The brain, mind, and consciousness are 3 completely different things. — Miller

I'm with 180 Proof, at least as far as brain vs. mind.

"Different" but not unrelated: — 180 Proof

As I see it, brain is to mind as your TV set is to "Gilligan's Island." Not the same, but inseparable. As for consciousness - what we call "mind" is the set of mental processes. "Consciousness" is one of those processes.

Discussions of consciousness here on the forum always break down because people are not clear about the meaning of the word. Are you talking about self-awareness or the ability to perceive "qualia," a word, by the way, I hate. I assume mice perceive qualia. I assume they are not self-aware. Or maybe you're talking about something else.

It seems that there are two options from here. — tom111

So overall this leaves us with two options, either consciousness as well as qualia are fundamental properties, or the laws of nature can not all be described mathematically. — tom111

There are certainly more than two options. The one that seems most useful to me is that consciousness is a property that emerges spontaneously from routine mental processes. Those mental process emerge spontaneously from nervous system behavior.

We can conclude that consciousness arises in systems of higher informational integration — tom111

I would say that consciousness is a system of higher informational integration.

Thanks.

All recursive ones processes are, and calculation of the Greens function is recursive. But no, not all iterative ones. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure I know the difference between "recursive" and "iterative."

The problem is also known as "confusing the map for the territory". — baker

For some reason, that made me think of a yo mama joke:

Yo mama is so fat, her reflection weighs 5 pounds.

I saw a nice self-referencing puzzle the other day.
Question: If you pick an answer at random, what are the chances that the percentage written in the pick is equal to the chance of picking that percentage?
There were four answers given from which you could pick at random. One said 50%. One said 25%. One said 60%. And another one said 25%. Altogether there were four answers from which a random choice would be made. — god must be atheist

Percentage = 0. Right?

BTW perturbative quantum field theory was recently put on pretty firm mathematical footing (see Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory by Kasia Rejzner). This uses Greens functions which are calculated recursively (i.e. G = f[G]). — Kenosha Kid

I looked up perturbative quantum field theory. I'll spend some more time with it.

Your comment made me think - Are all iterative processes self-referential? Maybe someone else brought this up previously. Is that the same kind of self-reference we're talking about?

Thanks.

I need to skillfully defend my species. — Athena

I think this says everything about why I don't want to go any further in this discussion. If you are not a member of my species, we have nothing to say to each other.

Self-referentiality points to our tendency to conflate the thing with our thoughts about said thing. — baker

Confusing "the moon" with the moon doesn't strike me as a self-reference issue.

Also, more generally, it points to the possibility of saying one thing and meaning two things. — baker

I don't understand what you mean.

As to the usefulness of self-reference, it was pointed out that it is pivotal to iteration. Any iterative procedure by definition calls itself. Now that's indispensable in coding, but it also leads to many a curiosity. So for example, this beast: — Banno

I thought about fractals. I've read that many features of the world involve fractal geometry. I don't know what to do with that.

Douglas Hofstadter made use of iteration in his discussion of consciousness, a notion that has not dissipated over the years. Chaos theory in general relies on iteration. — Banno

As for iteration. I thought about that too. One of the first things I thought of was a do loop in a computer algorithm. I don't think iteration and self-reference are the same thing. I'm not sure of that.

Have you revised this view? — Banno

No, but there really haven't been much in the way of arguments supporting self-reference. Those that there have been have been luke-warm.

I certainly am depressed, but I believe it's an effect and not a cause. I'm currently taking medication and that's been the only way I've been able to function. Without it I would be jobless and in a far worse position. I've tried therapy, but it hasn't helped. I'll likely try again in the future though. — Nicholas Mihaila

There are people here on the forum who have found their way through philosophy. I always have found their experiences moving and inspiring, although it is not my way.

I looked through all the responses but didn't see this. It seems obvious. Maybe I missed it. It seems like you are depressed. That's not a philosophical problem, it's a psychological, maybe physical, one. Have you talked to a therapist? If not, it's worth a try. It helped me.

I agree with some of what you've written. As I noted in my response to 180 Proof, I'm getting out of this discussion.

But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

As I noted previously, when I bring up an argument against you positions, you and @Hello Human just redefine the issue. I don't see that we're getting anywhere. Enough for me.

It has magnitude and direction? Cool, so what's a direction? — the affirmation of strife

There's no contradiction there. You only need a good definition.

Also, you've brought up circularity several times and I haven't responded. As far as I can see, circularity is not the same thing as self-reference, although I can see they have things in common.

