Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary.

Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition.

Iterate.

Given that there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, the process will eventually lead to repetition.

If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular.

There must, therefore, be a way of understanding a word that is not given by providing its definition.

Now this seems quite obvious; and yet so many begin their discussion with "let's first define our terms". — Banno

In kindergarten the teacher doesn't use definitions made up of other words. The teacher uses definitions made of pictures. So it's not circular if words refer to visuals, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings. After all, words are merely visual scribbles and sounds themselves that refer to other types of visuals, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings, or an amalgam of all of these. Words refer to things that aren't words. Can your thoughts take any other form other than visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory and tactile sensory impressions? In thinking what a word means, are you not having some sort of visual or auditory experience - in relating some scribble with some color as in "red" means some color?

What does it mean to understand a word? If you asked me what a word means and I don't use a dictionary, rather I use gestures (what does "clapping" mean?) and facial expressions (what does "sad" mean?), will that show you what a word means without using other words?

To understand any word, don't you have to know that they are something that you can look up in dictionaries?

The universe isn't divided into a macro and micro dimensions. The macro and micro are actually different views of the same thing. Consciousness is what divides the world into views - the macro and micro. So by explaining consciousness, we can explain why there appears to be a divide when there actually isn't. The divide is more of a product of consciousness than what consciousness is viewing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/coming-to-grips-with-the-implications-of-quantum-mechanics/

What space does my mortgage occupy? — Banno

You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it?

So does the mind take up space or not? — Sir2u

Yes.

So does the data take up space or not? — Sir2u

Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.

If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, please tell me how you define space. — Sir2u

Well, I tried to get on with that by asking you this, but you seemed to want to ignore the question.

If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them? — Harry Hindu

Space is the medium that separate minds and the more complex some pattern is within some amount of space, the more information within that space.

Let me ask you this:
Do the things in your mind take up mental space? For instance there is only so much that you can think of at one moment, yet you know more than what you are presently thinking. You possess long-term memory and short-term (working) memory. Long-term has more space than working memory as you can hold more information in long-term than in working memory. Where is the information in your long-term memory stored? Where is the information in your working memory stored?

A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer. — Sir2u

This is because the data on the disk is just a different arrangement of magnetic patterns than a blank disk. Your disk may have more information stored on it than mine does but that doesn't mean that your drive takes up more space than mine. It means that your disk has more patterns than mine does, but we are both limited by the same amount of storage space if we both have the same sized drive.

The complexity of our neural network indicates how much information we have stored in our brain, but brains are more or less the same size.

A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space.

My computer memory does not overlap with yours, but I cannot prove that they occupy a space either. — Sir2u

Does a computer occupy space? If so, then why wouldn't the memory inside it also occupy space? The amount of memory that you can install in a computer is limited by the amount of space inside the computer.

Does a person's body occupy space? Does a human body possess memory? Is seems to me that more information would occupy more space than less information.

If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that. — Sir2u

If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them?

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind? — Daniel

If consciousness is related to a type of working memory, then you could say that the finite information in working memory occupies memory space.

If there are other minds then it seems to be necessarily so that each mind occupies its own space. My mind does not overlap your mind or else how could we say that our minds are separate?

This doesn't mean consciousness has some magic pan-universe powers. It's only a tool we are using. — Olivier5

I didn't say or even imply that. Consciousness is a local interaction, not magical and not universal.

But if you look superficially at the compound symbol "2+2" and the singular symbol "4" as ink squiggles on paper, they clearly are not the same. — jgill

It seems to me that 2+2 says more than just 4. It says how you can get 4 from starting with 2.

For instance, if you substract a positive number from a larger positive number, you get a positive number. There is no proof for this, despite it ensuing from mathematical axioms. No proof, but then again, nobody can find a counter-example for it, either. — god must be atheist

The rules of math were designed by human beings, so don't we design the proof and the truth if we are the designers of the system? What is the proof and truth of how to spell the word, "cat"? Humans didn't design the universe therefore truth and proof of some state of the universe will be difficult to come by however humans did design the means to represent and communicate our experiences of the universe, so any truth or proof would be inherent in the rules we've dictated.

