Originally posted by JS357Edit: “Not… …etc.”
"You see difficulty in getting from fact to truth because deep down you still think that fact, truth and yourself are separated;"
Not separated so much as different, which might be a way of being separated. I do distinguish between fact and truth, knowingly and purposefully. I take a fact to be a state of affairs; that which is the case. A fact is not an th ...[text shortened]... ruth or falsity of a thought established for a being whose thoughts can be in error.
Not separated but different, yes. However, the distinguished fact/event and truth/evaluation of the fact-event are mutually arising (mutually depended), because both of them must be known and thus they cannot be separated from the mind. So the state of affairs that you recognize is still mind-depended: a fact/event is a result of the mind collapsing the wavefunction (a result of analysis of a specific bit of information the mind perceives, hence a result of attributing a value 0 or 1 as regards the occurrence of the information itself after we leave the state of the superposition behind). All in all, the mind receives pieces of information by using our five senses as regards the potential occurrence of the event (cat, sofa), and then evaluates whether or not “that cat's sitting on that sofa”, so it evaluates if there is actually the occurrence of this fact/event or not, plus its “meaning”, the Story we come up with. Then, according to this evaluation, it validates the fact "That cat is sitting on that sofa" or it discards it. Thus, “truth” is always related to the evaluation of the mind that perceived this specific bit of information and attributed to it the value 0 –it sits on that sofa– or 1 –no it is not.
Edit: “It… …fact.”
And this, in my opinion, is the more advanced theistic product. Indeed, If everything does exist simply because an omnipotent God feels the need to perceive himself this way, that God would be constantly under severe changes whilst remaining ever still, indifferent and never-changing;
Edit: “This… …error.”
JS357, keep in mind that your thought is always identical to the evaluation of your mind. The evaluation of your mind could be in error, whereas the concept of error applies to your senses that enabled your mind to use the word “fact”. Yes, only by a bond between a fact and your perception, analysis and evaluation as regards the essence of the fact, is the truth or falsity of a thought established for a mind whose thoughts can be in error. The bond is you, and the bond is strong. Methinks there is no other correspondence
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadFirst read our conversation in full, then show me where exactly my evaluation is not accurate, then prove that my evaluation is indeed false and then, if I will not stand asap corrected, feel free to tell me I am embarrasing myself😵
Just admit that you don't have a single clue about the subject and leave it at that. Any more and you'll just embarrass yourself
Originally posted by black beetleReread the conversion in full yourself and it should become obvious to you where your evaluation is not accurate.
First read our conversation in full, then show me where exactly my evaluation is not accurate,
There are several glaring errors you could start with:
1. You seem to think that mathematics is species dependent - not realizing that 'species' is entirely a man made category system - and somewhat arbitrary at that, yet you think some universal rule applies to it - blatantly contradicting your main argument that there are no universal rules.
2. You seem to think that a 'species' is defined based on what environment a life form lives in. Thats just stupid, there's no other way to say it.
3. You seem to think that mathematics and pi and triangles are entirely human concepts and are invented.
4. You seem to think that an intelligent computer would necessarily be human in nature and think like a human etc because humans programmed it. Now I admit that this may not be so obvious to some people, but even a little thought should allow you to realize that this does not make sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI think this is just about wrapped up as it will get, for now. Thanks for the exchange. It there is one nagging concern, it is WRT:
Edit: “Not… …etc.”
Not separated but different, yes. However, the distinguished fact/event and truth/evaluation of the fact-event are mutually arising (mutually depended), because both of them must be known and thus they cannot be separated from the mind. So the state of affairs that you recognize is still mind-depended: a fact/event is a result of t error. The bond is you, and the bond is strong. Methinks there is no other correspondence
😵
"...a fact/event is a result of the mind collapsing the wavefunction (a result of analysis of a specific bit of information the mind perceives, hence a result of attributing a value 0 or 1 as regards the occurrence of the information itself after we leave the state of the superposition behind)"
When applied to what I said about facts and truths, this has me thinking that there would be no facts (no instances of "that which is the case" ) without mind. And no facts implies no truths, in my equation. So were there no facts before the emergence of mind, or was there never such a "before"? 🙂
Originally posted by vistesdTruly happy to find you again vistesd. I was just thinking of you the other day wondering if you had left for good. Please don't!
“Since there is no telling in advance where it may lead, reflection can be seen as dangerous. There are always thoughts that stand opposed to it. Many people are discomfited, or even outraged, by philosophical questions. Some are fearful that their ideas may not stand up as well as they would like if they start to think about them. … Reflection opens an a ...[text shortened]... umptive beliefs, and the ideological “closed circles” that sometimes seem used to fence them in.
I would like to address the post, or rather the concept put forth. If I understand it correctly, if the idea that erecting fences around the truth makes truth 'little more than asserted assumption', then wouldn't that be true of any idea?
It seems to my way of thinking that that would render us hopelessly lost in thinking, with no basis for reason.
Originally posted by JS357Edit: “So were there no facts before the emergence of mind, or was there never such a "before"?”
