On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

SoS,

I'm losing sight of what fundamental conclusion you wish to persuade us to believe. Apparently, you had some strategy I fucked up that you thought you could argue ID into a corner with and have a "ta-dah" moment. Can you just cut to the chase and succinctly state (restate?) it for me in one or two sentences? I've lost the point of this thread. If it's my fault, I apologize.

Hmmm. The chase. BTW there is never going to be a tahdah moment with LI or LG or 'jamest'. This will go on forever.

If you read his posts you will see that he is constantly trying to make science about naive materialism and ideas of really real. He is also doing the same with his idea of mentalism. He is highly confused about this topic of metaphysics not having a basis. He insists that we are metaphysically clinging to some really real model of physicalism.

What I am trying to show is that he believes something that would be superset of of what relativists accept. A superset of what we know and what we can know. This is a flawed endeavor.

So my claim is that he is as much a physicalist as we are. But he adds spice to it and therefore he is fucking the pooch.

All the stuff about R1 is to find common ground on what we accept as an ontologically shallow knowledge of reality.

Now I really need a nap as I may have gotten sloppy here.

[FedUpWithFaith]

SoS,

I'm losing sight of what fundamental conclusion you wish to persuade us to believe. Apparently, you had some strategy I fucked up that you thought you could argue ID into a corner with and have a "ta-dah" moment. Can you just cut to the chase and succinctly state (restate?) it for me in one or two sentences? I've lost the point of this thread. If it's my fault, I apologize.

Hmmm. The chase. BTW there is never going to be a tahdah moment with LI or LG or 'jamest'. This will go on forever.

If you read his posts you will see that he is constantly trying to make science about naive materialism and ideas of really real. He is also doing the same with his idea of mentalism. He is highly confused about this topic of metaphysics not having a basis. He insists that we are metaphysically clinging to some really real model of physicalism.

What I am trying to show is that he believes something that would be superset of of what relativists accept. A superset of what we know and what we can know. This is a flawed endeavor.

So my claim is that he is as much a physicalist as we are. But he adds spice to it and therefore he is fucking the pooch.

All the stuff about R1 is to find common ground on what we accept as an ontologically shallow knowledge of reality.

Now I really need a nap as I may have gotten sloppy here.

Alrighty then. You go have a nice nappy nap.

I didn't realize the point of the thread was to try to convince somebody they're a moron when you knew a priori that couldn't be done in the first place. Oh wait, you're trying to convince me/us he's a moron. Well, you're doing a bang-up job so far.

[Little Idiot]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../9801057v2.pdf

Link doesn't work.

This forum fuckin' truncated it somehow. I'll try again. If this doesn't work I'll break it up below

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/ ... 1057v2.pdf



or piece together:

http://arxiv.org/
PS_cache/
quant-ph/pdf/
9801057v2.pdf

Put your link in URL tags, FUWF. The punctuation in it is confusing our sensors.

Wow even his smilie has prehensile eyebrows, wonder if the smilie speaks 9 languages too...
It must those quick mod tools they were talking about...

[GrahamH]

...
On RDF I was going on about something that I'm having trouble explaining to people about the purely informational nature of reality. I was somewhere out in Linear Algebra La-La-Land when I had to get busy with other things. I ran into the same problem with information. People wanted to bring the mind into it and I wanted to get the mind out.

The thing is, regardless of what mind is, we cant get away from the point that we know anything and everything by its mechanism. Most people, even physicalists accept that; even though they may say the mind is the brain (as you used to do).

If you were to understand the world as data, in order for a person to know the world he must interact with or be aware of the data in some way - I would say this is via the mind.
IF you were to say the reality is the data, you would need to explain the interface between me and the data. If you say my experience is my 'interpretation of' or 'reaction to' the data, appearing to me as-if it is a physical world external to my body, then you have a model very similar to me.

What I ask is why do you insist the mind be removed from the system?

