On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Little Idiot]

There is no observer.

Wait! stop! Explain!

What do you mean?

There is no place in the brain where things are processed, represented and presented. The fist two are okay it's the presented part that doesn't exist. Sort of. It isn't considered a presentation because it is the same stuff as the processing and the representation. It's all the same stuff.

The observer is a subject, not an object.
Being unable to observe it as an object suggests only that it may not be or is not an object, but does not show it is not a subject.

[Little Idiot]

What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

(a) We do know the existence of the physical world by our experience of it.
(b) We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our experience of it.
Therefore
(c) In order to know that the world exists by our experience of it, there must be an experiencer to know the experience and know the knowledge of the world. The experiencer has the capacity to know and to experience.

Or.

(d) We do know the existence of the physical world by our mind-made representation of it.
(e) We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our mind-made representation of it.
Therefore
(f) In order to know the world exists by our mind-made representation of it, there must be a mind to make the representation of it. The mind has the capacity to make representations from sense data and to know its representations.

[GrahamH]

What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

We do know the existence of the physical world by our experience of it.
We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our experience of it.
Therefore
In order to know that the world exists by our experience of it, there must be an experiencer to know the experience and know the knowledge of the world. The experiencer has the capacity to know and to experience.

Or.

We do know the existence of the physical world by our mind-made representation of it.
We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our mind-made representation of it.
Therefore
In order to know the world exists by our mind-made representation of it, there must be a mind to make the representation of it. The mind has the capacity to make representations from sense data and to know its representations.

:Sigh:

First you claim 'victory' now this?

SoS likes the phrase 'mistaking the finger for the moon'. It seems to apply to you here. It can sometimes seem helpful to talk about 'the mind' with analogies, such as 'story teller', as if there were a mini-me inside, 'observing my perceptions', but isn't this Cartesian Theatre long since boarded up, knocked down and turned into a car park?

Describe this process of 'mind-made representation'. Is there a team of little elves hammering, sawing, painting and sewing to make a set and costumes for the Qualia Show? What form do you think these mental representations take? I suspect it is more like a foot leaving footprints in the mud, or the roots of the tree imprinting and conforming to the soil, than any sort of 'construction'. (These are analogies, not frivolous talk of 'an observer')

[Little Idiot]

What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

(a) We do know the existence of the physical world by our experience of it.
(b) We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our experience of it.
Therefore
(c) In order to know that the world exists by our experience of it, there must be an experiencer to know the experience and know the knowledge of the world. The experiencer has the capacity to know and to experience.

Or.

(d) We do know the existence of the physical world by our mind-made representation of it.
(e) We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our mind-made representation of it.
Therefore
(f) In order to know the world exists by our mind-made representation of it, there must be a mind to make the representation of it. The mind has the capacity to make representations from sense data and to know its representations.

:Sigh:

First you claim 'victory' now this?

My claim of victory was only a battle, not the war.
I won the point that empirical evidence alone can not account for all known knowledge, there are other ways of knowing. In other words, some knowledge can be known without empirical knowledge. Therefore, not being supported by empirical knowledge does not prove a given point to be an error.

SoS likes the phrase 'mistaking the finger for the moon'. It seems to apply to you here. It can sometimes seem helpful to talk about 'the mind' with analogies, such as 'story teller', as if there were a mini-me inside, 'observing my perceptions', but isn't this Cartesian Theatre long since boarded up, knocked down and turned into a car park?

Describe this process of 'mind-made representation'. Is there a team of little elves hammering, sawing, painting and sewing to make a set and costumes for the Qualia Show? What form do you think these mental representations take? I suspect it is more like a foot leaving footprints in the mud, or the roots of the tree imprinting and conforming to the soil, than any sort of 'construction'. (These are analogies, not frivolous talk of 'an observer')

Be specific which do you say is wrong, a or b (I labeled them above). And why is it wrong?
Do you grant them, but say (c) does not follow?
Do you grant (c) too but dispute the second paragraph?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You did not win the point, LI.

