On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[GrahamH]

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.

Sure, we have to talk about something (or do some work).

I have the same objection to 'data monism' as I do to idealism. 'data' is a relation of some stuff to other stuff, not something that can be encountered separate to the stuff. The same seems to be true of the 'mental'. We have no contact with immaterial minds, nor any notion how the immaterial could produce or influence matter.

The idea that universe might be a 'simulation' doesn't get away from the apparent requirement for there to be a simulator, presumably made of stuff, producing the data.

So, what do we gain in imagining our models (data) are how it really is?

[SpeedOfSound]

Waffle. I decided to put knowledge of mind into R1. As long as it isn't bullshit obfuscation and speculation. Probably have to toss it in one stick at a time. I mean things like I know there are other minds and I know that I can decide to do things.

But lets' get into he fursur area here. It's not that deep.

[Little Idiot]

This might be a lot more fun than chewing on LI. I need to get focused here. Post away if you have some ideas.

Well the big obstacle being the homunculus. No matter how much elaborate cognitive architecture or neuroprocessing is posited/evidenced, the question that is difficult to escape is "what does the observing?". It is possible to incorporate all rule bound cognition into a theory of mind without there being a subjective experience. Can observation take place without an observer? If it's an erroneous question to ask, as many do in fact suggest, then it's a very seductive one and it's the bane of any theory of consciousness.

Are the tools and methods of R2 enough to dispel the myth? Or is R1 a necessary condition to resolving this? It's paradoxical, and for good reason. The homunculus is a real thorn in the side in all R2 programmes because it's permanently embedded, but the same does not always apply to R1. Or, I should say, R1*.

About that time you went nuts, sounds interesting....

There ain't' no fucking observer!! Takes care of that one.

We're going to have to look at that assertion.
There can’t be observation without an observer at the instant of observation.
The observation that I am observing with the same body/CNS, and knowing that I am doing so, and my memories of observing yesterday, shows a continuity of the observer beyond the instant of observation.

Don’t just blow me off as naive, explain yourself!

This was a mini-spiritual experience of the insight variety and was the seed of this information universe thing except I was obsessed with fractals and synchronicity. It wasn't really that interesting. The bug story is far better.

You did say " Post away if you have some ideas" You asked for it...

In my case, having seen the physical world as appearance by reason, experience and metaphysics, I became obsessed with fractals and information. After a period of instability I reached the conclusion the information is non-physical data, a tiny fraction of which my mind uses to base its externalized projection of the apparent physical world upon, but most of which I am oblivious to. My language of mentalism is my attempt to describe this, as I will describe. Forgive my loose terminology as I never heard of digital physics and so on before, but it does seem very interesting to me.

I conceive a massive flow of ever changing data, most of which I do not ever become aware of, a tiny portion of which my mind picks up, and from which my experiences of the PW are constructed.

Since space and time are perceptions, measured inside experience by movement of the constructed things (things are mind-made from data) and so experienced-space and time are constructed from the data indirectly. Time can be measured from outside individual experience in terms of the data flow; the 'now' of experience is the current data set.

Since the mind directly uses the data I class it as mental data.

Since the source of all the data (a flow needs a source to maintain flow) must produce this mental data, I say the source is mind-like in nature - able to produce mental data by a process we could regard for analogy as similar to imagination, from itself within itself - but much larger in magnitude. This I call the Source, (and used to call it the void).

For the data to flow, it needs to pass through some point similar to the single cell passing the read-write head in a Turing Machine, which I conceive as 'process'. In mentalism I call this awareness, the data is subject to awareness, it becomes 'known' or 'experienced'.

The entire set (all the mental data) is what I call the World Idea, and within that set the subset (the current data set in process) is the experienced physical universe at the instant 'now.' Time is the flow of data into, through and out of the (current data set). The (current data set) is in (process) at the instant 'now.'

The full set (all the mental data) is beyond time in the sense that it includes past, present and future, which I regard as eternal, only the subset (current data set) is in time. So existence - all things that exist now - is the subset (current data set) but 'eternal reality' is the full set (all the mental data).