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

[Little Idiot]

...
On RDF I was going on about something that I'm having trouble explaining to people about the purely informational nature of reality. I was somewhere out in Linear Algebra La-La-Land when I had to get busy with other things. I ran into the same problem with information. People wanted to bring the mind into it and I wanted to get the mind out.

The thing is, regardless of what mind is, we cant get away from the point that we know anything and everything by its mechanism. Most people, even physicalists accept that; even though they may say the mind is the brain (as you used to do).

If you were to understand the world as data, in order for a person to know the world he must interact with or be aware of the data in some way - I would say this is via the mind.
IF you were to say the reality is the data, you would need to explain the interface between me and the data. If you say my experience is my 'interpretation of' or 'reaction to' the data, appearing to me as-if it is a physical world external to my body, then you have a model very similar to me.

What I ask is why do you insist the mind be removed from the system?

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

I dont think I am sold on it yet, but I am more sold on it than some other positions.
There does seem to me to be one fundamental difference between 'its all data' (which may become SoS's new mantra, so I wont say 'Its all dataTM) and 'its all mental' which is my long standing manta. The difference is that 'its all mental'

includes the observer (consciousness/awareness/knower) and the known (ideas/'objects of awareness'/thought) I think this is the biggest sticking point of the 'its all data' model, data without a data-reader is (possibly) a dead end.

[Little Idiot]

BTW SoS and FuwF I owe you guys an insignificant, very minor and grudging apology; I was responding to the back log of posts while you were exchanging posts about the data etc, and only having caught up is it apparent how confusing it may have been with my posts on your old posts poping into your exchange.

So sorry if it became frustrating to you guys.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

Data is basically information. At the level we normally talk about information, be it of the Shannon or Kolmogorov type, it denotes a bit or numerical representation that can be put in the form of a message from a sender to a receiver. However, in its simplest form, we need not posit an a priori meaningful representation for data nor a consciousness as sender or receiver. Cellular automata can effectively transact information across very simple rule of interaction boundaries (like the Game of Life) in computing space (not like real space). Moreover, they have been proven mathematically to be capable of generating a Universal Turing Machine. In fact, this is precisely what Konrad Zuse claimed underlies all physical laws in his Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space).

And you are correct, this is a form of neutral monism. I would not say, however, that "you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'." They are data and data processing, the later being the real abstraction layer of mind. Data are "things" even though they are abstract things. Mind is a process like running that processes and stores data. You wouldn't say running is legs. I'm always wary of trying to reify the mental. It's led a lot of smart philosophers down a lot of crappy ratholes.

[Little Idiot]

SoS,

I'm losing sight of what fundamental conclusion you wish to persuade us to believe. Apparently, you had some strategy I fucked up that you thought you could argue ID into a corner with and have a "ta-dah" moment. Can you just cut to the chase and succinctly state (restate?) it for me in one or two sentences? I've lost the point of this thread. If it's my fault, I apologize.

Hmmm. The chase. BTW there is never going to be a tahdah moment with LI or LG or 'jamest'. This will go on forever.

If you read his posts you will see that he is constantly trying to make science about naive materialism and ideas of really real. He is also doing the same with his idea of mentalism. He is highly confused about this topic of metaphysics not having a basis. He insists that we are metaphysically clinging to some really real model of physicalism.

What I am trying to show is that he believes something that would be superset of of what relativists accept. A superset of what we know and what we can know. This is a flawed endeavor.

So my claim is that he is as much a physicalist as we are. But he adds spice to it and therefore he is fucking the pooch.

All the stuff about R1 is to find common ground on what we accept as an ontologically shallow knowledge of reality.

Now I really need a nap as I may have gotten sloppy here.

Alrighty then. You go have a nice nappy nap.

I didn't realize the point of the thread was to try to convince somebody they're a moron when you knew a priori that couldn't be done in the first place. Oh wait, you're trying to convince me/us he's a moron. Well, you're doing a bang-up job so far.

Oh we all already know I am a moron, thats been established for a long time. He just likes to make sure I dont forget

[FedUpWithFaith]

That really describes the essence of philosophical discourse I see on most forums - and in many philosophy books too.