You merely claimed that the existence of mathematical proofs somehow validated your point. But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

[the PC apeman]

You did not win the point, LI.

You merely claimed that the existence of mathematical proofs somehow validated your point. But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

And that really ought to be the end of these threads. Sadly it will not be.

[Kenny Login]

It can sometimes seem helpful to talk about 'the mind' with analogies, such as 'story teller', as if there were a mini-me inside, 'observing my perceptions', but isn't this Cartesian Theatre long since boarded up, knocked down and turned into a car park?

Describe this process of 'mind-made representation'. Is there a team of little elves hammering, sawing, painting and sewing to make a set and costumes for the Qualia Show? What form do you think these mental representations take? I suspect it is more like a foot leaving footprints in the mud, or the roots of the tree imprinting and conforming to the soil, than any sort of 'construction'. (These are analogies, not frivolous talk of 'an observer')

If LI were to do away with the 'we' and 'observ-er' and 'experienc-er', then the points still stand. This would be possible to do with (a), (b), (d) and (e), minus the outmoded Cartesian theatre as you quite rightly mention. (f) and (c) are really very different kettles of fish however.

Not sure if he is building up to this, but, say from a vedantic view, which I think has been mentioned - it wouldn't be ridiculous.

[Kenny Login]

But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

That's interesting - could you expand/give examples that a non-mathematician would understand?

[Surendra Darathy]

[from a vedantic view, which I think has been mentioned - it wouldn't be ridiculous.

There isn't anything about any "view" that is "ridiculous". It's only when it comes time to cite some evidence or argument for a "view" that ridiculousnessness rears the head of uglinessness. Name dropping of "vedantic" doesn't cunt count.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

That's interesting - could you expand/give examples that a non-mathematician would understand?

Here are the most famous axioms - those of Euclid - taken from Wikipediad.

Axioms
Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system, in which all theorems ("true statements") are derived from a small number of axioms. Near the beginning of the first book of the Elements, Euclid gives five postulates (axioms) for plane geometry, stated in terms of constructions:[6]
Let the following be postulated:

• To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
• To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
• To describe a circle with any center and distance [radius].
• That all right angles are equal to one another.
• The parallel postulate: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

Although Euclid's statement of the postulates only explicitly asserts the existence of the constructions, they are also taken to be unique.
The Elements also include the following five "common notions":

• Things that equal the same thing also equal one another.
• If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.
• If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.
• Things that coincide with one another equal one another.
• The whole is greater than the part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s ... tes#Axioms

[SpeedOfSound]

You did not win the point, LI.

You merely claimed that the existence of mathematical proofs somehow validated your point. But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

Thank you.

[SpeedOfSound]

What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

(a) We do know the existence of the physical world by our experience of it.
(b) We can not know the existence of the physical world outside of our experience of it.
Therefore
(c) In order to know that the world exists by our experience of it, there must be an experiencer to know the experience and know the knowledge of the world. The experiencer has the capacity to know and to experience.

C doesn't follow but that's the least of our problems here.

What you say in the whole post is pretty common talk at an R1 level. Amounts to not much more then that we have senses and a brain to make sense of them. Even neuroscientists use words like processing and representations though they need be careful. I think the words form this would be one of Wittgenstein's language games and it's fine as long as no meaning is given outside of usage.

We intend to go deeper so I strongly caution you that words like 'know' and 'sense' and 'representation' and 'processing' are going to be far more carefully drawn and used or else discarded altogether.

That is the right fate of 'observer'. This is fine if it's just us folks talking folksy talk and referring to ourselves as a whole. If we want to figure things out about mind however we must toss this piece in the trash.

What you wrote in c is classical Cartesian dualism. You can't save it like you claim by turning both mind and PW into menticles. It doesn't even matter if I turn both mind and PW into physicles. Still dualism. With the idea of processing and representation and then presentation you will always have the dualist problem of infinite retreat. I do mean retreat.