In my terminology; the World Idea includes the whole of space-time (the past, present and future), at an instant of time a portion of the World Idea is known by the World Mind and that portion is the physical universe 'now'. The known portion is existent. But reality is the full World Idea not only the present. The 'ultimate reality' in the sense used by Vedanta is the timeless, which is not the world idea at all, but the source. The whole world idea being merely eternal, not timeless.
The source is the source of all possible data, the origin of all things (which are mind-made of data) including space and time. It is beyond space and time, not itself changing but producing all possibility of change.

[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.

Sure, we have to talk about something (or do some work).

I have the same objection to 'data monism' as I do to idealism. 'data' is a relation of some stuff to other stuff, not something that can be encountered separate to the stuff. The same seems to be true of the 'mental'. We have no contact with immaterial minds, nor any notion how the immaterial could produce or influence matter.

The idea that universe might be a 'simulation' doesn't get away from the apparent requirement for there to be a simulator, presumably made of stuff, producing the data.

So, what do we gain in imagining our models (data) are how it really is?

You misread me. I'm speculating wildly about physics which I know shit about. I am damned imaginative though and I can keep up with some of this stuff and hold my own. But when we get down to pure physics it is all only math to us. We can't drag anything else into it. No concepts about time and space. No concepts of information or or data or simulations.

This is the mistake of Christians and other woo-ly impaired. Actually it's a mistake that all humans make. We understand things by this common R1 thing I'm talking about and then we take it to seriously and try to imagine outside of the realm it grew up in.

[Surendra Darathy]

The information you say is lost is only in direct appearance to our perception.

Then the task is, before moving on to the remainder of these lofty goals, is explaining what it means to say that information is lost in direct appearance to our perception, which is really what SoS is on about in his exchange with LI.

It is, thinly disguised, the same argument that the ultimate nature of existence is accessible to pure reason, whatever the fuck that is. When you say information is lost in direct appearance to our perception, you're raising a metaphysical question.

Since I don't think mathematicians get anything out of their mathematics except what they put in (IOW, I am not a transcendentalist), and I think that purely metaphysical arguments have not been shown to be possible, you can pretty much conclude, via the use of your reasoning capacities, where I think this "argument" is headed.

I don't really want to be nasty about it, but if we cannot address the problems with the statement I quoted, I am just going to seem kind of nasty to you.

Even SD who hates everything and everyone talks about stuff.

And he doesn't mince words. Which is why some people think he is so hateful.

[SpeedOfSound]

You did say " Post away if you have some ideas" You asked for it...

Oh fuck me sideways!

[Surendra Darathy]

You did say " Post away if you have some ideas" You asked for it...

Oh fuck me sideways!

With a badger?

[Surendra Darathy]

There ain't' no fucking observer!! Takes care of that one.

We're going to have to look at that assertion.
There can’t be observation without an observer at the instant of observation.

With all due respect (and believe me, I know how to calculate the bill for the amount due) the presence of the words "observer" and "observation" does not mean that they are not abstractions. Unless, of course, one is an idealist, where everything is an abstraction. But we all know the value of assuming one's conclusion in determining the bill due.

[Little Idiot]

You did say " Post away if you have some ideas" You asked for it...

Oh fuck me sideways!

Err, I hope thats a metaphysical fuck, I wouldnt want anything physical!
Although, maybe 'mind-fuck' would describe things well.

[Little Idiot]

There ain't' no fucking observer!! Takes care of that one.

We're going to have to look at that assertion.
There can’t be observation without an observer at the instant of observation.

With all due respect (and believe me, I know how to calculate the bill for the amount due)

the presence of the words "observer" and "observation" does not mean that they are not abstractions. Unless, of course, one is an idealist, where everything is an abstraction. But we all know the value of assuming one's conclusion in determining the bill due.

I am not refering to abstraction of experience, I am refering to human experience, such as typing on my <shiney new> laptop. Is that not an experience?
To say there is a laptop; is that an abstraction?
If so, we are just agreeing to call things abstractions.
What about typing? If there were no typing, there would be no post that you just responed to...
If there is a laptop, and typing, then isnt there a 'type-er'
How else does the laptop give rise to the post?

