On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

I expect SoS to answer 'no' based on his mind-phobia

No. You're good at this 50/50 guessing shit.

[SpeedOfSound]

Like I said, i still don't really know what you mean by R1 ideas or exactly where they leave off and R2 begins.

Also, your response isn't completely clear to me concerning space-time. Is it as real as a tree is?

I'll try and clarify after a good nap. We have an excellent thunderstorm here that must be napped upon.

Lets' look at this R1 problem. I'm really just here to make you happy and secure FUWF.

Let's consider it a work in progress. I offer R1 as a name for some set of knowledge that we humans all have by the time they let us go outside to play by ourselves. Things like 'I fall down', 'I can't fly', 'Tree solid-make owiee', 'my pants have two legs-I have two legs'.

Chimpanzees have this knowledge. There are facts about the world that we all learn quickly. We all agree on these facts.

I don't think there is an exact line between this and R2 except that R2 is much more formal and careful. Still R1 has some ideas that are falsifiable. But I look at R2 as a formal extension of R1.

Now there are problems in thinking about this R1 because i have left a lot out. I leave out language and many concepts of mind. I'm not sure if I should be leaving that out. Maybe I need some new R's.

The problem with idealists is that they want to gloss over this huge body of common knowledge that is essentially naive materialism without the metaphysical claims. We all believe this R1 stuff and we all live our lives by it. If we did not then we would not be able to type these posts.

But anyone who embarks on this mind game about everything we experience is 'only ever in our minds' has the problem of all of this consistency of knowledge of R1. If it's only ever in MY mind then how and the hell did it get into your mind too? If I am not a sick and twisted solipsist then I must recognize that R1 has a MY-mind independent nature and this MUST be accounted for.

In later discussions it may be a good idea to coin Rm for this knowledge we have of our minds and other minds. This knowledge is different because it is usually a little less agreed upon and it does not easily extend to R2. If it does at all. A lot of it is pure delusion.

So I'm going to declare that Rm is not part of R1.

What do you think?

[GrahamH]

The question raised here about substrate is important;

Is a substrate required? We only know of 'information processing' that occurs on a physical substrate. The substrate seems to posses 'processing', or 'interaction'. Is it implementing math, as I think you are suggesting, or is math and 'computing' mimicking the nature of the substrate, on the substrate?

If this universe is a computation it does not necessarily follow that reality is computation. This universe might be a computation performed on some 'real substrate', analogous to a physical computer generating a virtual world. (See Bostrom).

I think FuwF has said earlier that this is the foundational question, if the answer is yes the whole shebang falls down.

It seems to me that "It's all data" denies the possibility of a substrate, just as "It's all mental" does. I'm more inclined to "It's all patterns in the substrate" aka physicalism.

I would say the answer to that important question it is no, based on the opinion I hold that the physical can not be demonstrated to exist other than in a mental experience. We simply can not be sure of its independent existence, since we can never experience the physical other than via our own mind.

If we assume the physical exists independent of the observing mind, then there is a question to answer here, if however we consider that the physical is a product of the mind, then there is absolutly no need to think the physical could be a pre-requisite for information or data - the physical is itself a product of the minds construction of (mental) data in my model.

Similarly you can't know that 'mind' has any independence from the physical. The only occasions when mind experiences there is always a physical substrate.

The one thing we can be sure of is that our 'subjective self' or 'awareness' is not constructing the experience of a physical world. The only ways you can claim mentalism is if you assume ownership of something else, that is not your subjective, as the agent. You resort to some other mind WC, Solipsists resort to 'my subconscious mind' and some idealists resort to god.

The question that I would propose is not is there a 'physical substrate' so much as is the data mental. In my model, the data is (obviously) mental, because 'its all mental' the question I would like FuwF and SoS to consider; is it possible, probable or impossible that the data we are discussing in the 'its all data' model is mental data.