Taking responsibility for your life is to survive by fighting back against those who have victimized you and others. And yes, (if you check the link and read the wiki) religion is also a protected class. — 180 Proof

I was reluctant to get involved in this discussion. I only did because @Athena started it in response to a comment of mine. She seems to have bailed on the discussion, so I will too.

You are right: there is only a danger if this paradox within set theory has an effect within the practical mathematics (which I suggested would necessarily always be detectable, but maybe not trivially apparent). I don't have an example to hand, although they might be found in e.g. differential geometry (foundation for General Relativity) or, where this all came to light, in computability theory (foundation for, well, computers). — the affirmation of strife

I think you and I are mostly in agreement except for this paragraph. It seems pretty clear to me that the math paradoxes we're talking about are trivial. This is not my area of expertise, to put it mildly. I'd be willing to change my mind if there were people who disagree and provide an argument which is more than just arm-waving.

Ask most women. Some are victims (silenced), some are survivors (vocal). — 180 Proof

I wonder if that's true. I'm guessing it's not. I know a lot of women, none of whom would characterize themselves as victims or survivors. At least two of them really are victims of childhood abuse that has affected their adult lives in very significant ways. Both of them take responsibility for their own lives. Neither blames the people who abused them, although they do hold them responsible.

Protected classes (re: sex & gender discrinination) — 180 Proof

That includes religion too. Do you consider Christians victims? Muslims?

Blame the victim (of abuse, deprivation, violence) for crying out for help and shame the survivor (of class exploitation or race/gender/sex discrimination or both) for fighting back ... because "tough titties, dude, that's just the way it is, the world isn't fair and doesn't owe you anything". "Treat us like children" and we'll "treat" you like jailed child molesters. — 180 Proof

This is true only if women, as a class, are victims. Is that what you think? I don't.

I am very curious about what T Clark has to say about women blaming men and not taking their share of responsibility. — Athena

I am reluctant to get involved in this discussion. I think my sincerely held (and I think fair and humane) opinions will be taken as disrespectful. It's also a huge subject. Feminist philosophy doesn't get much play here on the forum, and I am reluctant to put myself in opposition. Ok, now that I've gotten all my excuses out of the way, I'll at least expand on my comment.

The essence of adulthood is that you don't blame other people for your misfortune. You take responsibility for your own life. People who hold other people to blame are asking to be treated like children. In our society there is a case to be made that certain classes of people are dealt a raw deal in life. As far as I can see, that usually breaks down by race and class, not by sex. Working class people get the shaft. Middle and upper class people have the road paved for them. I include myself and my family in that group.

That's what it comes down to for me. If you want to blame others for difficulties in your life, you are asking to be treated like a child.

Did the court rule they could have the land, or just some money? The former would be radical and far-reaching. The latter would be more of the same. Beads and trinkets. Guilt loves money. It's so easy because you don't have to do the right thing while pretending you have. It's a capitalist thing. — James Riley

As I remember, the ruling raised questions about who would have legal jurisdiction over the land for the purposes of civil and criminal law. That seems like much more than allowing them to open a casino. That's why I asked if you'd heard anything more. I haven't.

I have not. All my understanding is very dated. A lot of Indians had no treaty or, it could be argued, they breached first. But there is a lot out there that is all on us. — James Riley

I agree with much of what you've written, although the idea of giving the Indians back what was, arguably is, theirs on a one to one basis will never happen. That's why I was shocked by the Oklahoma ruling. It seemed so radical, far-reaching.

Back in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma was on land that belongs to the Muscogee tribe. Have you heard anything about how that is working out?

Liar's paradoxes show us that certain assumptions we make lead to illogical conclusions. That's incredibly important, because what if you are making those assumptions in arguments that are not liar's paradoxes? — Philosophim

That's just it. The liar's paradox only shows up when we are talking about sentences that we would never use in normal speech. They are grammatically and semantically correct, but they don't make any sense. Or can you think of a counter-example.

So if the sentence is false, its true, and if its true, its false. We definitely have a contradiction. — Philosophim

Agreed. It's the significance of the contradiction that we are questioning. That I am questioning.