[FedUpWithFaith]

The information you say is lost is only in direct appearance to our perception.

Then the task is, before moving on to the remainder of these lofty goals, is explaining what it means to say that information is lost in direct appearance to our perception, which is really what SoS is on about in his exchange with LI.

You're overthinking this Surendra. I wasn't taking a position (necessarily) in the argument between SoS and LI. I interpreted your assertion as a rejection of my premises in support of digital physics. I can very easily explain, on that basis, what " information is lost in direct appearance to our perception" means because it was simply directed at your untrue claim, at least as I interpreted it, that [physical] information about wave generation is lost to us in the case of deconstructive interference. Our senses don't observe the waves because they cancelled each other out but that doesn't mean the information is lost. It only means if we only look a certain way at a certain time with no other instrumentation for detection (which is an effective extension of our senses) that we miss the information. But that information did not vanish from the physical universe. It remains.

It is, thinly disguised, the same argument that the ultimate nature of existence is accessible to pure reason, whatever the fuck that is. When you say information is lost in direct appearance to our perception, you're raising a metaphysical question.

Do you still believe this after my explanation above? I don't think it applies. I was only addressing a physical system. As I've outlined it, it could apply to the physicalist or idealist alike. It's agnostic to the metaphysical stance though each stance would come away with a different implications of what I said.

Since I don't think mathematicians get anything out of their mathematics except what they put in (IOW, I am not a transcendentalist), and I think that purely metaphysical arguments have not been shown to be possible, you can pretty much conclude, via the use of your reasoning capacities, where I think this "argument" is headed.

Well, I would say this was headed nowhere since I think you misinterpreted me but now that you've also made a misstatement about math too, it could get interesting. A few years ago, i would have agreed with you that mathematics was a representative language of modeling supervienient on the physical and utterly dependent in formulation on minds. I would have agreed with your statement. Gregory Chaitin changed all that when he proved mathematics is at least partially empirical built on Godels work on decideability. There are experimental discoveries to be made in math. its no longer just a shuffling of axioms under logic in the mind. And it's likely, in my view, that the limitations in computability and and empirical nature of math and questions of true infinities or randomness will be found, from math, to govern the physical world as well.

I don't really want to be nasty about it, but if we cannot address the problems with the statement I quoted, I am just going to seem kind of nasty to you.

No problem. Nasty doesn't bother me. I'm a prick.

[Surendra Darathy]

It only means if we only look a certain way at a certain time with no other instrumentation for detection (which is an effective extension of our senses) that we miss the information. But that information did not vanish from the physical universe. It remains.

Sure, on some hyper-dimensional manifold, or something like that. I could agree to that. I understand that entropy is something we invented to address what happens when we drop down a dimension or six, and treat it as a function on the time domain, even if we map it in as many spatial dimensions as we want.

Of things unseene how canst thou deeme aright,
Then answered the righteous Artegall,
Sith thou misdeem'st so much of things in sight?
What though the sea with waves continuall
Doe eate the earth, it is no more at all:
Ne is the earth the lesse, or loseth ought,
For whatsoever from one place doth fall,
Is with the tide unto an other brought:
For there is nothing lost, that may be found, if sought.

[Kenny Login]

There ain't' no fucking observer!! Takes care of that one.

Our minds functionality is not possible without subjective experience.

Yes, you're right, I meant to just talk about theory of consciousness and leave Theory of Mind out of it. A ToM would be R1 using your terms, although a theory of consciousness counts as R2, or at least towards that end of the spectrum. But I'm not sure how you have eliminated the observer, or how you can reconcile that with necessarily having a subjective viewpoint, unless I've missed something?

But let's have a proper consciousness thread for all of that.

Sure. (Although I have a feeling this won't lay down and die in this thread.....)

This was a mini-spiritual experience of the insight variety and was the seed of this information universe thing except I was obsessed with fractals and synchronicity. It wasn't really that interesting. The bug story is far better.

Interesting. So it would seem there are several metaphysicians in this thread not doing metaphysics. Do we need to inform the authorities?

[Little Idiot]

There ain't' no fucking observer!! Takes care of that one.

