Maybe so, but not mentioning the omission... — tim wood

...and neither has anyone else in this thread except yourself. Its a red herring. You're off-topic.

You also adduce that people have a right to suicide. People can commit suicide. Whether they have a right to is also arguable. The problem is that you state it as a fact. it isn't. — tim wood

So people don't have a right to choose their own path for their life? So people wouldn't find other ways to commit suicide? Give me a break, dude. You're not worth my time.

You are blaming the problem with guns on drugs and gangs. You are wrong. The problem is mentally ill children are getting their hands on guns too easily. This hasn't happened once or twice, this happens all the time. Instead of pulling it back to drugs and gangs can you please address what you think we should do to prevent school shootings? Or any mass shootings because unless you can give me a reasonable statistic that backs your claim, you're on your own. Facts, need facts... — David Solman

As I said, I already addressed the mental illness issue. The fact is that you are engaging in selective outrage. What about the uncountable number of children killed on the streets in the crossfire between rival gangs and drug dealers? You don't seem to care about them at all. The vast majority of gun deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. I have also shown that the relationship between other developed countries and their lack of gun violence isn't their gun laws, rather its their drug laws.

School shootings are a small fraction of the gun related deaths and it requires a different solution. It requires that the FBI actually follow through with the information given to them by people who havd reported someone with violent tendencies and has threatened to shoot up a school. It also requires that psychiatrists and psychologists report their patients to the authorities if they show that they are danger to themselves and others.

Another thing we can do is place armed guards at schools. People seem to think it is okay to have armed guards in banks guarding stacks of paper. Why would we have a problem having armed guards protecting our children?

"Real", "existent" and "is" are metaphysically undefined. — Michael Ossipoff

What is the difference between being metaphysically defined and just being defined?

I see real, existent, and is, as synonyms.

dude the reason we are hear is to discuss the problem with guns and mentally ill kids getting hold of guns easily. so the law needs to change to make it less accessible. The reason the laws don't change is because of Trump and the rest of the government saying the same thing as you. The reason it doesn't change is because this gets blamed on gangs and drugs every time, even if it was a child that everyone thought was a good kid — David Solman

Wrong. Trump and the rest of the govt. are not saying the same thing as me. I have proposed that legalizing, or at least de-criminalizing drugs, is a means of making a drastic cut in the number of homicides where guns are involved. I already addressed the mental health issue in my first post in this thread.

It's suicide. Just search "gun deaths in America." You'll come up with lots of information along the same lines. — tim wood

I didn't include suicide for good reason. People have the right to choose to live their lives or end it. They do not have the right to end other people's lives and that is what we have been discussing in this thread. When the gun control debate centers around preventing violent crime I don't see suicide as being the correct place for that discussion.

These gun control debates always crop up after mass shootings and that is the context and the problem we are trying to address here (which includes all homicides, not suicides). Being that mass shootings are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths, maybe you should have brought this up earlier in the thread for everyone to show that they are engaging in selective outrage, not just me - just to create a red herring against my argument. The fact that you brought it up only now, and in an attempt to undermine only my argument shows that you aren't being honest or consistent.



The problem with most people in this thread is that they are reacting emotionally to this topic, and emotions cloud your logic - hence all the logical fallacies cropping up in this thread.

School shootings are the reason for the rise in debate on gun laws once again and they are something that's becoming far too regular. Show me the statistic that says that most or any school shootings are drug or gang related. Blaming Americas gun violence on gangs and drugs just seems like a generic excuse for keeping the law the same. the reason we are all here is because school shootings challenge the gun laws the most, because kids are getting hold of guns somehow and using them to shoot and kill kids at their school. you cant change the reason we are here and start using the gang card. not only is it painfully naive but also racist. — David Solman

This is ridiculous. I never said that school shootings are drug-related. I said that most shooting are related to drugs and gangs. So you want to engage in selective outrage, or general outrage?

I already covered this above. We DO outlaw the use of certain types of cars on the road that are particularly dangerous and for which there is no persuasive reason to allow people to drive them. And they are outlawed FOR EVERYONE. The examples given were racing cars and monster trucks.

So where is the consistency in your opposing the outlawing of private ownership of the gun equivalents of these - military-style assault rifles, of the kind used in this massacre and the last few before that? — andrewk

Race cars and monster trucks aren't banned completely. You can still own them, just not drive them on the road.