The only way to cure the retreat is to stop retreating and stand firm and say "I am now Mind, hear me fucking roar". Which is classical Cartesian dualism.

If we cross to R2 here is what we find. There ain't no fucking observer. And there needn't be.

If you have no other sensory input (impossible) and one circle of orange light appeared before your eyes it would start to light up paths through your brain and set in motion a flurry of activity that would quickly settle into a state much like a flickering standing wave.

The exact nature of that wave would depend upon all of the previous history of your brain and be very much guided by all the previous experience of circles and orange light.

But that's it. There is no observer or presentation. Presentation IS representation. Observer IS the standing wave.

But it gets a little complicated at this juncture. There are things like association cortices that gather multiple inputs and create their own rich little SW's. There are also motive forces inside the brain like attentional modulation, automatic orienting responses, and the motor of waking and consciousness itself.

The standing wave of orange circle can take on a life of it's own and persist after the sensory input is gone. It can be examined by sequences for further salience to the organism.

And that last is all consciousness really is.

But no observer. No Fucking Observer!

[jamest]

You did not win the point, LI.

You merely claimed that the existence of mathematical proofs somehow validated your point. But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

I don't believe that this is true. That is, I don't believe that whatever has come out of the mouths of mathematicians, or logicians, has necessarily been a consequence of 'observation'.
I only have to cite Zeno of Elea - who lived about 2500 years-ago - to lend weight to my point. He was famous for his logical parodoxes, derived purely from logic, which made claims contrary to observation!

Logical conclusions are not necessarily a subsequent claim of observation. That much is evident in the works of many philosophers, not just Zeno. The same applies to mathematicians.

And, btw, Euclidean logic is not necessarily 'wrong' - it's just at-odds with how 'the world' is perceived.
People are so short-sighted. They garner information, for instance, that proves that Euclid's axioms are not absolute - and instantly attack Euclid's axioms. Why don't they fixate upon something else instead, such as the 'absoluteness' of the world that he was talking about?

Nobody has ever proved that Zeno, or Euclid, were 'wrong'. All they ever did was show that observation was [sometimes] at-odds with logical thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You did not win the point, LI.

You merely claimed that the existence of mathematical proofs somehow validated your point. But mathematical proofs are built upon earlier proofs, etc. (it's proofs all the way down) until, in the final analysis, they are built upon axioms which cannot be proven and are merely taken as being self-evident.

Here's the stinger.

Those axioms are accepted as self-evident because they agree with our observation of empirical data.

I don't believe that this is true. That is, I don't believe that whatever has come out of the mouths of mathematicians, or logicians, has necessarily been a consequence of 'observation'.

You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you will. However, for me to be convinced that your belief system is based upon anything other than blind faith, I would appreciate evidence of how any of Euclid's postulates and axioms diverge from observation. (The exception being the parallel postulate, the negation of which leads to some very useful results in what is known as non-Euclidean geometry - ie. the geometry of non-flat surfaces. The postulate holds perfectly well for the geometry of flat planes however.)

I only have to cite Zeno of Elea - who lived about 2500 years-ago - to lend weight to my point. He was famous for his logical parodoxes, derived purely from logic, which made claims contrary to observation!

Actually, Zeno's paradoxes were derived from (faulty) logic applied to observation, not purely from logic. But continue.

Logical conclusions are not necessarily a subsequent claim of observation. That much is evident in the works of many philosophers, not just Zeno. The same applies to mathematicians.

People make mistakes and use faulty logic, in other words? I doubt anyone would dispute that.

And, btw, Euclidean logic is not necessarily 'wrong' - it's just at-odds with how 'the world' is perceived.

Is it? How please? And are you referring to Euclid's postulates here? Or to the logic which builds upon them to produce mathematical proofs?

People are so short-sighted.

So this is an eyesight issue? Don't prescription lenses help?

They garner information, for instance, that proves that Euclid's axioms are not absolute - and instantly attack Euclid's axioms.