We realize we've said nonsense by being too implicit. That's the lesson we can glean. Just because we can say or posit an idea in language, doesn't mean it makes sense. You've previously posted the question, "What is metaphysics?" Many times people use metaphysics to disguise liars paradoxes. Terms that are ambiguous are great ways to hide nonsense terms and conclusions within them. If you can pick them out, you can ask for clarification. — Philosophim

I don't find this a very convincing argument. As you note, there are plenty of ways to do bad philosophy and logic without needing this paradox to show us another. The liar's paradox seems trivial and I don't see how it's connected with any substantive logical issue. Do you have examples of when "...people use metaphysics to disguise liars paradoxes."

Solving the liar's paradox can give us a tool to solve other nonsense points while keeping within the spirit of the discussion. — Philosophim

I guess my solution is realizing there isn't anything to solve. Yes, I know that's not what you meant. I don't see any solution but to ignore the paradox as an interesting and fun, but ultimately meaningless, pastime.

Liar's paradoxes are a great teaching tool about the ambiguity of language, but also about seeing through the intentionality of a person's argument. — Philosophim

I think this discussion, and all the other ones about this and similar subjects, are evidence that the subject obscures rather than clarifies language, mathematics, and logic.

Either the model (physics) is wrong, or the mathematical rules were not followed. — the affirmation of strife

That's the heart of the argument. Many people, I guess some really great mathematicians and logicians, don't agree. I have a feeling it has something to do with mathematicians being natural idealists. You can't futz with the ideal world. It's perfect. If it's not, somehow the whole thing falls apart.

The problem: what should we do if we are presented with contradictory mathematical rules. For the language analogy, this is like finding a contradiction in your Japanese grammar book. On page 24 it tells you to say X in situation Y, but on page 135 (it's not an easy language, you understand) it instructs you to say the opposite i.e. (not X) in situation Y. Solution: buy a new grammar book. — the affirmation of strife

I don't think this analogy applies. Seems like with the Russel paradox, we start with what appear to be consistent rules and get contradictory results.

In addition to what StreetlightX said about the "enworlded-ness" of language (arising from the fact that it is invented by humans), — the affirmation of strife

Is this the issue, that mathematicians and logicians don't believe math was invented by humans? That they think it is intrinsic to the world?

I think some of Turing's fear was justified. — the affirmation of strife

I don't get it. I'm not sure I can even see the connection between number and set theory and calculus. But then, my math is of the practical, engineering sort.

[1]: Is this still controversial? I mean, Einstein called it a language. My first year lecturer did the same. — the affirmation of strife

There are certainly people who believe that the Russell paradox says something profound about math and logic.

We are not dealing with just better technology but a huge shift in consciousness! It is not just the women folk having a stronger voice, but all people who were excluded from the White man's grab for wealth and power. This is not just socialism versus capitalism but justice and morality versus being pretty ignorant and primitive and brute force ruling. — Athena

Yes, this is off subject, but you keep going on, so I'll have my say just this once. And, yes, this is something I feel strongly about. Women who say they want to be respected but then blame the problems of our society on men rather than taking their share of the responsibility are hard to take seriously.

You're right, this is not the right discussion.

Suppose God exists. You ask him "why God did you make the world as it is?" He responds "I was just playing." — TheMadFool

There are religions that describe gods creating the world so that they would have someone to play with. I remember @Wayfarer writing about it.

When we are disrespected we can become defensive and feel the urge to attack. Then this is no longer play and it is no longer fun and it ruins threads. — Athena

One of the things I value about the forum is that it has taught me to be more patient and not to respond, at least not as often, to provocation.

When we feel safe we can explore our ideas and dare to be different and creative, and under such conditions, we all expand our consciousness. — Athena

I guess my problem is the opposite of yours. I have never been able to not say things that come to mind, even when I shouldn't.

The US no longer feels safe. Our minds are closing down and people are picking up weapons. We no longer allow our children to be as children but expect them to perform like college students as we rush to teach them what to think. — Athena

I don't feel this way at all.

We need the spirit of play and for that, we need to feel safe. — Athena

Yes.

There is a set R which consists of all and only non-reflexive sets:
R = {x | x is non-reflexive}
But then we see that R belongs to R iff R is non-reflexive, which holds iff R does not belong to R. Hence either assumption, that R belongs to or R does not belong to R leads to a contradiction. — the affirmation of strife

So, it looks like the value of the liar's paradox or Russel's paradox etc. comes from the insight into how we can or can not formulate truth. — the affirmation of strife

I'm interested what you and @StreetlightX have to say about the Russell paradox as opposed to the liar sentence. From what I have seen, mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics claim that the Russell paradox undermines the credibility of mathematics in general. We had a discussion a few weeks ago about a discussion between Wittgenstein and Turing where Turing claimed the inconsistencies in math might cause a bridge to tall down. That seems silly to me, to believe that an anomaly in number theory could contaminate calculus.