The comparison with guns would be that you can own these guns, just not use them in schools, or in the mall or movie theaters. So you're argument is a red herring.

Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....) — tim wood

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/index-en.aspx

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/bates-gun-violence-drug-policy/index.html

http://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459

Where are your stats?

What is it about the United States that makes it closer to non-developed countries than to developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides? — Michael

Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. What are the drug laws of other developed countries?

Research has been shared in this thread that an increase of 1% in guns results in an increase of .9% in gun related deaths. The number of guns has a clear effect. So I'm not sure which logic you're using or which facts. — Benkei

Is the increase of .9% true for all countries? If so, then why not compare all countries instead of making exceptions for developed ones?

The facts I am using that contradict the research shared earlier in the thread are the ones I posted in the links I provided. The fact is that there are countries with more control over guns that have higher rates of gun violence than the U.S. I said that already.

I also mentioned that most gun related deaths are drug and gang related. Maybe we should be looking at our drug laws as the culprit for the amount of deaths that occur by people using guns. What are the drug laws in the developed countries?

There are nations with strict gun laws that have a higher rate of gun violence than nations without. There are also nations with strict gun laws that have a lower rate of gun violence than nations without.

Logically, it can't be the control of guns that influences the rate of deaths by gun violence. That is what seems obvious to me, yet Banno seems to think it is okay to berate others for not noticing the "facts".

The higher rate of gun violence occurs in South American and Carribean countries - countries known for their drug problem. Maybe we should look at the relationship between gun violence and drug laws. I would argue that most gun death in the U.S. are drug-related.

So, if we were to legalize drugs, or make stricter laws, does that have an effect on gun violence?

No, but we require somebody to have a licence to drive a car, and we take it away if they are caught driving while intoxicated, or if they are judged mentally unfit to drive. Why then does the US set a lower standard of care for controlling who can use a gun than for who can use a car?

We also register ALL cars and restrict what types of cars may be driven on public roads. For instance racing cars and monster trucks are not allowed, and even cars that are considered ordinary are denied registration if they fail a safety inspection. But no such controls for guns in the US, eh?

If the US regulated the ownership and use of guns similarly to how it regulates that of cars, I doubt it would have had the terrible succession of shootings that it has had. — andrewk

Cherry-picking. In the rest of that post I also said...

People are the problem -people with issues that shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. There were many instances where people knew that this guy had a problem and reported it to the FBI, but the FBI failed to follow through. There needs to be more efficient information sharing. — Harry Hindu

In other words, we don't let certain people who have exhibited violent tendencies to own a firearm and the FBI needs to do a better job.

We don't take away EVERYONE's car when one person uses it to kill others either by terrorism or drunk driving. We only punish the guilty person, not punish everyone because of the actions of a select few.

Registration doesn't stop gun violence. Just look at the South American countries that require registration and their rate of deaths by gun violence is much higher than the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

SO your claim is that the people of the USA are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than any other comparable nation. — Banno

Isn't that your claim too? We just disagree on the cause. You think it's guns. I think it's the culture.

In looking at the deaths by gun violence around the world, you will find that gun control isn't the common denominator as there are countries with greater control over guns that have a higher rate of deaths by guns than the U.S. The common denominator is the culture of the nation, which can also include the country's wealth. The countries that have a higher rate of gun violence than the U.S. are all S. American and Carribean countries - drug trafficking countries.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

That was the whole point of the story, ...to illustrate that the standard truth table for such implications can give results that differ from what people ordinarily expect. — Michael Ossipoff

No. The point is that you can know a language, but translating the meaning to another can give results that differ from what people ordinarily expect when you don't translate it correctly.

A computer program doesn't interpret an "IF...THEN" statement as a logical proposition that a conclusion follows from a premise.

It takes it as an instruction to do something if a certain proposition t is true.

Loosely said, it often takes it as an instruction to make a variable take a certain value if a certain equality, inequality, or proposition is true. ... when the action called for is the execution of an assignment-statement.

...but it can also just specify an action, such as "IF x = a, THEN PRINT(x)" — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. The sign is written as an IF-THEN statement. IF you give the clerk $5000, THEN you receive the diamond. IF-THEN-(ELSE) is how we make ANY decision.

You simply need to rewrite the sign so that it actually translates correctly - meaning that you need to remove the IF and the THEN and write it as two indpendent statements.

