30 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you say. The question remains where does this abstract concept reside.
As I said, how you choose to represent it, or write it is irrelevant. The abstract concept of "2" remains universal, real and independent of a thinker.
I never had you pegged for a Platonist!
I don't think '2' is an abstract concept at all, by the way. It's quite tangible, in fact. How can you think of 2 without representing it to yourself in some way?
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNone of which has anything really to do with "understanding how to play chess". You are just waffling around the question.
In the first place, I understand that I am playing chess. I understand that I have an opponent, I have a concept of the Other. A computer does not, it's just programmed to crunch numbers very effectively.
Kasparov has written interestingly on the difference between human and computer attitudes towards chess.
I am a computer programmer and understand quite well the differences, but differences existing alone does not warrant labeling one 'understanding' and the other not.
How can something be held in common and be absolute and independent at the same time?
I am not sure what the problem is.
Did 0 exist before it was invented?
It wasn't invented. The abstract concept is independent of the thinker.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleI always hate it when people pretend that all humans are in some sort of constant psychic contact and have one mind. But without that ridiculous assertion, your argument collapses doesn't it.
The concept “2”, along with every number and every abstract concept, became a conceptual uniformity, and thus it is “known” by all humans as you pose it, because the humans we are collapsing the wavefunction according to our very nature
.... because the event/ fact “two trees” is real
And it is that very real 'two' that I am referring to. Or are you claiming that it is in no way related to any other pair of trees?
30 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy understand I mean is the computer aware that it is playing a game. Understanding requires self awareness.
None of which has anything really to do with "understanding how to play chess". You are just waffling around the question.
[b]Kasparov has written interestingly on the difference between human and computer attitudes towards chess.
I am a computer programmer and understand quite well the differences, but differences existing alone does not warrant was invented?[/b]
It wasn't invented. The abstract concept is independent of the thinker.[/b]
So: Does the computer understand that it is playing a game? Does it know what a game is? Does it have a concept of winning and losing? Is it self aware?
You keep repeating, quite mystically, that the concept exists independent of the thinker. How can a concept exist if there is nobody to think it?
30 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadMuch like God, eh?
It doesn't 'reside' which is why I claim it is immaterial and independent of time and space.
This is all delightfully Pythagorean.
But I'm interested to know whether you think information can be said to exist. I'm really sure if it relates to this discussion or not, but it's fascinating ...
'Information, on the other hand, lacks physicality. Unlike energy, which we can at least measure with physical instruments, a digital bit is disembodied. It weighs nothing. It takes up no space. It flows as mysteriously as a gremlin. We don't have good measures for information. (If I make an exact copy of your song, am I increasing the amount of information in the world, or decreasing it because I am adding nothing new?) We are not yet sure if the total amount of information in the universe is conserved, nor if it is finite. Yet, we have come to see that life, even our own life, is a pattern of intangible information, rather than material form. Evolution – that great engine of creation -- is a pattern of information. And mind, especially the mind, is a type of information flow. So we know that the most powerful forces in the universe (that we are aware of) are constructed of the most intangible things we can detect: bits.
There stands the discontinuity: atoms vs bits. But lately, physicists have begun to suspect that atoms are composed of information in some way we don't understand. As legendary physicist John Wheeler puts it, "its are bits." The deeper we inspect the interior of sub atomic particles and their quirky behavior, the more they can be explained as information flows. Many physicists expect that when we get to the bottom of how matter works that we'll find primarily a structure of information and the absence of anything "material." Atoms will be understood as elaborate, dynamic arrangements of intangible signals. In an article published by the American Journal of Physics, entitled "What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us" solid-state-physicist David Mermin writes "matter acts, but there are no actors behind the actions; the verbs are verbing all by themselves without a need to introduce nouns. Actions act upon other actions. [There's] no duality between the existence of a thing and its properties: properties are all there is. Indeed: there are no things." '
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/06/the_fifth_and_s.php
30 Oct 09
This thread reminds me of an article "Does God Play Dice?" by Stephen Hawking (http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64). Where he is referring to Einstein saying, "God does not play dice". Although their definition of God is a metaphor to represent laws in nature which we do not yet understand. In particular in this case, unpredictablility that has been observed in quantum mechanics. Although can be used to discuss why various physical constants has certain values.