It seems to me that none of the five senses are required to make us aware of our minds. — EnPassant

Then by what means are you aware of your mind? What does it mean to say that you are aware of your mind? What is the relationship between you and your mind? Thinking takes the same form that your senses provide. To say that you are thinking about your trip to the lake means that a visual, auditory and tactile image of the trip to the lake takes form in your mind. If the world is an illusion, then so is thinking.

What would be the nature of Descartes demon? Is the demon not part of the world that is doubted to exist? Does not Descartes doubt the cause of his own doubt away?

It's not the senses that should be doubted. They work just as they were designed to work. It is our interpretation that should be doubted. Mirages don't go away when we realize what they are. They still persist. It's just that we now have a proper interpretation for why they exist and what causes them, to where it is predictable - it no longer is an illusion, but what is expected to happen thanks to the nature of light and how it interacts with our eyes.

The so-called observer effect or problem in QM has nothing specifically to do with the idea that the microphysical is indeterministic, other than the fact that both ideas occur in QM. — Janus

Sure it does. It explains how observations impact the outcomes of the microphysical (ie collapsing the wave function).

Why consciouness, of all things? — Olivier5

Because we are talking about consciousness when talking about making observations and measurements.

1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.

2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

I'm focusing my attention on 2, but do include 1 in this, specifically the part where it says "perceived through the senses" and we know the senses are unreliable (think hallucinations) and can be deceived; if so, the physical could be an illusion. — TheMadFool

1. Isn't the mind part of the body, or are you saying that your body is an illusion? If so, then what is the cause of your pain when you experience it?

2. Other minds are perceived through the senses, therefore other minds are part of the illusion and all you are left with is solipsism.

Is the following argument better?

1. All physical things are things perceived through the senses

2. All things perceived through the senses are things that could be illusions — TheMadFool

By what means are you aware of your own mind if not by sensing it? What does "perceived" mean? In what manner are you aware of your thinking? What form does thinking and perceiving take to say that you perceive your mind?

I wasnt claiming anything at all. I was asking you and Kenosha if the observer effect has more to do with how observations/consciousness behaves rather than how quantum particles behave when being observed.

The observer effect is a theory of QM. I find the fact that you are now thinking QM theories are incredulous when you have been promoting QM as a means of discrediting determinism, yet you think that observing, thinking entities can emerge from uncaused processes to observe causation, by chance..

See my reply to hwyl above. If there's some kind of deception going on, it follows there's something that's being deceived and that's the thinking part. The skepticism is universal but the thing is to be skeptical implies the existence of a skeptic. — TheMadFool

What does this have to do with the material vs. Immaterial distinction? I asked what the difference was between them. You can claim to be a doubter, but what makes doubting immaterial and the world material? I wasn't asking if thinking exists or doesn't. I was asking what makes something immaterial which you claim makes material things nonexistent. If you are a doubter, then why not doubt that the mind is immaterial - whatever that means? Why couldn't I just say that the mind is material and therefore material things exist and the immaterial world doesn't exist, because you haven't defined what it means to be immaterial or material.

The point is simple: materalism is reportedly a position of skepticism, skepticism of things belonging to the category of the immaterial and the like. — TheMadFool

What is the difference between material and immaterial? If you're willing to be skeptical of how the world is vs how it appears, then why aren't you skeptical of how the mind is vs how it appears? You're inconsistently applying your skepticism. What makes Descartes believe that his demon could only be fooling him about the nature of the world and not also his mind? And then what is the nature of the demon itself?

That the macro world seems deterministic to us is, according to QM, most likely because countless stochastic micro-physical processes by purely chance statistically add up to seem deterministic and are thus predictable. — Janus

I don't understand how countless stochastic micro-physical processes could produce an entity in the macro world which perceives a world that is inherently stochastic, as non-stochastic, by chance. It requires mental gymnastics that my mind isn't capable of performing.

But there is a charge-parity-time symmetry in the universe that is obeyed in this phenomenon: a spin-down positron is just a spin-up electron moving backwards in time. — Kenosha Kid

This is a strange concept. How does some part of the universe move backwards in time while another part moves forward? I thought time was really just a change, and that change relative so some other change is how we measure change/time. So any change some positron undertakes is always a move forward in time. How can something in the universe change "backward" while the rest of the universe is changing "forwards", or is this concept of time inaccurate, or inapplicable in QM?