You still haven't given us the relationship between giving the clerk $5000 and receiving the diamond. Is it a causal relationship, or what? What does the arrow between p and q actually mean?

No one is claiming that words always mean the same in logic and in human language. — Michael Ossipoff

Human language is logical.

Yes, I am. Thorongil chooses to ignore the facts. As, from what you have said, do you, in claiming that guns as not the cause of the deaths in your country's mass killings. Do you think the culture of Australia or Europe hasn't also changed? — Banno

You speak as if guns have legs and can go around shooting people all by themselves. People are the problem - people with issues that shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. There were many instances where people knew that this guy had a problem and reported it to the FBI, but the FBI failed to follow through. There needs to be more efficient information sharing.

Australian and Europe have changed, but not in the same way as the U.S.

When a person drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame the booze or the cars. When a terrorist uses a bomb or vehicle to kill, we don't blame the bomb or the vehicle. So why is it guns when some nut shoots up a school? Blaming guns doesn't get at the root of the problem which is people with a political or religious agenda, or mentally unstable people that want to make a name for themselves and the media is there to provide them the medium to do it.

You and the girl in the video are commiting the false cause fallacy. The guns aren't the only things that have changed since the founders wrote the Constitution. Our culture has changed where we glorify death and those that glorify it in their music and movies. There is also the "I want to be famous" factor where everyone has become an attention-seeker.

You are also engaging in ad hominem attacks against Thorongil, which just shows who the real bullshitter is here.

Showing that Christians don't fear death actually supports the claim that the belief in the after-life actually alleviates their fear of death. Arguing against the OP would entail providing the names of religions that don't believe in the after-life AND a list of religions that do believe in the after-life but still fear death.

If you don't fear death then what you've done is perform mental gymnastics in order to come up with some idea(s) that changes what death actually is. It would be a wonder why anyone who believes that the afterlife exists AND is better than their life now doesn't just "kill" themselves to get to the next part of their lives?

Personally, I think it is more of the fear of being unimportant, or not having a purpose in life, that provides the catalyst for believing in some religion or another. Thinking that you are immortal is one way to alleviate that fear. But also believing in an ultimate creator with a "divine" plan for you and everything else is another way of easing the fear.

But the clerk didn't lie to the customer when he said the sign's implication-proposition was true, because that statement was correct,when made, by the standard truth-table for 2-valued truth-functional implication. — Michael Ossipoff

Whether or not the clerk lied isn't what is being argued against. My argument is that he isn't a logician. What I'm saying is that implication-propositions don't translate to logical "IF-THEN" statements that are used by people and computers via their programming. The customer interpreted the sign correctly as a causal relationship between the act of giving the money and the effect of receiving the diamond. If there is no relationship between the premise and the conclusion, then the sign is wrong to be written the way it is.

My objection to the predicate logic language was only that it seemed an unnecessary complication. If we're having a conversation, and you insist on speaking Latin, that doesn't mean that you're wrong, it just makes it more difficult for me. That was my complaint about predicate logic language. — Harry Hindu

Again you miss the point. It's not about speaking different languages, it's about using the correct terms in ANY langauge to translate to the correct terms of another language. When your logical system ends up being inconsistent with other logical systems, then something is wrong. They should all be integrated into a consistent whole.

You keep claiming that the clerk is a logician. If so, then the clerk would know that there other logical interpretations of the sign and that all logical interpretations should be consistent.

...but that could depend on the company that's using the computer. — Michael Ossipoff

You obviously don't know much about computer programming. ALL computer languages mean the same thing with IF-THEN statements.

The truth value of the implication-proposition is function of the truth-values of the premise and the conclusion. — Michael Ossipoff

No. It only depends on the truth value of the conclusion. Just look at the table.

But of course, by the standard implication truth-table, if the conclusion is true, the implication-proposition is true regardless of whether or not the premise is true. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. Now you've just contradicted your statement above. See how illogical this is?

But, as a practical matter, in the story, it doesn't matter. The customer can't prove that he paid, and so the scam worked. The clerk (who is also the store owner and a logician) can assure himself that he didn't lie when he scammed the customer, because his truth-table is the standard one. — Michael Ossipoff

You just keep moving the goal posts. This conversation is no longer meaningful.

Because you're forgetting something important - the interpretation of the customer, which contradicts the clerk's interpretation. — Harry Hindu

Of course. That's why clerk's scam worked.

