a more liberal president — Hanover

    But there wasn't such a thing as conservatives or liberals at the founding. So liberal and conservative interpretations of constitutional law would be unconstitutional, no?

    Political factions aren't just dividing citizens but the Supreme Court as well.

    Ironic how the non-partisan first president, G. Washington, warned against the forming of political factions and the effects they have, like in the nominating of judges, their approval and then the decisions that they make. This is the primary reason the U.S. won't last much longer as founded.
  • Philosophy....Without certainty, what does probability even contribute?
    Surely I am as likely to exist as I am not to exist? — Tom343
    Sounds like certainty to me.
  • Wittgenstein's Chair
    But meaning is no more than a placeholder here. People mean something when they speak, and what they mean is what is spoken. You've said nothing about what meaning is. Less than helpful. — Banno
    Then what is meaning, and while you're at it, what is speaking? What's the difference between speaking and making noises or drawing scribbles? What if someone says something and then says, "I didn't mean to say that". Which sentence did they mean to say?

    Does the sound of thunder mean something? Was the sound of thunder used to mean something in the same way sounds from someone's mouth are used to mean something? If not, but the sound of thunder still means something, then meaning isn't use, rather it the relationship between cause and effect ‐ the sound of thunder or a spoken word, and what caused the thunder or word to be spoken.
  • Coherentism
    The problem is that some forms of reasoning allow for the existence of contradiction, as has been discussed on this thread. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Thats not a problem. People can discuss imaginary and untrue things and be oblivious to the fact that what they are discussing is imaginary and untrue. The problem is that by definition, contradictions result from a lack of reason/logic.
  • Coherentism
    Artificial reasoning may allow contradiction and inconsistency, — Metaphysician Undercover
    Contradiction and inconsistency is a lack of reason, not a different type of reason. Computers can't compute contradictions. The produce errors if they try.

    Contradictions can only manifest as a use of language - an improper use of language.
Home » Harry Hindu