Which axioms have been proven not to be absolute? Your evidence please? And why would they be wrong to attack a provably untrue premise?

Why don't they fixate upon something else instead, such as the 'absoluteness' of the world that he was talking about?

Why attack that? What has it ever done to you? And what exactly are you referring to when you talk about the absoluteness of Euclid's world?

Nobody has ever proved that Zeno, or Euclid, were 'wrong'.

Aristotle went a great way towards proving Zeno wrong. Archimedes improved upon his work. More recent advances in mathematics, especially calculus, completed the job. All of the common paradoxes come down to summing infinite sequences, the methods for which have been rigorously proven logically.

As for Euclid, exactly what did Euclid ever claim that is at odds with observable reality or logical thought?

All they ever did was show that observation was [sometimes] at-odds with logical thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, Zeno did (not Euclid - I have no idea where you got that notion from) but only because his logic was flawed (although it took several hundred years to pinpoint exactly how with rigour.)

There is plenty about Zeno's paradoxes in wikipedia, including sketchy explanations of various solutions. Far fuller demonstrations exist if you care to google 'Zeno paradox solution' and can follow the maths.



To sum up. You seem to be saying two things here (correct me if I am wrong.)

(a) That Euclid's axioms are at odds with observation in some way.
(b) That logic built on these axioms can contradict observation, ie. lead to false results.

(a) may well be true but nobody has demonstrated this in the 2,300 since the Elements were first published. Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven, merely held to be self-evident, but can be shown to be false with a single counter-example.

(b) may also be true, as every possible result that can be derived from Euclid's axioms is not known and never will be. However, nothing based upon the axioms and constructed via sound logic springs to mind - I am sure that it would have made quite a splash in mathematical circles had a false result based purely upon Euclid's axioms been proven, so I think I would have heard of it.

[jamest]

I don't believe that this is true. That is, I don't believe that whatever has come out of the mouths of mathematicians, or logicians, has necessarily been a consequence of 'observation'.

I would appreciate evidence of how any of Euclid's postulates and axioms diverge from observation.

Euclid's primary claims are not observationally correct.

I only have to cite Zeno of Elea - who lived about 2500 years-ago - to lend weight to my point. He was famous for his logical parodoxes, derived purely from logic, which made claims contrary to observation!

Actually, Zeno's paradoxes were derived from (faulty) logic applied to observation, not purely from logic. But continue.

Actually, Zeno's paradoxes are reducible to a critique of the reality of space (and time).

Logical conclusions are not necessarily a subsequent claim of observation. That much is evident in the works of many philosophers, not just Zeno. The same applies to mathematicians.

People make mistakes and use faulty logic, in other words? I doubt anyone would dispute that.

Sure, including - possibly - yourself. The point was that the reality of the world might be questionable - and not, necessarily, either Zeno's or Euclid's logic.

And, btw, Euclidean logic is not necessarily 'wrong' - it's just at-odds with how 'the world' is perceived.

Is it? How please? And are you referring to Euclid's postulates here? Or to the logic which builds upon them to produce mathematical proofs?

The so-called 'proof' that Euclid's logic was wrong was [apparently] demonstrated by observation. Which actually proves nothing, since that which is observed is not known to be 'reality'.

Again, a case of short-sightedness and ignorance facilitating absolute judgement about absolute logic.

People are so short-sighted.

So this is an eyesight issue? Don't prescription lenses help?

What a Beavis and Butt-head comment that is.

My point has been made: the observation of something doesn't prove that the logic of something is necessarily wrong. Since we cannot know whether that which is observed is actually 'reality' itself, then we cannot say that 'logic' that aspires to be synonymous with said reality is necessarily wrong as proved by observation.

It all boils down to a simple fact: if what we observe was 'reality', then philosophy would be obsolete. Unfortunately - with regards to your own BELIEFS on this issue - nothing confirms that what we 'observe' IS 'reality'.

Basically, I'm just calling you short-sighted.