Yes the customer was intentionally deceived. — Michael Ossipoff

You're missing the point. The point is that the customer's interpretation of the sign is just as legitimate as the clerk's. The problem is that they both contradict each other, which means that at least one of the interpretations is wrong.They can't both be right at the same time.

Obviously the clerk's scam would be illegal. But, as I said, the customer has no proof that he paid for the diamond. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course he does. The diamond and the sign would attract attention. No other customers or clerks saw the customer give the clerk the money? There aren't cameras in the jewlery store? All these other behaviors you tell us the clerk engages to cover up the fact that the customer gave them the money in is dishonest. The clerk is a liar simply by his behavior.

Presumably which one the clerk intended when he wrote it? Isn't that part of your theory on meaning; the speaker's intention? In this situation, the customer simply misunderstood. — Michael

The OP never said the clerk wrote the sign. As a matter of fact, the store owner (which isn't a logician) most likely wrote the sign because he is the one that actually owns the diamond.

In any case, as I said, the sign-wording is the important thing, because the sign, and not the predicate logic wording, is in the story. — Michael Ossipoff

Then I was right when I said that you used an improper logical system in translating the logical meaning of the sign.

In "If-THEN" statements, the THEN statement is necessarily dependent upon the truth value of the IF statement. This is the way it works in the English language and computer programming (and I would add that a computer is more logical than a logician because a computer doesn't have greed clouding it's interpretation of the symbols on the sign).

If the truth value of the implication-proposition is only dependent upon the truth value of the conclusion, then the truth value of the premise is irrelevant to the truth value of the proposition.

The above is true because it follows both the logic of IF-THEN statements and the logic of the material conditional.

If the material conditional only states that q is true when (but not necessarily only when) p is true, and makes no claim that p causes q, then what exactly is the relationship between p and q? A material conditional is more like simply writing two completely separate statements. Translating to English, it's more like saying,

"Give me $5000."

"I give you the diamond.",

where each part isn't dependent upon each other to be true.

The sign is an IF-THEN statement and that is the logical system that should be used in determining the logical meaning of the sign. The "truth" table produces invalid results precisely because you're using a logical system that doesn't translate to the actual meaning of the sign.

Of course, which would make the sign (and the sales-clerk) misleading, not false (or lying).

I don't understand the relevance of this. — Michael

Because you're forgetting something important - the interpretation of the customer, which contradicts the clerk's interpretation. Which interpretation is the correct one? Read below.

No contradiction. It's a universally-agreed part of the truth-table for 2-valued truth-functional implication. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm talking about the implications of the truth table and how those p's and q's get translated into English words. Language is logical and they both need to be consistent with each other.

Which is the same as saying that it doesn't matter whether or not p is true or false. q is true regardless of the truth value of p, which means that q is independent of p, which makes p->q false. — Harry Hindu

That's just wrong. p → q is true if both p and q are true or if p is false. See the truth table. — Michael

I'm talking about the logical implications of the truth table.

So as I have twice brought up, this is an example of the paradoxes of material implication, where "if ... then ..." in classical logic doesn't mean what it does in ordinary language, hence the unintuitive conclusions. — Michael

So you're admitting that there is more than one logical way to interpret the sign as the customer did.

There is also a classical logical rule that two statements that contradict each other are false.

p is "You have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" and q is "He will give you the diamond".

p → q is equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.

¬p is "You have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk". — Michael

Which is the same as saying that it doesn't matter whether or not p is true or false. q is true regardless of the truth value of p, which means that q is independent of p, which makes p->q false. There is no IF-THEN relationship between p and q.

He says that the store-clerk is a logician who talks about implications being true if the premise (actually "antecedent") is false. He's referring to the material implication truth table. — Michael

Then that is the problem with the OP. He's applying a system that is irrelevant to the circumstances, or to what the words actually mean.

I have read the words. And I won't forget the truth table, because it's relevant to the topic. The store-clerk is a logician who uses the truth-table of the material conditional to help determine the truth of the sign. — Michael

I'm saying it isn't relevent to the topic. The OP didn't include it. You did later. I'm saying that is you that is off-topic. Just read the sentences. It's more like: if p->q then p is not equal to p.

An IF-THEN statement:

Therefore, if you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is true. — Michael

Make "if you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" = p

and

then "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" = q

Does that make any sense? The premise contradicts part of the conclusion. As I said, "IF A x B = 1 then A=0" is a contradiction.