Our minds functionality is not possible without subjective experience.

Yes, you're right, I meant to just talk about theory of consciousness and leave Theory of Mind out of it. A ToM would be R1 using your terms, although a theory of consciousness counts as R2, or at least towards that end of the spectrum. But I'm not sure how you have eliminated the observer, or how you can reconcile that with necessarily having a subjective viewpoint, unless I've missed something?

I dont think he does reconcile, I think he just asserts it as a fact.

But let's have a proper consciousness thread for all of that.

Sure. (Although I have a feeling this won't lay down and die in this thread.....)

You may be right, but if we have a special thread for it we could fight it out over there and stick to other things over here.

This was a mini-spiritual experience of the insight variety and was the seed of this information universe thing except I was obsessed with fractals and synchronicity. It wasn't really that interesting. The bug story is far better.

Interesting. So it would seem there are several metaphysicians in this thread not doing metaphysics. Do we need to inform the authorities?

My metaphysics is guided by mysicism, but not ruled by it as is SoS's - although he doesnt like to tell the others so keep that quite. I am regarded as a woo head, so no-body takes me seriously and I can get away with it, as long as I dont try uise it as evidence.

Thats because experience is what our life consists of, regardless of those who would say there is no experience, or there is no experience-er (ie observer). Mystical experiences are part of the set of experiences which make us what we are. But the science-says-it-must-be-empirical dogmatists ( ) have difficulty understanding that.

Although in an old RDF thread - 'how true are our truths?' I think was the one - I tried to show how similar experiences can be interpreted differently by the ego, but when we look not at the ego-interpretation but at the actual core of the experience there is a lot of common ground i.e. inter-subjective agreement, almost reproducible ground - but some prefer to refuse to see merit in considering that, and look only at the adimttedly messed up ego reaction/interpretation part, immediately dismissing the mystical experience as valueless on that basis.

My position is that reason alone, nor any faculty alone can be expected to achieve the highest possible human expression of truth. As long as we set our target no higher that this, it is by definition attainable, regardless of what some would say about metaphysics and so on.
As long as we recall we are talking about models of reality, expressions of truth, not reality and not truth, then we remain on solid ground.
The question then becomes which tool should we use for the enquiry into the highest possible human expression of truth, and the answer is; all of them. Only a complete effort of synthesis including but not limited to; reason, intuition, logic and empirical investigation has any hope of success. Further more, I postulate that such a synthesis when successful and appropriate conditions are met, will open a new way of knowing, the product is greater than the sum of the parts. This is the latent faculty of Insight.

So the net result is we can allow references to our mystical experiences, and allow it to guide our opinion, but we cant suggest it is a proof or demonstration of anything. As long as we do that, nobody has called the authorities on us, yet

[SpeedOfSound]

I don't have all day so I'm cross-posting from another forum with edits.

Science doesn't imply materialism. At least not the dogmatic kind that insists on deep substance realities. Neuroscience going after the mind and consciousness does not require that we have some belief about what the result will be. Not even a belief that mind is brain is needed. It took me two years on RDF to begin to straighten some of this out with myself.

But I'm not going to replace a die hard naive materialism with some other imaginings about mind. If I need a model I have one in the science. As soon as something about my mind or others fails to make sense in the biochemical model I will be apologizing to y'all and Chalmers and Penrose and Hammerhead.

I see what I call R1 as the default position of humans. Common sense materialism. We all believe it but we don't all necessarily believe in it.We live our lives according to this model. I call R2 and extension into science of that model.

In R1, the common sense, there is a lot of belief about mind. It's a working belief, like with the material. Things like free will and intent and even ideas about belief. If you keep these things in their common cloth they are highly reliable.

But they have a dualism about them. I insist that this is a convenience and not a problem. Unless we make it one. Anything in R1 can become a problem if you ask too many questions. If you start using it's common cloth to make premise for reasoning about the True nature of things you get trouble. The words start to melt and evaporate by heat of effort to define them.

What I have seen of mentalism and idealism is that it is a rather naive effort to make sense out of the issues we get to when we try and make common sense of consciousness. I call it all into question.