If the fact that knowledge is transmitted through sound, vision, or tactile sensations makes it empirical, then non-empirical knowledge cannot exist. I do not subscribe to that kind of view. I prefer to use Kant's characterization of knowledge. — alcontali

Of course you do, because you keep avoiding this question:

Then what form do their, and your, thoughts take? How do you know you're thinking? — Harry Hindu

What form does "All bachelors are unmarried" take in your mind? How do you know that you're thinking it? Is it just hearing the words in your mind, seeing the words in your mind, or seeing images of bachelor's and married men? You seem to be saying that you were born knowing "All bachelors are unmarried".

I doubt that very much. This conception is so prevalent in the west we take it as part of human nature, but there's no reason to assume it's universal. — Xtrix

In psychology, particularly in studies of perception. It permeates the philosophy of language (Quine's "Word and Object"), cognitive sciences, etc. This way of talking about the "outside world" of objects and the "inner world" of thoughts, perceptions and emotions is literally everywhere. It'd be hard not to find examples. — Xtrix

If its everywhere, it universal. Objects appear in my visual field as an instinctive act - without any intent of objectifying anything. It isnt cultural. It is biological.

I'm not aware of any other culture that doesn't objectify something.

I can see why. But once you give him enough effort, it's very interesting. — Xtrix

I dont understand why people still resort to pointing to long-dead philosophers claims as if they'd say the same thing knowing what we know today. That's not interesting. What is interesting is that neuroscientists and biologists are beginning to make claims about consciousness where this used to be off limits.

It would incorrect to describe minerals or manufactured artefacts as 'beings' and if you described them as such, you'd be mistaken. They are ‘inanimate’ by definition. — Wayfarer

Why? Beings are made of inanimate matter. The only difference is the complexity with which some thing is affected by the environment and then reacts to the environment.

Double post

You physically can't keep putting 10 balls in a vase, while only removing one. It's an unrealistic thought experiment.
— Harry Hindu

Why is it unrealistic? — Devans99

I explained why. Pay attention. What vase would be large enough to keep putting in 10 balls while only removing one? The vase would have to be an infinite sized container, which makes no sense. How can something be both infinite and contain?

I don't believe everything came from nothing, I believe that something has permanent, atemporal existence and that something caused everything else — Devans99

If it has an atemporal existence then that is the same as saying that it doesn't exist. How does something cause everything else without being in time itself? How does it cause anything without changing itself? Even God has to exist in time if God changes. Change is time.

Stop avoiding the question.

Then what form do their, and your, thoughts take? How do you know you're thinking? — Harry Hindu

I already pointed out that blind people use braille to feel the words. The tactile sensations are empirical and are the input.

Your own objective truth' is an oxymoron — Wayfarer

I'm only reiterating what you seem to have said. You avoided answering my questions and cherry-picked my post, so you're not clarifying.

That is not sure at all. People who are blind and/or deaf, still think. Sensory input is not a requirement for thought — alcontali

Then what form do their, and your, thoughts take? How do you know you're thinking?

Obviously the output I was talking about is qualia. — Zelebg

Qualia is not output. It's the input.

Yes, and in that case it’s the other way around - mental or abstract existence of ideas is actual, while their representations can become physical. — Zelebg

I have no idea what this means.

Your links are imply that I should be looking these trends up in a dictionary. I'm contesting those definitions. Why don't you provide some good reasons for continuing to use these philosophically antiquated terms.

Its associated with sight. If thought reduces to linguistic use, then why do we say "I see" when we understand something? Why not "I hear."? Maybe language was originally mostly visual like sign language. — frank

It's is because we are visual creatures. Most of our information about the world is provided visually. Our visual field has more distinctions within it than our auditory, gustatory, olfactory and tactile fields do. We tend to think the world is at it looks, not as it sounds or smells. Dogs and dolphins will probably disagree.

“Computer without monitor” was a metaphor, and the point is that when we look at the brain we see input and processing, but not where or what the result and "output" is.