It's:

1) You have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk, or
2) He will give you the diamond

1) is true, so 2) needn't be. — Michael

Exactly. If 2 isn't logically dependent upon 1 then he will give you the diamond. It would also be incorrect to use the truth table in this instance because now you are saying that 1 isn't necessarily the premise to the conclusion. The two are only related as they are on the same sign. Again, all you are doing is describing two independent conditions, which can be true or false independent of each other.

They don't contradict each other, as the truth table shows. — Michael

I said forget about the "truth" table and just read the words. Actually, maybe you should put both conclusions into the truth table and see if that works. Maybe then you'll see the contradiction.

p → q is logically equivalent to ¬p ∨ q, so "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is logically equivalent to "you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk or he will give you the diamond". — Michael

So then why didn't the clerk give the customer the diamond before the customer gave him the money? The sign would have been true when the customer walked in because the customer had not yet given the clerk the money. Not only that but is the sign true even when no one reads it? If so, then shouldn't everyone who hasn't given the clerk $5000 get the diamond?

If you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then "you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk or he will give you the diamond" is true. Therefore, if you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is true. — Michael

The word, "or" seems to separate the two statements - making them independent of each other, which means that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise. All you are saying is "this condition exists or that condition exists". So when the first condition didn't exist, (the customer hadn't given the clerk any money) then the latter condition exists (the clerk should have given the customer the diamond).

Also, p → q is logically equivalent to ¬q → ¬p, so "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is logically equivalent to "if he will not give you the diamond then you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk". Do you find this latter conditional problematic? — Michael

The latter conditional is saying the same thing as "Give the money to the clerk and he will give you the diamond". The customer gave the money to the clerk, now where is his diamond?

Forget about the "truth" table. Just read the words. They contradict each other, which means that the first statement is never true - ever. In other words, it is a false statement.

So, "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is true if "you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" is false. — Michael

That is a contradiction, and therefore can't be logical. That's like saying A x B = 1 if A=0


So, all you've done is create an impossible scenario where someone actually receives the diamond? Is it really is no different than a sign saying, “If, at any particular time, you have given $5000 to the sales-clerk (under no circumstances will it be returned), then, within 60 seconds after your giving him that money, a unicorn will appear, and it will at that time become your best friend.”?

The customer asked if the sign was true, not if the implication-proposition was true. The sign includes the premise and the implication-proposition. The clerk said that the sign was true. But only part of it was true and the other part was false. Therefore the clerk lied.

If at any given moment part of the sign is false and part is true, then the clerk can't say that the sign is true. The sign is both true and false, which just makes the sign illogical. The clerk also lied that he was a logician.

The sign is an IF-THEN statement. How are IF-THEN statements not true? They aren't unless we are missing information to put into the logical system. The implication always follows the premise assuming you have all the right information going in. It is only when you don't have all the information can it seem like the conclusion is false when the hypothesis is true. The missing information is what the clerk didn't tell the customer. If the customer had been given that information then they wouldn't have been tricked. So this isn't an example of how logic fails. It is an example of how one can use logic to get the wrong answers when they don't have all the information needed to get the right answer. In order for logic to work, you have to put in all the relevant information.

From what little I've seen of Jordan Peterson, I don't object to much of what he says. But I think the phrase 'the lie of white privilege' is silly.

White privilege is simply not having to wonder whether a stranger will suddenly start to abuse you on the bus, just because of what you look like. In the US it is also not having to fear a police officer every time one comes near, that they may stop and search you, or even shoot you, because of what you look like. One would have to live under a rock to think that such a privilege does not exist.

Where claims about white privilege become silly is when they start to imply that ALL white people are better off than ALL non-whites, and there do seem to be plenty of extremists that say or imply such things. But the fact that the notion of white privilege may be misused by silly people does not imply that the notion itself is flawed. — andrewk

It is flawed, and racist. The concept of white privilege itself is an unfair generalization of a certain group based on the color of their skin.

Everything you said is true actually. Certain people fear and wonder about some unseen boogie-man that is out to get you because they were raised in an environment of fear. But that is all it is - a fear, not reality. How can anyone even rationally think that the concept of white privilege holds any water when we have so many successful minorities, and the way minorities are now held up on a pedastal while being white is now seen as detriment to one's character. I've been mistreated by cops and I'm caucasian. The fact is that there are some cops that are just assholes, not racists. Yes, there are some racists cops. There are also racist minorities. Your job or color of skin doesn't seem to have an effect on how you view other groups. How you are raised does.