What are you guys thoughts?

I think we can agree maybe there is not a distinct difference that is constant and unchanging? The same activity can be all about fun and can get very serious. I don't mind loosing to someone, but if I am loosing too badly I can get very serious about closing the gap. :lol: — Athena

I'm fine with that.

As a matter of interest, the one thing I do every day that I consider play is participating in the forum.

Cool what you did with the title. — Mww

Aww... shucks.

Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival). — Alkis Piskas

You're right. I didn't read far enough.

I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas

So, what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? What if he were just robbing him. Or beating him up. Or insulting him. What if he just broke a promise. What if he slept with his wife. I'm guess that could be stretched to constitute survival, but it would be just that, a stretch.

Back to the most important part - morality might make sense to reason, but that's not where it comes from. It comes from our regard for each other and our society's need to provide security for all of us.

We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival. — Alkis Piskas

This is all well and good, I guess, but what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess. First our children and families. Then our community members. Then eventually humanity at large. Compassion. I see that as the basis for morality. We are built to like each other.

I don't see that reason has anything to do with it to begin with. We can paint it up and make it pretty with reason when we have the time.

It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense. — Hello Human

It's not because his actions cause more harm. There's no comparison between the two people. The bad guy is trying to kill the other person with no justification.

There is no single first-order formula that serves to define the truth of all sentences of first-order logic in the universe (of sets).
parentheses added — the affirmation of strife

I kind of get that, but it seems like a joke. A meaningless technicality. I can't see how it tells us anything useful about truth for any other propositions.

I'll need to look into it more to give better examples of "useful self-reference". — the affirmation of strife

I appreciate your input. I didn't start this discussion because I have a particular end in mind. I just want to see where it goes.

There is no chance to be that kind of genius that has something new and valuable to say over so many things. The undeveloped state of knowledge opened that opporunity. — Heiko

Yes. I think you're right. On the other hand, there may be a lot more to know and understand now, but there are also many more very, very smart people. I feel like I'm lucky to be living at this point in history. I do worry about what comes next for my children.

My goodness, when we play games we often play to win. I would not put the criteria of having no goals on the word "play", but do recognize those goals can ruin the fun if our head is to set on the goal there is no sense of fun. — Athena

Tom Brady loves football, but when he goes out on the field, he's not playing. If you're trying to win, I don't see it as play.

There's no need for us to go into this a lot more if you don't want to. I can see your point. I have my own way of seeing it. The word "play" has room for both our views.

Give me your surname if you don't mind and you can have a rule of thumb named after you. You'll join the likes of William of Occam (Occam's razor), Christopher Hitchens (Hitchens' razor)n you already know Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor), etc. What say you? — TheMadFool

Don't forget T Clark's razor - When you are trying to decide which of two otherwise equal bottles of wine to purchase, buy the one with the twist-off cap.

As the article alludes to at the end, things get even more interesting when thinking about self-modification of programs or self-specialising compilers (I've lost a bookmark to an interesting and not too technical blog post about this, maybe I can find it again...) — the affirmation of strife

Yes, I am primarily talking about philosophy. I tried to be careful not to be too dismissive of self-reference. I had read that the kind of programing uses you describe are valuable. I guess I'm trying to separate the wheat from the chaff - uses with real value as opposed to just a bunch of gee whiz stuff.

In terms of mathematics, the book "Vicious Circles" by John Barwise and Lawrence Moss seems to be a good reference for what they call "hyperset" theory, an extension of set theory that allows for self-referencing and circularity. I haven't read much, and it's very dense. Working understanding of set theory required. I wonder if there are any mathematicians here that could break it down for us. — the affirmation of strife

My attitude toward self-reference in math is ambivalent. First off, I'm good at the math required to be an engineer. That's really different from what we're talking about here. When I look at Russell's paradox, for example, it seems like a trick, yet many mathematicians seem to think it undermines math as a whole. We had a discussion about a conversation between Wittgenstein and Turing a week or so ago. Turing proposed that Russell's paradox undermined math to the point that it might lead to a bridge falling down. That seems goofy to me, but my level of expertise is too limited for me to have any confidence in my judgement.

But yes, the goofiest part of self-reference for me is its use in philosophy. The liar's paradox seems like a little joke that people have decided to take seriously. I can't see how it gives any insight into meaning or truth, as some propose.