So again, to understand qualia and mental content, analogy between mind and computer is not complete until we discover a thing that is analogous to computer output, such as display screen, for example. — Zelebg

Of course we see the output. They are the nerve signals that get sent to the limbs to take action, or to the mouth to speak, etc. I did say that the output was our intent and actions.

Words refer to things, and that is exactly what the word “physical” and “mental” differentiate - actual things from their abstract representations.

Information carries no inherent meaning, it needs a context or decoding against or within which it can be understood or perceived. — Zelebg

Words can refer to imaginary things or illusions. Does "god" refer to something? I think you'll find a lot of disagreement about whether it does or not.

What do you mean by "physical" and "mental"?

Information is meaning. It is the relationship between causes and their effects. Effects carry information/meaning about their causes.

So? That does not mean that language can only be used to describe the physical universe. It can also be used to describe imaginary universes. You can use language to write science fiction. You can use language to describe an idea for something that does not exist yet. Your eyes never saw it. Your ears never heard it. — alcontali

Are you being purposely obtuse?

I'm not talking about what the words are about. I'm talking about the words themselves. You would never know about those imaginary universes if you didn't have eyes to see the scribbles in the paperback sci-fi novel, or ears to hear a reader read the scribbles.

Double post

Beyond the boundary is nothingness IMO. Nothing cannot be actually infinite because it is nothing. If it is other universes then they cannot be actually infinite because it would lead to the absurdities referenced in the OP. Or see here for another example of the absurdity of actual infinity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross–Littlewood_paradox — Devans99

You physically can't keep putting 10 balls in a vase, while only removing one. It's an unrealistic thought experiment.

I'm not talking about any type of container holding an infinite number of universes. It doesn't make sense to talk about some container with an infinite number of things. Maybe that is your problem.

If causation (space-time) isn't infinite, then you have to come up with an explanation as to how something came from nothing. I think that is a much more difficult problem to deal with than conceiving of infinity.

I'm just trying to phrase this in a way that will get through to you by using your own words. I.e., explaining that the very aspect you think is superfluous and repetitive is the key to understanding why it's actually saying something new. — Artemis

Then why form your reply as an argument rather than an agreement. If what you are saying is that we are saying the same thing differently, then just say so.

Yes, I agree that x=x is saying something new. It is saying it is redundant.

And if you're still stuck on how x is a symbol for anything and/or everything in both math and logic and can't move beyond that to see how its being applied here, I'm not sure the conversation can go anywhere. — Artemis

I asked you a question. I'm asking what you mean by just x. From there, I might be able to understand what you mean by x=x. If we're not talking about symbols, or meaning, then we're just talking about scribbles.

Objects are what is. Subjects are about what is.

It's the redundancy of x=x that tells us something about x explicitly that just x does not. — Artemis

You don't know what redundant means.

What are you saying when you say x? Are you just making a sound, or does the sound symbolize something that isn't you just making noises with your mouth?

One is saying x and the other is saying something about x — Artemis

Yes, saying something redundant about x.

X is a symbol and symbols are already about something. A symbol can't be about itself. Then its not a symbol, but the thing itself.

"Artemis" is a string of symbols that is about something that isn't a string of symbols. It is about what it is to be Artemis. "Name" is a string of symbols that is about the string of symbols, Artemis, not about what it is to be Artemis.

As I see it, the process of 'objectifying' is specific to the modern outlook. I am of the view that pre-moderns did not instinctively think of the world in the objective terms we now take for granted, because the world was seen in terms of an 'I - you' relationship rather than in terms of things or objects; the Universe was animated by spirit. I think that shift to the objective is a matter of historical conditioning or development of consciousness (a theme which I believe is explored in depth by Owen Barfield.)

This is why the use of the term 'objectivity' as the criterion for what is considered truly existent, is a characteristic of modern thought, generally (i.e. to determine whether something is real, we ask if it is 'objectively real'). To the extent that this sense of the 'I-you' relationship was eliminated, then what remains are individual subjects and individual objects of perception; a stance which would have appeared incoherent from the pre-modern p.o.v. (because, lacking in reason or cause.) — Wayfarer

Seems like you and everyone here in this thread is trying to argue for their own objective truth - informing readers how things truly are, and even how things were in your explanation of pre-moderns, for everyone. You're explaining how the world is independent of anyone's beliefs and perceptions.