I expect SoS to answer 'no' based on his mind-phobia

Due to my pro-mental bias, I think the whole 'data model' sounds like an expression of the same kind of concepts, the good thing being it is derived from modern understanding and theories, not the ancients, and is therefore less likely to be called 'woo'.

There is plenty of modern woo, LI. Woo feeds on confusion, and modern physics produces more confusion in most human minds that the ancients could have dreamed of.

On the issue of information, I consider the physical universe to be an information generator. Given a construction set of an infinite number of simple parts and what can be constructed with it? Are the forms that can be built the definition of the parts? I think that such a set, assembling and preserving forms that are stable is an information generator. Parts will fall into a spherical shape, not because PI defines roundness, but because of the simple basic physical geometry of the stuff.

Evolution is the prime example of a blind simple process generating complexity. Does the matter conform to some sort of Platonic Forms, or does the matter invent new forms by trial and error and the stability that results?

Human creativity is, I think, another example. I think the brain has sufficient chaotic randomness to produce lots of random combinations of 'data'/concepts. The pattern classification and recognition systems of brains then recognise combinations that are fit, based on generalised patterns previously encountered, and we 'become aware' of a new idea.

[SpeedOfSound]

It seems to me that "It's all data" denies the possibility of a substrate, just as "It's all mental" does. I'm more inclined to "It's all patterns in the substrate" aka physicalism.

Just words. "It's all data" = physical.

It's the mental shit that makes an extraordinary claim that the stuff of our thoughts somehow makes universes.

LI wibble Alert! You will probably want me to say the stuff of the Big Mind's thoughts makes universes but I'm talking about kind and you believe the stuff of our thoughts is of the same kind as the BM thoughts.

[Surendra Darathy]

Is a substrate required?

It's substrates all the way down, at least as far as the stratigraphy of existence is concerned. Cherchez la femme!

The thing about stratigraphy is that some layers are missing. Information gets destroyed pretty easily. Just take a pure tone and match it with a pure tone at the same frequency offset by a phase shift of π. Stillness. That you have to do this before the signal hits the transducer is of little concern to purists, who realise that the tone EXISTS. It's like a tree in the forest when nobody's there to hear it fall down.


Recall the words of Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago, 1968; to paraphrase:

The wibble is not here to create disorder, it's here to preserve disorder.

[GrahamH]

Just words. "It's all data" = physical.

Can you explain "It's all data" = physical?
What do you mean by 'data'/'information'?
Do you mean that 'data' is structure / shape / pattern / geometry of a physical substrate (i.e. arrangements of matter)?
If you do then why do you seem to be ignoring the substrate to only talk about the 'data'?
Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

[Surendra Darathy]

Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

You know what pl3bs would do with this? He'd ask you if one electron can exist in a structure. It's all just matter in motion.

This is just the difference between one and many. Woo-heads don't deal well with "many". It's all one thing.

[GrahamH]

Just take a pure tone and match it with a pure tone at the same frequency offset by a phase shift of π. Stillness. That you have to do this before the signal hits the transducer is of little concern to purists, who realise that the tone EXISTS. It's like a tree in the forest when nobody's there to hear it fall down.

Saying 'tones exist', or that interference is 'stillness' might get 'purists' into trouble.

[Surendra Darathy]

Just take a pure tone and match it with a pure tone at the same frequency offset by a phase shift of π. Stillness. That you have to do this before the signal hits the transducer is of little concern to purists, who realise that the tone EXISTS. It's like a tree in the forest when nobody's there to hear it fall down.

Saying 'tones exist', or that interference is 'stillness' might get 'purists' into trouble.

Naw. Just the naive realists. Metaphysics always seeks to limit itself in order to encompass everything. I'm just pointing out how easy it is to destroy information, which is the task that metaphysics has set itself.

[GrahamH]

Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

You know what pl3bs would do with this? He'd ask you if one electron can exist in a structure. It's all just matter in motion.