,,
Also, about the "observer effect", when observing the behavior of electrons and protons, how do we know that the changes we observe are actually changes in the states of what we are looking at rather than something more to do with how consciousness works and perceives/measures quantum-sized processes? It seems to me that if observing these tiny processes changes them, rather than the change we perceive has more to do with how our minds perceive and model quantum processes, then the old model of explaining vision as shooting beams from your eyes to see would more accurate. Either that or these quantum processes "know" when they are being looked at, which seems to indicate some sort of panpsychism.

Descartes proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt in my humble opinion, that the physical could be an illusion, unreal but, the mind, for certain, is not. Cartesian skepticism undermines materialism by showing the reality of the physical can be questioned but you couldn't doubt the existence of the mind.

In conclusion, we can be certain of only one thing - the existence of minds - and we can always doubt the reality of the physical world, materialism. — TheMadFool

If so, then the question becomes, Why is the physical world an illusion? If the external world isn't real, then why does it appear to be a physical world?

Other minds are only known by perceiving physical bodies. So other minds in this physical world would be part of the "illusion". There would only be your mind - solipsism. That is essentially all Descartes' extreme skepticism "proves".

,
I just thought of something. Let's go back to this:

Then we aren't talking about knowing red, rather we are talking about knowing what it is like for Harry to see red
— Harry Hindu
Correct. — InPitzotl

If its possible that every one of us could experience a different color when looking at the same thing, then the scribble, "red", doesn't refer to an actual color, rather it refers the the experience an individual has of some color when looking at something. So, what would it mean for Mary to understand "red", if not that she understands that it is merely a scribble that refers to a particular experience, not a particular color, when looking at a certain object.

In this sense, apples are actually red, or wavelengths are red, in that particular wavelengths give rise to a particular experience that is consistent. So when we refer to red wavelengths, we aren't referring to a color, rather a common cause for our experiences.

Sure we could come up with better explanations, but no matter how good any explanation is it could never prove "rigidly" or absolutely deterministic causation, even in regard to the "macro'. — Janus

What would proof of determinism or indeterminism look like? It seems to me that if the latter were true, our posts wouldn't continue to exist in the original state long enough to have a conversation, much less be able to make any predictions, except by luck and our success rate using the theories we have is much higher than 50% - that smart phones wouldn't work so well for so many. If indeterminism were true, why would we ever have any evidence for determinism?

It seems to me that if the former were true then we can have meaningful conversations, predict events whose success depends on our level of understanding of the event in question. You have to acknowledge the fact that understanding and ignorance seem to go hand in hand with determinism and randomness - and that the understanding of some event can be carried over to similar events, not dissimilar events. So, while we may not be able to prove determinism, we seem to have a good amount of evidence for it. If indeterminism were true, what use is an explanation? It seems to me that determinism can be true and we can also be ignorant, which would look like what we have now - predictable patterns that we have to learn before being able to predict, and that ignorance of some pattern can make the pattern appear unpredictable, or random.

How would that would work? Take the example of radioactive decay; when the particle is emitted either it is uncaused or it is the result of something else acting on it to make it happen. If something else acts on it to make it happen, are you suggesting that "something else" could be acted upon by the radioactive particle itself in order to make the unknown agent in turn act upon the particle? — Janus

Sure, ever heard of the observer effect? And it doesn't have to be that simple of a loop. There could be other processes involved that make it more complex where there is more than the radioactive decay and a "something else" involved.

Biologists tell us about the color experiences of cats and dogs, why not humans?

Both alleles and environmental differences exist in the human genome and human development; both in general, and in relation to known traits involving the visual system (e.g., there are alleles of genes that express the precise chemistry of your cone opsins; and vast differences in the distribution of cones between eyeballs); so it's dubious to just a priori speculate that there's no variance in the visual system elsewhere (in this particular case, in factors related to how color winds up getting experienced). — InPitzotl

Perfect. Then we can know about color experiences given that we know how alleles of genes that express the precise chemistry of your cone opsins; and vast differences in the distribution of cones between eyeballs.