If everything is subjective then why tell others how things are for you as if it would somehow apply to others?

When talking about pre-moderns are you talking about your history or the history of the world?

Of course, the whole point of materialist theories of mind is that subjects are simply the output of large numbers of objective processes which give rise to the illusion of subjective experience. In other words, denying that there is an essential distinction between objects and subjects, through reducing the latter to the former. But that is the sense in which materialism is de-humanising. — Wayfarer

The only options are de-humanization or anthropomorphism? Maybe it's something in between.

It would only be de-humanizing if you think humans are the only potential subjects. What about other apes, elephants, dolphins or pigs?

So the boundary is other universes. Time is relative change. Change in each universe is relative to the other, so time and space would encompass the multiverse, not just one universe. Then, your infinite collection would be universes.

Then make a better argument.

:up:

Yes, but what is computer without display screen? — Zelebg

A server.

A display screen is only one type of output that a computer can use. They can also produce sound, printing on paper, 3-D printing, tactile sensations in VR gloves, etc. As long as you have an electronic device processing information (input to output), you have a type of computer.

All the electrons moving around electronic components is like electrochemical signaling in our brains. Information without inherent meaning, something that needs to be decoded or integrated in some way, at some place where it all comes together to form subjective experience or qualia - that parallel to a computer screen which displays the mental content and at the same time perceives it, somehow. — Zelebg

Yes, but what is looking at the computer screen in your brain? This is the infinite regress of the homoculus in your head - the cartesian theater. There is no screen being looked at. There is only the working of your short-term memory. That is what consciousness is - this work getting done of processing information coming in through the senses and producing output with your intent and actions.

The problem with computers is that it is all mechanical actually, in a sense that in principle you could make a PC powered on water instead of electric current and replace electronic components with wooden contraptions to produce the same kind of computation. Imagining this computer makes it more obvious why many say it is impossible computation could ever explain mind phenomena such as subjective experience and mental content. — Zelebg

This is more along the lines of direct realism vs. indirect realism. Is it brains "out there", or minds? When I look at you, I see a physical body, not a subjective experience. When I look at myself, I don't just see a body. I experience a body. There is this "subjective experience" - my mind. Is the world like my mind, or like bodies (mental or physical)? Are brains just how minds simulate other minds? I don't like to say what idealists say, and say that everything is mind. Everything is mind-like, or of the same "substance" as mind. But to say that everything is mind, or conscious, would be anthropomorphic. I think a better term would be "information". Not physical or mental. Physical and mental is a false dichotomy that leads to dualism. Everything is information.

Language-only communication also uses visual representations but of text and symbols only. It is not considered empirical input. — alcontali

You're not reading my entire post. I asked how you learned and use language without using your eyes and ears. When you read instructions on how to assemble your new bicycle, you use your eyes and the instructions are the input and your actions in assembling the bicycle is the output.

Try reading the rest of my post (the input) with your eyes closed, and then reply (the output) with your eyes closed.


















Betelgeuse will go supernova in 2 years and obliterate the Earth.

You can't escape being both empirical and rational in using language or mathematics.

The point I am trying to make with the bananas is that there can be no actually infinite collections in reality because it leads to contradictions (that something can be changed and yet not change). — Devans99

There can be no infinite collections in reality because an infinite collection of something would leave no room for anything else in reality. The infinite collection would BE reality. Maybe reality is an infinite collection of space-time with finite amount of energy-matter.

I believe time, space, matter/energy are all finite and discrete. — Devans99

Are you saying that there is something beyond space and time? You're implying a boundary, but a boundary with what? Space and time are infinite. Energy/matter isn't.

They are different statements though. One is the statement of x, the other is describing something about x. It's the difference between saying dog and saying a dog is a dog. — Artemis

They're both saying the same thing. The latter sentence just says it twice. Redundant.

Why do you think it needs to show us something we don't know? This misunderstanding you have is why I brought in the biological connection. — Mac

Showing something that we already know is redundant. Redundant information is not useful.