This is just the difference between one and many. Woo-heads don't deal well with "many". It's all one thing.

I don't care what pl3bs would say, he only plays the one tune.

One electron is a structure, whatever 'structures' or 'electrons' really are.

[SpeedOfSound]

Just words. "It's all data" = physical.

Can you explain "It's all data" = physical?
What do you mean by 'data'/'information'?
Do you mean that 'data' is structure / shape / pattern / geometry of a physical substrate (i.e. arrangements of matter)?
If you do then why do you seem to be ignoring the substrate to only talk about the 'data'?
Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

All this physics stuff may be a derail.

Here is what I mean by data:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 48#p389548


A lot of these questions about structure may be meaningless. If we use matrices to discuss it the matrix may not have a substrate. Just it's elements and they may not be matrix-like at all. It's just math. If we work out the math we aren't likely to like the results as far as it being anything like how we think things are.

But the math will produce testable results.

[Surendra Darathy]

Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

You know what pl3bs would do with this? He'd ask you if one electron can exist in a structure. It's all just matter in motion.

This is just the difference between one and many. Woo-heads don't deal well with "many". It's all one thing.

I don't care what pl3bs would say, he only plays the one tune.

One electron is a structure, whatever 'structures' or 'electrons' really are.

It's not what I asked you. I asked you to take a single electron as irreducible, and then try to talk about structure. It's fine with me if you want to be interested in substrates, but you've seen where that gets you. The way information means something in this new context is as a blip on a substrate.

Like we say, it's substrates all the way down. Back to stratigraphy. Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything. Which is why "how it works" is interesting, and "what it is" is not. In a model of how it works, how it works is what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

[FedUpWithFaith]

Just take a pure tone and match it with a pure tone at the same frequency offset by a phase shift of π. Stillness. That you have to do this before the signal hits the transducer is of little concern to purists, who realise that the tone EXISTS. It's like a tree in the forest when nobody's there to hear it fall down.

Saying 'tones exist', or that interference is 'stillness' might get 'purists' into trouble.

Naw. Just the naive realists. Metaphysics always seeks to limit itself in order to encompass everything. I'm just pointing out how easy it is to destroy information, which is the task that metaphysics has set itself.

Surendra,

You're wrong about how easy information is destroyed. In fact, ask any physicist and they will tell you there is no evidence that information is EVER destroyed. It appears to be the most conserved thing in the universe. Even Hawking lost his bet on this one when he said information was lost in black holes and was latter proven incorrect. The information you say is lost is only in direct appearance to our perception. However, it's all there in the models and ancillary detectables that describe the phenomena.

[GrahamH]

Do you think there is any separation between the stuff and the structure of the stuff?

You know what pl3bs would do with this? He'd ask you if one electron can exist in a structure. It's all just matter in motion.

This is just the difference between one and many. Woo-heads don't deal well with "many". It's all one thing.

I don't care what pl3bs would say, he only plays the one tune.

One electron is a structure, whatever 'structures' or 'electrons' really are.

It's not what I asked you. I asked you to take a single electron as irreducible, and then try to talk about structure. It's fine with me if you want to be interested in substrates, but you've seen where that gets you. The way information means something in this new context is as a blip on a substrate.

Like we say, it's substrates all the way down. Back to stratigraphy. Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything. Which is why "how it works" is interesting, and "what it is" is not. In a model of how it works, how it works is what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

How it works might be all we can know about it, but what we know about it (data) is not necessarily what it is. It may be absurd to try to talk about 'what it really is', but wouldn't it be equally absurd to say "it is all data"?

[SpeedOfSound]

How it works might be all we can know about it, but what we know about it (data) is not necessarily what it is. It may be absurd to try to talk about 'what it really is', but wouldn't it be equally absurd to say "it is all data"?

Yes. Absurd. But we have to talk about something. Using some words. Even SD who hates everything and everyone talks about stuff.