That argument isn't compelling. Being of the same species suggests tons of similarities, and we do have those... we generally tend to have opposable thumbs, walk upright, sweat, etc. But there are also a lot of differences that we have; different eye colors, body types, hair types, etc. — InPitzotl

Sure, thanks to differences in genes. What differences in genes would we point to that makes us experience different colors when looking at the same thing?

We cannot examine microphysical processes such as to be able to decide if they are truly uncaused or not. The consensus among the experts seems to be that they are uncaused. — Janus

But the microphysical is really the same reality as the macrophysical, just from a different view, and the macrophysical is deterministic and includes humans and their thoughts, beliefs and views. So, as I've been saying, I think that a proper explanation of consciousness could help to unify the different views into a consistent whole. We are missing crucial information to make sense of these contradictory views.

We could never know whether we had arrived at the "first cause", and if we had it, logically, would have to be uncaused in any case. — Janus

Or that there is a causal loop. Think about the causal relationship between predators and prey.

We go by evidence. Say, findings like planetary orbits, quantumatics, ..., whatever. The world doesn't care about our metaphysics or whatever we think. Rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts. — jorndoe

So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no?

A and B conflict. If we define h-red to be the experience you have when you look at a red crayon, then this category would be completely useless... only Harry Hindu could relate to it. — InPitzotl

That's closer to being right, but note that this isn't an "experience" versus "wavelength" argument at this point, given we've introduced new entities with properties to consider (like "eyes"). — InPitzotl

Then we aren't talking about knowing red, rather we are talking about knowing what it is like for Harry to see red - Harry's red vs. A Raybould's red. What use would knowing how each of us experiences colors separate from knowing how light interacts with our eye-brain system individually?

I should say that I don't believe that we each experience different colors when looking at the same thing. We are related - members of the same species that evolved from prior species with eyes and brains, therefore we should experience things similarly.

But reinterpretation of a symbol is just the first step of destroying it. — Number2018

No, you're destroying what it means, not the symbol itself. People are destroying symbols rather than what it means, as if that symbol could only mean racism, yet they contradict themselves when the use a raciat symbol (the n-word) in a way that isn't racist. Its typical of politics - contradicting oneself.

like I said you have billions of children all getting what is said and learn the words for the colors they experience. So, what exactly is the problem?

Your inverted spectrum would still be consistent, where your blue equals my red, and you always experience blue when I experience red, then that says something consistent about the objects in question, that they reflect the same wavelength of light. We both would share this idea that the wavelenghts are the same for each of us even if the color we experience may be different, but that isn't saying anything about the object rather it is saying something about us as different individuals with different eyes and brains that interpret the wavelength that enters our eyes. It's no different than learning a different language's word for red. We would both be using a different word referring to the same thing just as we would use different colors to refer to the same thing.

The same way your kindergarden teacher showed you - by showing an object or picture that is red. In showing a variety of different objects, none of which have anything in commom except their color, you should be able to realize what I'm referring to when I use the same sound when showing you all the different objects.

It's strange that pre-school kids understsnd what is being said, but adults and philosophers with degrees don't?

This giant statue on top Gellért-hegy in Budapest was a Soviet icon representing the close alliance of Hungary and the USSR. After the Soviets abandoned Hungary thirty years ago there were pleas to tear it down, as it represented oppression by a foreign power. However, cooler heads prevailed and instead of removing it, it was reinterpreted as "Goodbye to Russia!". It remains a beautiful tourist attraction. — jgill

Exactly. Kind of reminds me of how the n-word has been reinterpreted as something that is racism to something that isn't. If we're tearing down racist symbols then why aren't we abandoning the use of the n-word? If we can reinterpret a symbol, then why not reinterpret those statues being torn down as a history lesson rather than a racist symbol?

There is also the problem of defining, "red". Red only exists as an experience, and not outside of an experience. Wavelengths of light arent red, but the experience of certain wavelengths is red. Red only exists in the mind, therefore knowing everything about red entails knowing an experience or how it is experienced, and the use of the term, "physical" is meaningless because the causal relationship between light and your eye-brain system is no different than the causal relationship between your observations and your beliefs. There is no meaningful distinction between the mental and physical when they both interact causally.

Can't we have both? Some things are deterministic, some aren't. — jorndoe

This is basically dualism and all the problems it brings, like how deterministic and indeterministic things interact - deterministically or indeterministically?