Harry Hindu: Hello, I'm Harry. Who are you?

Mac: Hello, Harry. I'm Mac.

Harry Hindu: What is it like to be Mac?

Mac: It's like being like Mac.

Harry Hindu: What is Mac?

Mac: Mac is Mac

well we can argue what x consists of all year but x is still x — Mac

Like I said, that doesn't show us anything that we didn't already know. x = x is no different than just stating x.

I thought you were talking about bananas, not reality. You're moving the goalposts. Reality can be infinite, but if bananas were infinite is reality just bananas?

Sure, numbers can go on forever, but a row of bananas? Impossible. One is imaginary while the other isn't. You're confusing the two.

An infinite collection has no start and no end.

By visual procedures, I mean a procedure in which the use of circles, lines, triangles, polygons, graphs, and similar visual representations are essential. Nowadays, only the algebraic symbol manipulations are essential. Mathematics is now essentially language only. For example, you do not need to create any drawing to solve the roots of a quadratic equation. In fact, that was the first non-visual, language-only procedure that appeared in the Middle Ages, in the Liber Algebrae by Algorithmi. Nowadays, mathematics has completely algebraized, including geometry. — alcontali

:confused:
And algebraic symbols have curves and circles and lines. 6 + 0 = 6

You draw the symbols on paper, or repeat them with auditory symbols in your head. The spoken word, "six" is the same as the visual 6. How is it that we can represent the same idea with two different empirical forms?

In fact, that was the first non-visual, language-only procedure that appeared in the Middle Ages, in the Liber Algebrae by Algorithmi. Nowadays, mathematics has completely algebraized, including geometry. — alcontali

How did we learn that "the first non-visual, language-only procedure that appeared in the Middle Ages, in the Liber Algebrae by Algorithmi" if we didn't see it written out on paper? When I ask you for evidence for your claim, how would you show it?

You can represent language visually with written letters but you can also represent it verbally with sounds. You cannot do that with a line, triangle, circle, or polygon. In algebra, the visual aspect is not essential. — alcontali

Their canonical description is in language only; while language is not necessarily visual. Language also has an isomorphic auditory representation. Language is not considered an empirical input. — alcontali

I already pointed this out. Auditory forms are still empirical forms. Language and math take the form of visual or auditory symbols. How did you learn your native language without eyes and ears, or tactile sensations if you are blind? How do you use language without making sounds or visual scribbles?

It seems to me that you are saying that mathematics is done unconsciously. — Harry Hindu

Do you turn into a p-zombie when you perform mathematical calculations in your head?

We have two rows of identical bananas and each row stretches out to actual infinity. The two rows are lined up so that there is a one-to-one correspondence between them. According to Cantor, the two sets of bananas are therefore identical sets.

We add one banana at the start of the second set and then shift all the bananas right one place so they are lined up again - they are in one-to-one correspondence again - so Cantor would claim they are identical sets.

We then remove every second banana from the second set and then shift all the bananas in the second set to the left so they are lined up with the first set again. Again they are in a one-to-one correspondence - so Cantor would claim they are still identical sets. — Devans99

This is another one of those philosophical "problems" that is a misuse of terms.

How does one add a banana at the beginning of a row of infinite bananas? There is no beginning, and therefore no second banana, in a infinite row of bananas. There is no beginning or end with infinity. You're simply misusing terms.

Well, in Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant pointed out the existence of a type of knowledge that is not empirical. It is synthetic a priori. At the same time, he rejected classical Greek geometry as NOT being synthetic a priori, because it is highly visual, as it is an exercise in fiddling with visual puzzles. — alcontali

We are visual creatures. We think in mostly visual forms. Our thoughts have form and those forms are the same as all of the sensory impressions we are capable experiencing. Mathematics is just different puzzles using different visual scribbles.