The answer is that we de-platform irrationality, not "racism", "sexism", etc.

This way we wouldn't be hypocrites banning free speech. Words assembled in an incoherent form, or contradicts other statements, isn't speech at all. It's simply noise. That is what we would be banning - noise from the actual rational debates that are needed.

F = G(m1×m2)/r^2

E = mc^2

Did you read the book Just six numbers?

Yes, there's the infinite regress problem with the simulated universe view but the point is the similarity between a computer world and ours in being based on rules (if you don't prefer mathematical rules).

What I really want to ask is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' The Turing test checks whether AI is human-like or not? That's great but the bigger question is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' What's the difference between being human and being AI? — TheMadFool

What are you saying - that if we look close enough at nature, we'll find numbers and algebraic equations? No. When we look closer at nature we find relationships and we model those relationships with mathematics. The alien version of Einstein's equation would probably look different, but refer to the same relationship between energy and mass. The symbols we use to represent natural relationships is arbitrary. The relationships are not.

No, because those instances of refraction are completely consistent with known physics. — Michael Ossipoff

And what if "known physics" was just a computer program?

In my proposal, your life-experience possibility-story isn’t being generated as your experience unfolds. That story is already timelessly there. The time that you experience is within that story-system, and that story is across its own time, not generated in time.
.
The complexity of your experienced world, and its self-consistency, make it difficult to explain how a person could write that story on-the-fly during his/her first day of life, immediately after being born (and in late fetal life, for that matter). — Michael Ossipoff

Like I said, the world is generated at the beginning based on a seed. So the world is already there as an algorithm that is then used to create the landscape as you move. The landscape is created on the fly based on the seed. The seed is what you would refer to as what would be timelessly is. So we're are both talking about the same thing.

That’s a big assumption. You’re assuming that, for some reason, there’s that brute-fact world, and we just model it by logic and mathematics. — Michael Ossipoff

It's not an assumption. It would be an assumption that mathematics is fundamental to reality - as if we could only look closer at quarks, we'd find numbers and algebraic equations. We don't. We find relationships and we model those relationships using numbers and characters. Different beings (us vs. aliens) will use different characters to represent say the relationship between energy and mass. An alien equal sign will probably look different. Because the numbers and characters we use are arbitrary, then it should be obvious that we won't find mathematics as a fundamental part of reality. Again, it is the relationships that we are modeling, and that aliens would be modeling. While we use different symbols, we will both be referring to the same thing.

Quite so. Most advocates of the Simulated-Universe theory say that we’re in a simulation that’s being run within another simulation, which is being run within another simulation…and so on. — Michael Ossipoff

If it's simulations all the way down, then it wouldn't make any sense to call them simulations. Simulation only makes sense in the light of the real. There needs to be a real world in order for there to be a simulation of one. If it's simulations all the way down, then it could be just as easily said that it is real universes all the way down - which would actually make more sense. Simulations are dependent upon the real, but the real isn't dependent upon simulations. The real is simply what is and would be what is even if there never were any such thing as simulations.

But are you arguing that all mental activity causes some physical behaviour? — Andrew4Handel

No. I'm arguing that mental activity is part of many causal relationships. Calling it "physical" doesn't help and isn't what I'm saying.

I think to make a strictly determinism account of a thought you would have to isolate a causal bridge concerning what caused I thought and what it caused and then a mechanism. — Andrew4Handel

Why? Do you need to isolate a causal bridge between a ball striking a window and the window breaking? Isn't that just a transfer of energy? Doesn't it take willpower/energy to move your body?

It is not clear to me what spatial-temporal-material features semantics could have to create a causal narrative with. — Andrew4Handel

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect - ALL cause and effect relationships.

The issue for me is that facts are more important than the patterns of neurons firing.
As I said in the opening post 2+2=4 is true regardless of which neuronal firing patterns correlated with having that thought. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not quite sure that is true. Mathematics is a model of the world. Distinctions could be illusory. When looking closer at the world, everything seems to be interconnected - causally - deterministic. 2+2=4 could only be true for minds that have a perspective of space and time like we do.