I think this is just about wrapped up as it will get, for now. Thanks for the exchange. It there is one nagging concern, it is WRT:
"...a fact/event is a result of the mind collapsing the wavefunction (a result of analysis of a specific bit of information the mind perceives, hence a result of attributing a value 0 or 1 as regards the occurrence of the infor ...[text shortened]... o were there no facts before the emergence of mind, or was there never such a "before"? 🙂
I don’t know; the state before the emergence of mind lays in the superposition;
I thank you for the exchange too😵
Originally posted by twhitehead1. I told you repeatedly that I did not say that Math is species dependent. Where exactly at this thread did I wrote down such a thing? Instead, I said Math is entirely a human invention equivalent to a language and that, as such, it neither applies to the other sentient beings that do not share the same consensus we do as regards our accepted set of methods, rules and procedures that have to be used, nor can it be considered some kind of “absolute truth”.
Reread the conversion in full yourself and it should become obvious to you where your evaluation is not accurate.
There are several glaring errors you could start with:
1. You seem to think that mathematics is species dependent - not realizing that 'species' is entirely a man made category system - and somewhat arbitrary at that, yet you think some univ ...[text shortened]... eople, but even a little thought should allow you to realize that this does not make sense.
2. No, I did not say that a species is defined based on what environment a life form lives in. Where exactly at this thread did I wrote down such a thing? Instead, I said that each species has its niche environment and that it cannot exist separated from its environment.
3. Yes. I do think that Math and pi and triangles are entirely human concepts and are invented by us.
4. A computer based AI is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success, always according to the potential that is enabled thanks to its program. We study and engineer intelligent machines able to exploit intelligent computer programs, not necessarily confined to methods that are biologically observable. Since intelligence is understood to be the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world, there are varying kinds and degrees of intelligence that occur in human beings, animals and some machines. For the time being, there is not a solid definition of intelligence that does not depend on relating it to human intelligence, because we still cannot characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. This is the reason why I told you that the computer based AI cannot perform their task without their man-made mechanisms that enable them to exploit their integrated programs thanks to their given speed, short term memory and their ability to form accurate and retrievable long term memories. I did not say that the organization of the intellectual mechanisms for AI cannot be usefully different from that in people (and I gave you the example of the chess engines), I said that they cannot work without their man-made programs in first place.
😵
Originally posted by josephwNo, methinks it would make us think a bit about the nature of our thoughts😵
Truly happy to find you again vistesd. I was just thinking of you the other day wondering if you had left for good. Please don't!
I would like to address the post, or rather the concept put forth. If I understand it correctly, if the idea that erecting fences around the truth makes truth 'little more than asserted assumption', then wouldn't that be true o ...[text shortened]... of thinking that that would render us hopelessly lost in thinking, with no basis for reason.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure you do know. Beetle's English isn't fantastic and you're not great at bridging the gap. Leeway ...
OK, deny deny deny all you like. We both know what you have said in this thread and I simply cant be bothered to go back and quote your own words back to you.
Originally posted by black beetle"I don’t know; the state before the emergence of mind lays in the superposition;"
Edit: “So were there no facts before the emergence of mind, or was there never such a "before"?”
I don’t know; the state before the emergence of mind lays in the superposition;
I thank you for the exchange too😵
So let it be that:
Superposition is the case before the emergence of mind.
It is that which is the case.
The statement "Superposition is the case before the emergence of mind" expresses a truth, but it is a truth after the emergence of mind. A mind is required, for there to be a truth; but a mind is not required, for there to be a fact.
This is a result of how I use the words "truth" and "fact."
Originally posted by black beetleActually computers only do what we tell them to, or what we design them to
1. I told you repeatedly that I did not say that Math is species dependent. Where exactly at this thread did I wrote down such a thing? Instead, I said Math is entirely a human invention equivalent to a language and that, as such, it neither applies to the other sentient beings that do not share the same consensus we do as regards our accepted set of me ...[text shortened]... chess engines), I said that they cannot work without their man-made programs in first place.
😵
do. One of the main complaints about computers is they never do what we
want only what we tell them.
Computers doing anything is all by design, if you look at just the computer,
it will do nothing on its own, even if you apply power to it, nothing! What
has to be built into it is a purpose, a set of designed commands. If you want
AI to be aware the hardware has be designed to allow for that, and then
operating systems have to be in place to cause it to use what the hardware
it has and then design it to act accordingly.
We call computers smart, but again they are only doing what we set them up
to do, we feed them input and allow them to give us outputs we want, they
just do it very fast. We may as well call cars smart because they move fast,
or airplanes because they fly.
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357Since we have no way to perceive any fact if mind does not perceive it, fact is mind depentent😵
"I don’t know; the state before the emergence of mind lays in the superposition;"
So let it be that:
Superposition is the case before the emergence of mind.
It is that which is the case.
The [b]statement "Superposition is the case before the emergence of mind" expresses a truth, but it is a truth after the emergence of mind. A mind is r ...[text shortened]... , for there to be a fact.
This is a result of how I use the words "truth" and "fact."[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayThey act according to their program and the result of their calculations is hardly predictable😵
Actually computers only do what we tell them to, or what we design them to
do. One of the main complaints about computers is they never do what we
want only what we tell them.
Computers doing anything is all by design, if you look at just the computer,
it will do nothing on its own, even if you apply power to it, nothing! What
has to be built into it ...[text shortened]... t. We may as well call cars smart because they move fast,
or airplanes because they fly.
Kelly