110 replies to this topic

[Kalepha]

Justin, I'm afraid it isn't straightforward. So dinosaurs never existed? Galaxies don't exist until we account for them? Your parents didn't exist until you believed you had parents? If you can't really know anything then you can't know that you can't know anything. Solipsism combined with radical skepticism is so useless it can't even bear suicidal choices.

Please trace epistemology over the last few centuries.

[justinb]

Justin, I'm afraid it isn't straightforward. So dinosaurs never existed? Galaxies don't exist until we account for them? Your parents didn't exist until you believed you had parents? If you can't really know anything then you can't know that you can't know anything. Solipsism combined with radical skepticism is so useless it can't even bear suicidal choices.

Please trace epistemology over the last few centuries.

It didn't exist in my mind until I learned about it, and thus didn't exist to me. Perhaps you should reread what I said in a different perspective. Reality only exists within our minds. All that we know and see is only within our minds. Reality is solely in our mind. The word "reality" and its meanings are within our mind. Reality is anthropic in nature.

Reality cannot exist without a mind observing, since reality is what I observe. I think this is straight forward enough. Sure, we intuitively think there is an "objective reality" "out there," but what the heck do we know?

[Kalepha]

Reality, as you define it, is a notion of abduction. But we may infer without consequence that if Earth exploded tomorrow, things still will be. The consequence of a denial is the problem of explaining how we are if things are not.

[justinb]

Nate Barna

Reality, as you define it, is a notion of abduction. But we may infer without consequence that if Earth exploded tomorrow, things still will be. The consequence of a denial is the problem of explaining how we are if things are not.

Perhaps there is a semantic and/or logical error here.

Reality as I mean it is: (Reality 1)

What I observe. (metaphysical)

Reality as you mean it (my assumption): (Reality 2)

That which exists without need of clarification from a "mind." (physical)

(Reality 1) is what I preceive. Of course it is safe to say that (Reality 2) will exist without me, but there is no way of proving it.

I believe that both the metaphysical and physical assumptions are true. But, ultimately, reality only exists within my mind.

[Kalepha]

Of course it is safe to say that (Reality 2) will exist without me, but there is no way of proving it.

I agree. There is no way, although that's where formal epistemology comes in. But I think we're in general agreement now.

[Kalepha]

Marc, I will try to think about your position more deeply. Maybe what you mean, very generally, by mathematics entities extends to referents and by information to its intrinsic performances, not limited to cognitive states, agent-to-agent channels, or dangling symbols.

[justinb]

Lazarus Long

Also Justin aside from the discussion of FW, science is entirely dependent on observation, so is science just biodynamics too?

Yes.

(To make my position clear, science is cognitive processes in the brain that makes us create technology and "order" in the universe. Truth is biodynamics.
We are just part of the universe observing another part of the universe.)

Jaydfox

Those aren't thought to be physically possible in our universe, but that's different from being not logically possible at all.

Physically possible in our universe? This is the only universe we have. There is absolutely no logical argument for nonphysical "events."
Since physical processes are the only things that exist (have been proven to exist). There is no soul. The illusion of metaphysical experiance is solely physical, since
the only things that do exist, are physical. We will never prove what consciousness is with our current intellects (I doubt we will ever do so),
so there is no point in continuing this.

Truth is subjective. It is solely anthropic in nature. The concept of "truth," and the word, is nothing but biodynamics. We are just a simple organism viewing a small section of the universe. Immortalists, if and when our anthropic intellects expand, are going to go through some very bizarre experiances. We will start to understand ourselves on an intellectual and emotional level that will be completely out of this world. An entire dimension of reality will open up to us. Never stop thinking and questioning your beliefs until you are dead.

Edited by justinb, 27 September 2005 - 08:09 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

  (justinb)
(To make my position clear, science is cognitive processes in the brain that makes us create technology and "order" in the universe. Truth is biodynamics.