[GrahamH]

...
On RDF I was going on about something that I'm having trouble explaining to people about the purely informational nature of reality. I was somewhere out in Linear Algebra La-La-Land when I had to get busy with other things. I ran into the same problem with information. People wanted to bring the mind into it and I wanted to get the mind out.

The thing is, regardless of what mind is, we cant get away from the point that we know anything and everything by its mechanism. Most people, even physicalists accept that; even though they may say the mind is the brain (as you used to do).

If you were to understand the world as data, in order for a person to know the world he must interact with or be aware of the data in some way - I would say this is via the mind.
IF you were to say the reality is the data, you would need to explain the interface between me and the data. If you say my experience is my 'interpretation of' or 'reaction to' the data, appearing to me as-if it is a physical world external to my body, then you have a model very similar to me.

What I ask is why do you insist the mind be removed from the system?

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

I dont think I am sold on it yet, but I am more sold on it than some other positions.
There does seem to me to be one fundamental difference between 'its all data' (which may become SoS's new mantra, so I wont say 'Its all dataTM) and 'its all mental' which is my long standing manta. The difference is that 'its all mental'

includes the observer (consciousness/awareness/knower) and the known (ideas/'objects of awareness'/thought) I think this is the biggest sticking point of the 'its all data' model, data without a data-reader is (possibly) a dead end.

"It's all mental" requires a mind. "It's all data/information" requires a reader (so you say) (and a writer?). "It's all physical" may not require anything extra, if 'physical' is 'geometric'. "It's all physical" doesn't have a separate 'observer' if the nature of 'physical' is interaction (observation might be a particular interaction). Do they all reduce to a common concept?

[GrahamH]

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

Data is basically information. At the level we normally talk about information, be it of the Shannon or Kolmogorov type, it denotes a bit or numerical representation that can be put in the form of a message from a sender to a receiver. However, in its simplest form, we need not posit an a priori meaningful representation for data nor a consciousness as sender or receiver. Cellular automata can effectively transact information across very simple rule of interaction boundaries (like the Game of Life) in computing space (not like real space). Moreover, they have been proven mathematically to be capable of generating a Universal Turing Machine. In fact, this is precisely what Konrad Zuse claimed underlies all physical laws in his Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space).

And you are correct, this is a form of neutral monism. I would not say, however, that "you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'." They are data and data processing, the later being the real abstraction layer of mind. Data are "things" even though they are abstract things. Mind is a process like running that processes and stores data. You wouldn't say running is legs. I'm always wary of trying to reify the mental. It's led a lot of smart philosophers down a lot of crappy ratholes.

Would you say geometry is information?

When you get to 'data processing' is where "it's all data" gets problematic. "Data processing", or processes in general, are interactions between physical objects. "Data processing" requires a "data processor". A computer program requires a computer. Why is that not dualism?

[edit]
I would say running requires legs, is a description of a process that legs perform, and is nothing in itself. We can't say "it's all running".
[/edit]

[Little Idiot]

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

Data is basically information. At the level we normally talk about information, be it of the Shannon or Kolmogorov type, it denotes a bit or numerical representation that can be put in the form of a message from a sender to a receiver. However, in its simplest form, we need not posit an a priori meaningful representation for data nor a consciousness as sender or receiver. Cellular automata can effectively transact information across very simple rule of interaction boundaries (like the Game of Life) in computing space (not like real space). Moreover, they have been proven mathematically to be capable of generating a Universal Turing Machine. In fact, this is precisely what Konrad Zuse claimed underlies all physical laws in his Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space).

And you are correct, this is a form of neutral monism. I would not say, however, that "you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'." They are data and data processing, the later being the real abstraction layer of mind. Data are "things" even though they are abstract things. Mind is a process like running that processes and stores data. You wouldn't say running is legs. I'm always wary of trying to reify the mental. It's led a lot of smart philosophers down a lot of crappy ratholes.