In the meanwhile, mathematics has changed. It has migrated from visual fiddling to pure symbol manipulation. Nowadays, its essence is language only. We no longer follow visual procedures in mathematics. — alcontali

It hasn't changed. Languages are visual scribbles and sounds. If the procedures you follow aren't visual, then how do you know you're following a procedure? What form does your mathematical procedure take? How would you describe the experience of performing a mathematical procedure? In describing it you will be using visual scribbles on a screen to reference the visuals in your head. If you say the experience is more like talking it out - talking to yourself in your mind, then it is taking an auditory form rather than a visual form. It seems to me that you are saying that mathematics is done unconsciously.

Therefore, I disagree with relying on empiricism in mathematics. The progress in mathematics in the last few centuries has only been possible by removing its dependence on visual input. Mathematics has now finally become pure reason only. — alcontali

I don't know what pure reason is unless it takes some form for me to know that I am engaged in pure reasoning. How do you know that you are engaged in pure reason as opposed to relying on empiricism if they both don't appear differently to you in your mind - visually.

Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.[1][2][3][4] — Wikipedia on abstraction in mathematics

What form do these underlying structures, patterns, properties, phenomena take? Structure, pattern, phenomena and properties are all visual terms.

Secondly, quite a bit of mathematics does not have a real-world origin. For example, where in nature can you find something like look-ahead left-right parsers? Where in nature can you find Turing machines? Von Neumann machines?

These things are abstraction only. They started studying them in mathematics because these at first imaginary devices were potentially useful for computing. If they had limited themselves to what is readily visible in the surrounding universe, we would simply never have had computers. Nature does not have them to begin with. — alcontali

Well, I don't see humans, or their inventions, as being separate from nature. So abstractions are natural products of our minds and our minds are products of natural selection (evolutionary psychology and computational theory of mind). Our minds are the software and our bodies are the hardware. The computer is the best analogy for the mind that we've had in our history of thinking about the mind and its relationship with the world.

Well, for example, even C/C++ header files contain mostly definitions that are not even meant to ever execute. For example, what is chromium/base/barrier_closure.h supposed to do? Even the source code of something like a web browser such as Google Chrome contains seemingly absurd abstractions that are concept heavy while being low on actual code to execute. In other words, it is not even meant to do anything. It just structures things in one way or another ... — alcontali

Definitions are not executed. Functions are executed and reference those definitions. No programmer would put code that isn't used somewhere in the program as code takes up memory. It would be a waste of memory space and programmers try their best to streamline their code so that it runs efficiently and isn't a memory hog. Any other "code" that isn't executed would be remarks for us humans to be able to understand what the code is used for.

Right, so x wouldn't be your name in this case. X would be your physical self and your name would just be one of the combined variables. You = human + English speaker + named Mac + x + y + etc.,

If I meet a person who claims to be a Martian Priestess of Barsoom, the PC thing to do would be to welcome the priestess to our little pale blue dot, without criticizing her idiotic illusion. But, if we get into a philosophical discussion of Barsoomian theology --- which involves a trinity of genders --- a frank, but respectful, critique might be appropriate — Gnomon

If my beliefs contradict yours, who determines whose belief deserves to be protected? I've been called things that I'm not and I dont try to take away their right to call me that. One of the symptoms of a delusion is that you are deeply offended by those that question your delusion.

Political correctness in a society with free speech would entail protecting everyone's right to speak freely. Limiting free speech in a free speech society would be politically incorrect.

As I said above, it's a social construct. I mean you can use it interchangeably with biological sex in a loose way. But if you're talking about anything of importance, it's best to keep the terms separate for clarity. That's another way of saying I go along with the standard dictionary definition:

"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female." — Baden

Seems to me that this definition is saying that gender is a property of a culture, not a body. So to change your gender would require you to change your culture, not your clothes or your body.

A social construction is a shared assumption - meaning that it is something that people of the same culture would agree on. If someone comes along and doesn't share that assumption, then what they are talking about isn't a social construction, but an individual feeling or notion.

The assumption isn't that wearing a dress makes you a woman. The assumption is that females are females no matter what they wear, but in order for us to distinguish males from females, females should wear different clothes than a man. When we have a social construction about wearing clothes in public, where we can't observe each other's junk, then we need another social construction where men and women need to wear different types of clothes to be able to distinguish them apart for mating purposes.