We don't create 'order' in the universe. We 'perceive' order through science and do not confuse science with technology, they are not the same at all. Technology is mostly dependent on science, not necessarily the other way around. Science is about understanding the universe not imposing order, only identifying it.

Truth is subjective. It is solely anthropic in nature.

Truth is whatever you seem to want to define it as but it is not anthropic, those are social 'truths', truth in an absolute sense exists without regard to humanity whatsoever and it is simply fact accurately comprehended.

Biodynamics is just a word that you appear to apply a bit too broadly, now would you please take a bit of time to refine what you have stated somewhat simplistically in more precise and applicable terms?

[justinb]

We don't create 'order' in the universe. We 'perceive' order.

Can you prove that?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there is an absolute reality.

It really depends on how you look at it. After all, truth is antropic in nature, so in a way we do create order.

Biodynamics is the entire quantum state of the brain. It is all of the chemical reactions and structures thereof.

[Lazarus Long]

(justinb)
Can you prove that?

Look at the sun (meant figuratively) is it not vastly older than you?

Do you suggest that it did not exist before you individually, or 'us' as a species?

Are you suggesting it needs us to exist?

The solar system is highly ordered and centered on the gravity well of the sun. The rules governing its behavior have nothing to do with our understanding of them but as we understand those rules we can better perceive the universe in which we exist. The sun does not require us to have a brain to exist, it does not require biology for its energy and it does not matter if you feel a need to believe or not.

What is a "quantum state of the brain"?

[Kalepha]

I think Laz is right about the meaning of ‘truth’ in that it is what is the actual. Justin, you are probably pointing, albeit vaguely, to what is generally meant by ‘knowledge’. Truth and knowledge are different. Knowledge is more likely to be anthropic or, more precisely, observer-biased.

[justinb]

Lazarus,

I do believe that there is an objective reality and that the sun existed before I did. But, it is ultimately just a belief because I cannot prove it beyond any doubt.

What is a "quantum state of the brain"?

The neurons, and all other cells, that comprise the brain.

-Edit-

And, of course, all of the chemicals interacting with them.

I think Laz is right about the meaning of ‘truth’ in that it is what is the actual.

Yes, but the way we preceive the universe is definitely varried and subjective. "Truth" is, after all, moment to moment. For all we know there could be no absolute reality. Although I do believe in one.

[Kalepha]

Did you read the rest of my post?

[justinb]

Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes.

Ultimately though, the only truth we know is knowledge.

Truth and knowledge are different.

That statement is ultimately subjective.

The uncial "Truth" and truth are the same thing. [thumb]

[Kalepha]

Truth is a condition of knowledge. But when it comes to knowledge all the action revolves around the nature of belief and the necessary and sufficient conditions for justification. Most of the time truth is irrelevant (although not in philosophy of language), since we could be living in a simulation and hence would have to make do with our best criteria of justified belief.

Edited by Nate Barna, 26 September 2005 - 12:40 AM.

[justinb]

Most of the time truth is irrelevant, since we could be living in a simulation and hence would have to make do with our best criteria of justified belief.

The idea of a simulation is completely anthropic. Logically speaking even if we existed in a simulation, there still would exist an absolute reality? No?

[Kalepha]

In other words, all this fuss about truth accomplishes nothing.

[justinb]

Yep.

[Kalepha]

You say, "Yep." But do you know why?

[justinb]

Nope. [lol]

(Ultimately, we need to become smarter to learn more about what is going on.)

[justinb]

Prometheus

It doesn't if..
- the numbers are in base 2

"1 + 1 = 2 in the decimal system" is true, and that is what you implicitly mean when you say "1 + 1 = 2". That other number systems exist does not make that any less true. You always take the system into account, explicitly or implicitly. By the way, 10 in the binary system has the same meaning as 2 in the decimal system, so in terms of meanings - which is what counts - both say the same anyway. (Paul Cooijmans)

(Just thought you would like to know.) [tung]