You are asserting that determinism is the case. I am not asserting that it is not the case, but that we have no way of knowing either way — Janus

Because you failed to explain consciousness and measurements properly, both of which are a causal processes.

What determines that we cant know either way?

But Mary doesn't know what it's like to be a brain seeing red, in the first person, until she has been a brain seeing red. — Pfhorrest

Then the problem isnt a lack of knowledge about red, but about brains seeing red. And knowing everything physical includes knowing what it looks like. It's an assumption that seeing red isn't a physical causal process.

Divergences would be expected to be within, not beyond, global constraints such as gravity. — Janus

Gravity is part of the system we are talking about, not beyond it. And there are theories of quantum gravity, which seems to indicate that there is randomness in the force and possibly the direction of gravity, so why do we see the the balls in the box fall into predictable patterns at the bottom rather than fill all corners and sides of the box?

On the macro scale things proceed more or less as we expect. Water always seems to erode the land, for example, but we have no way of knowing what effect random quantum events might have on the precise courses of erosion. — Janus

You seem to be confusing you not knowing something is the case with indeterminism.

It is a groundless assumption that, given exactly the same initial conditions, a flow of water would produce exactly the same erosion patterns, down to the micro-physical level, over and over again if we were able to "rerun" it. I say it is groundless because there is no possible way to confirm it. — Janus

It is just as groundless to say that it wouldn't happen the same again, so you need to come up with a better argument that doesn't focus on using our ignorance as evidence that indeterminism is true.

Might be more accurate to say that evidence suggests nondeterminism? — jorndoe

Sure, and we also have evidence that suggests determinism. How do we determine which is the case.

The world is one; it's not neatly divided into micro and macro scales. E.g. radioactivity, a quantic phenomenon, is an important cause of genetic mutations, which are an important driver of evolution. — Olivier5

Exactly. Hence my point that QM and classical physics need to be unified - kind of like how genetics and the theory of evolution by natural selection are unified micro and macro theories that support each other, not contradict each other like QM and classic physics. The glue to unify them, IMO, would be a proper theory of consciousness.

ever had an experience of any of the balls falling up, or out through the glass? Why do the balls fall only down?

You'd think that, all those

tiny divergences from initial conditions will add up over time to great divergences. — Janus

And you'd observe the behavior of the balls greatly diverging.

Yes, but even aside from the measurement problem if quantum events are uncaused, then tiny divergences from initial conditions will add up over time to great divergences. What evidence can you adduce that no quantum events are uncaused? The only evidence I think is available to you to call upon is expert opinion and the expert consensus is that (at least some) quantum events are uncaused. — Janus

The expert consensus is also that QM and classical mechanics appear to contradict each other but they both work. The consensus also includes a need to unify both theories, or at least explain why one is so useful and incorrect, while the other is correct. I think that the unifying theory lies in explaining consciousness, as consciousness is a kind of measurement.

What effects do uncaused quantum events have on the macro-scale world? You'd think that all those "tiny divergences from initial conditions will add up over time to great divergences" would be observable at the macro scale, but what we observe is consistent - similar causes lead to similar events.

And we have experiences where we are ignorant of the causes - where it appears that there isn't a cause, but there is. You need to account for those kinds of experiences and the fact that it shows that uncaused appearances can be deceiving.

The salient point is that determinism is not found in classical physics but assumed — Banno

Them indeterminism is not found in QM, but assumed. And you seem to be agreeing that certain observations cause you to assume certain ideas.

Simplest interpretation is that he doesn't understand a measurement's being accurate to within a certain error. Now that's Lesson 1 in physics. Same seems to be true of his use of "determinism", vacillating between cause and ascertain... the result was determined (caused) as against the result was determined (ascertained). — Banno

I fail to see how a digital system used to measure an analog reality indicates that reality is indeterministic. It seems that what you are saying is what is indeterministic is our measurements, not reality. With that, I would agree. Measurements are like views, which could explain some of the results of the double-slit experiment. Taking measurements or views alters the effects. That doesn't mean that indeterminism is true, it means that our existence as observers and our measuring devices plays a causal role in the very events we are observing and measuring. Solving the mind-body problem I believe will provide the necessary link between classical mechanics and QM - between the macro and the nano, and unite them.