To me it is not determinism if the truth of a proposition determines the neuronal activity because that is top down causation. For example if I write Hello" in some sand. My intent to write hello determines the physical movement of the sand. If thoughts determine brain states then that is the definition of free will.

However if thoughts were created by brain states that would main the brain state would determine thought regardless of the validity of the content. The Pavlov Dog's paradigm showed how two conceptually unrelated can be come triggered due to constant conjunction. It is not clear how being repeatedly exposed to stimuli would crate valid concepts about them. There is an extra step from having vivid perceptions to creating a semantic concept. Once again top down influence is posited in perception which is not compatible with strong determinism really. — Andrew4Handel

And the word, "Hello" in the sand can cause other minds that read it to think about who wrote that and why. My point is that what if it isn't top-down, or bottom-up, at all? Everything is interconnected in time - causally. "Top-down" and "bottom-up" are illusory concepts stemming from the false dichotomy of dualism.

This is a misrepresentation. I selected the example here "Paris is the capital of France" as opposed to those words causing me to type anything. Usually the vast majority of my thought don't cause me to type anything. I don't think you could give a convincing causal explanation as to which thoughts specifically causally determined me to type something. The main thing that is making me type here is the necessity to do so in order to have a discussion. — Andrew4Handel

Your not thinking honestly about your own mental processes. Think about thinking. What is the causal sequence in your mind that made you read this post and respond to it? You have a goal, which isn't "physical", and your goal guides your behavior. Your goal, you say, is to have a discussion, and that is why you are typing on a keyboard - "physical" behavior.

The same exact thought can have different causal relationships on different days. There is no causal law or regularity that entails that if I think "Paris is the capital of France" then I am compelled to exhibit behavior X. And it is hard to imagine what that causal law would be. It would be inconvenient if every time I thought X it determined the same behavior. the value of thought is that you can reflect without action. Physical causes don't have this luxury. — Andrew4Handel

That's because the same thought in different circumstances can have different results. Your thought isn't the only cause. If anything, this shows the causal relationship between mind and the world even more. When both causes work together to produce results that one alone couldn't achieve. Think of it as a feedback loop between world and mind. This is how we learn as well. We take input, process it, produce output, and then use our own output as the new input to observe how close we get to the perfect result.

By the way this thread is about determinism and not the nature of thoughts. — Andrew4Handel

Correction. Mental States and Determinism.

Show an error in reality. Computers have scores of errors all the time, and it's not really hard to find them. Where are the equivalent of crashes in people, for example? Where are the infinite loops? Doesn't entail that we don't live in a simulation or aren't a simulation, but it does show that the the question "Are we in a CG simulation?" cannot be operating under the same understanding of how computers work as we have for our computers. Which seems to be evidence against this since the key term is too vague. — MindForged

How about seeing a bent straw in water, or mirages and illusions? Would those qualify as bugs in the system? What about mental/physical disorders?

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense.

How are transistor-switchings in a computer somewhere supposed to be able to "make" a world?

All that a computer programmer, or the running of his program, could accomplish would be the duplication and display, of some already, timelessly, "existent" possibility-world, showing it (as you seem to mean it) from the objective point-of-view.

The computer simulation could display that to its viewing-audience, but it certainly can't create it.

The "computer-simulated universe" theory requires faith in some magical power of transistor-switchings. — Michael Ossipoff

Minecraft is a first-person game where you explore an infinite world and the world generates itself as you move into new areas, thereby growing the world as you explore it. Each world has a seed - a string of characters - that is used in an algorithm to generate the world at the beginning.

What if the world that you percieve didn't exist, rather it was just your consciousness that was the program - you know, like your dreams. All the other people were just sub-programs. In a way, it would be solipsism, but not quite because your program exists within a real world, or else it wouldn't make sense to call it a program. It would be solipsism.

The point is both cyberspace and our universe are based on mathematical rules. See? — TheMadFool

The real world isn't based on mathematical rules. Mathematics is just a model of how things are. They are not the basis of how things are. There is just how things are and our models of how things are. Cyberspace is based on our models of how things are.

Asking if this world is a computer program just creates an infinite regress because you then have to ask, "How do we know that the world our program is in isn't a program too?"

To halt the regress you'd need to show the difference between our world and theirs. Is their world made of atoms, protons and electrons? Quarks? Does there seem to be an infinite regress of causation in their world as well?