Biological science does indeed assume two fundamental genders. But it also has found genes that don't fit neatly into the simple binary assumption. Besides, Social science has documented a wide range of cultural attitudes toward gender roles. And the science of Ethology has found that the boundaries of animal gender roles are flexible. Moreover, academic Ethical studies of animal behavior have applied human political values to non-humans, with the usual room for savage debates. — Gnomon

Sure, there are genes that have nothing to do with sex, because our sex is only part of what it means to be an sexual organism vs. an asexual organism. Other animals have vaginas and penises, so having a vagina or penis isn't what makes you a human. What makes you a human is being bipedal, having opposable thumbs and a large brain. This means that human's behaviors can vary widely - independent of one's sex. Humans can wear any different types of clothes. There is nothing the physically inhibits a woman from wearing pants. There is a physical limitation of being able to urinate while standing up without getting urine all over your legs. There is a physical limitation that inhibits men from have a menstrual cycle and giving birth. So there are a small number of behaviors that are restricted to just men or women, while all the other behaviors is what it means to be a human instead of just a female or male of the human species.

This is why it is sexist to impose these limitations on the sexes - because they aren't actual physical limitations. They are cultural/psychological limitations. It is sexist to say that women can't wear pants because there is nothing that physically limits a woman from wearing pants. And when a man comes along and says that wearing a dress is what makes them a woman, then that reinforces those sexist notions. A man can still be a man and wear a dress and a woman is still a woman when she wears pants.

For most practical purposes, I assume that the human essence is either male or female. But when politics and human rights get involved, I must be more flexible to be fair. Is TV host/hostess Ellen male or female? I can only say that she/he is whatever she/he says she/he is. Whew! Political correctness is confusing for us simple-minded folks. — Gnomon

Male and female are only a fraction of what it means to be a human. If that weren't the case, then all sexual species would qualify as human. As I said, humans have features that aren't sexual that distinguish them from other species.

When we have instances where humans claim that they are something that they aren't, like an alien, the reincarnation of Elvis Presley, or your son, and the reasons that they aren't what they say they are is their morphology and the behaviors that go along with that morphology, then why do we make an exception for one's sex?

Here's a question for you. In H2, suppose that Alice later discovers that Bob was hosing the window with water. Thus she now knows that it wasn't raining earlier.

Did Alice know that it was raining at the earlier time? — Andrew M

How does she know it wasn't raining while Bob was hosing the window? Bob hosing the window isn't justification for it not to have rained earlier.

This goes back to what I said about making objective observations. You seem to be saying that we check our knowledge when we get outside of the thing we are talking about. So, if we know that to really know whether or not is raining is to go outside and look, then looking out the window isn't proper justification for knowing it is raining. If this is the case, then no, Alice didn't know it was, or wasn't raining, because she didn't have proper justification. If all she needs is justification, then yes, Alice knew it was raining and now she knows something different - that it wasn't.

If you want to bring up the possibility of Alice hallucinating while outside, how do you retroactively show she is hallucinating - by asking someone else? How do we know that they aren't hallucinating, or lying? If all you can have are justifications and truth is something elusive, then it stands that the only requirement for knowledge is justification. No one can ever know if Alice used the term, "know" correctly, if truth is a requirement for its correct usage, which is the same as saying it isn't a requirement at all.

You are pretty much correct but why is x=x a problem? Sure x = a number of combined variables. But that also means that x is a particular thing. And no other thing is that particular thing so in making this distinction we must also accept that x is unique; x is itself. — Mac

Sure. X is your name. But then what if someone else is named Mac? The differences between the two Macs is their differing combined variables, not their names. Which Mac are we talking about? The one with X, Y and Z as opposed to X, Y, and B. What makes you unique isn't your name, it is your combined variables.

My biggest question to you is "why should x=x be something you don't already know?" That's the point. I brought biology into the conversation because of its relevance to corresponding mathematical models. x=x is obvious to us because we evolved for it to be. Otherwise we would not have survived in the same way. — Mac

If I know x, or if I know your name is Mac, then why would I need to know x, or your name again? I need to know what x, or Mac, entails to know what is unique about x, or Mac.