Be patient with me, if you will;
'At the level we normally talk about information' implies a different level here, is that so?
What exactly would a 'Universal Turing Machine' mean?
Data and data processing are two things, right? we cant have 'self processing data,' can we?
I am quite at ease with mind is a process that processes and stores data, but that would be distinct from and of a different nature to the data, right?
When you say 'I'm always wary of trying to reify the mental' do you mean to say the mind is an abstraction, not real? it doesnt exist?

[Little Idiot]

That really describes the essence of philosophical discourse I see on most forums - and in many philosophy books too.

Sorry, what does? your post before this one?

[Little Idiot]

...
On RDF I was going on about something that I'm having trouble explaining to people about the purely informational nature of reality. I was somewhere out in Linear Algebra La-La-Land when I had to get busy with other things. I ran into the same problem with information. People wanted to bring the mind into it and I wanted to get the mind out.

The thing is, regardless of what mind is, we cant get away from the point that we know anything and everything by its mechanism. Most people, even physicalists accept that; even though they may say the mind is the brain (as you used to do).

If you were to understand the world as data, in order for a person to know the world he must interact with or be aware of the data in some way - I would say this is via the mind.
IF you were to say the reality is the data, you would need to explain the interface between me and the data. If you say my experience is my 'interpretation of' or 'reaction to' the data, appearing to me as-if it is a physical world external to my body, then you have a model very similar to me.

What I ask is why do you insist the mind be removed from the system?

I'm not sold on this idea that "it's all data" (what is meant by 'data'?), but if it were the case it would follow that you, your mind, experience and interpretation are also 'data'.
In this data monism treeness is not fundamentally different to consciousness or redness.

I dont think I am sold on it yet, but I am more sold on it than some other positions.
There does seem to me to be one fundamental difference between 'its all data' (which may become SoS's new mantra, so I wont say 'Its all dataTM) and 'its all mental' which is my long standing manta. The difference is that 'its all mental'

includes the observer (consciousness/awareness/knower) and the known (ideas/'objects of awareness'/thought) I think this is the biggest sticking point of the 'its all data' model, data without a data-reader is (possibly) a dead end.

"It's all mental" requires a mind. "It's all data/information" requires a reader (so you say) (and a writer?). "It's all physical" may not require anything extra, if 'physical' is 'geometric'. "It's all physical" doesn't have a separate 'observer' if the nature of 'physical' is interaction (observation might be a particular interaction). Do they all reduce to a common concept?

Absolutly.

I think so, any way.
One message, different languages type of thing.

[FedUpWithFaith]

"It's all mental" requires a mind.

yes

"It's all data/information" requires a reader (so you say) (and a writer?).

No, only a representation and an interaction or transposition mechanism.

"It's all physical" may not require anything extra

May? If the physical is a concrete thing, not a virtual thing or abstraction, it still begs the question of the concrete coming from nothing and possibly much more. In the Platonic sense, or better in Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, the universe/multiverse comes from pure abstract math and logic. And I see no problems with having to wonder how they came into existence. 1+1=2 is eternal. The reason mathematics so seemingly miraculously can be used to model everything in the universe is because math is where it came from in the first place and the universe keeps recapitualiing Universal Turing macines in our DNA, our minds, and in our computers from mechanical gear jobs to silicon ones.

if 'physical' is 'geometric'.

what exactly do you mean by this? You're starting to sound like t'Hooft whose holographic hypothesis ties the mathematics of black holes with pure geometric information processing. We keep pushing the envelope back further and further.

"It's all physical" doesn't have a separate 'observer' if the nature of 'physical' is interaction (observation might be a particular interaction). Do they all reduce to a common concept?

Yes, I believe they do and its self-referentialism, be it the origin of consciousness as in Hofstadter's "Strange Loops" or the self-referential nature of sub atomic particles. We, meaning our individual consciousnesses, are the only "things in itself" we directly experience. We're the strange loop. We can't experience the strange loop of a string or whatever its precursor may be. We can only infer its existence. In that sense, I believe our consciousness is the only noumena we can know and we can't even communicate information about our own qualia to each other, except by lossy analogy. The self-referential being of other things is epistemically inaccessible to us and must be.