Religious people then interpreted what they said to fit their own agenda, and concluded that Einstein became deist. Usually interpreting that Einstein's "God" has the same definition as the person's God who is interpreting it.
Often a creator is used to fill in the gap of what is not understood, without justification, and when this creator is used, why is it a Christian God, or Allah or any other that fits specific religions already know on Earth? Why not simply say, "We don't know what it is"?
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never said that "everybody has the same mind" -I always insist that everybody has his personal way of thinking and that s/he remains a unique existense! However I claim that we human beings share specific uniformities (I would also be ready to accept that we share specific uniformities with other sentient beings), and this is actually the reason why a Human is considered a Human whilst and a lion is considered a lion and not a Human.
I always hate it when people pretend that all humans are in some sort of constant psychic contact and have one mind. But without that ridiculous assertion, your argument collapses doesn't it.
[b].... because the event/ fact “two trees” is real
And it is that very real 'two' that I am referring to. Or are you claiming that it is in no way related to any other pair of trees?[/b]
The "very real two" that you were reffering to, is just a notion required by us in order to become able to share details in depth about the reality as We grasp it. If I see two helicopters hovering above me with constant velocity, does an ant sees the same? "Two" and "helicopters" and "hovering" etc mean nothing to an ant but they are quite meaningful for us -because we collapse the wavefunction the same way whilst the ant does not. In our world we have the feeling that "2" has a standing alone being because it is different that any other number etc, however in fact "2" is merely a mind-only invention. For further pieces of information regarding this matter you can always check, say, Tegmarks' "On Math, Matter and Mind" at http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/other/mmm.pdf. I am quite sure that you will enjoy it to the hilt🙂
Of course you are more that welcome to debunk my ridiculous argument; kindly please show me that "2", or every other number, or every other invention of the Human, has a unique and standing alone being/ self in the universe and that is not just a notion of ours in the realm of a given theory of reality of ours
😵
30 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleConsensus is overrated, my friend. It's a matter of how much nit-picking one is willing to do. 🙂
No stress Pal my pal, our friend twhitehead will soon attack you too; and, just for a change, methinks this time we could probably assume that there is a slight probability for a, say, consensus between Bosse de Nage, you and me😵
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHah, methinks that Mermin is high on Nagarjuna -perfect😵
Much like God, eh?
This is all delightfully Pythagorean.
But I'm interested to know whether you think information can be said to exist. I'm really sure if it relates to this discussion or not, but it's fascinating ...
'Information, on the other hand, lacks physicality. Unlike energy, which we can at least measure with physical instruments, a d ...[text shortened]... things." '
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/06/the_fifth_and_s.php
30 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SharpeMotherI'm not sure you really understood the premise. In this universe there is no God, yet you answered as if there were one.
Ok. So there is a universe, and no God. I would still need to ask where did logic and reason come from..? Where did the universe come from? The universe MIGHT have been able to evolve, but can logic and reason evolve? I would then ask, is logic and reason something that happens in our brains, like a physical response to our senses and experience, or is stions is that there MUST be a God because without one there could be no logic or reason.
You seem to have very unconventional conceptions of "logic", "reason" and "evolution".
From this and other posts, I gather that you believe that "evolution" is to atheists as God is to theists. That "evolution" explains the creation of the universe amongst other things.
Your conception of "logic and reason" also seems to be unusual in that you can ask "can logic and reason evolve?", "why is it consistent with all humanity, why isn't there another line of logic. e.g. where I can say 'I have a cat' and 'I don't have a cat' and it would be logical?" amongst other thing. I'm not even sure what to say about this without getting a better understanding of what you think "logic and reason" are. What's more, I'm at a loss as to how to gain this understanding.