Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There would be no way to distinguish between a truly convincing and persistent illusion and reality.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shed12
What is reality? What is illusion?I do not mean which things are real and which things are illusory but what is realness itself and what is illusion itself. Telling which is which is not useless or discouraged, but if you will, can you explain why this is real and that is not?
Reality, by definition, requires verifiability.
Exist, by definition, requires verifiability.
Truth, by definition, requires fact.
Fact, by definition, requires indisputable verifiability.
Only scientifically observable, empirical evidence can be properly described with the terms, reality, exist, truth, and fact.
What I have described so far, can be categorically identified with the term Quanta (quantifiable, verifiable).
A key characteristic of Quanta is that it is value-neutral.
Everything that we humans find meaningful and important is Qualia (qualitative, experiential).
Concepts like, faith, hope, love, free will, and infinity are categorically Qualia.
Qualia may or may not qualify as "illusion" (depending on how you prefer to define "illusion") but Qualia does not (and can never) qualify as either extant, real, true, or fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And if all the lazy criminals actually voted, the map would be painted blue from coast to coast.If you are not a hard working, law abiding citizen, you should vote for a Democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
If you don't vote Green or Libertarian or Independent, then they will never win.Btw... Cox is insane too... He wants to impeach judges that don't bar legislator prayers to Jesus and make us teach scientific facts relating to creationism... like there are any. I really worry for our country if we continue with this two pick system. Especially since it's always either blue or red. I can't wait for the day green or black wins.
And you also need to remember that it still counts as a "win" if the Greens or Libertarians get 5% of the vote.
If you don't vote because you don't like the options, you will never get another option.
Created:
Posted in:
Why should I vote?
If I'm happy with my elected officials
I should vote to keep them
If I'm unhappy with my elected officials
I should vote to remove them
If I think it doesn't matter
It will always get worse
Can you identify the logical fallacies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Is Alex Jones "more dangerous" than people who tell cancer patients to stop buying their medicine and instead, send the money to them as a demonstration of faith?
For example, https://youtu.be/7y1xJAVZxXg?t=461
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
You don't need guns to stop a government you disagree with.
Gandhi did a pretty effective job of dismantling the British power structure.
It was a simple matter of, you want us to do what? Um, no, we aren't going to do that.
If you shoot at the cops or attack government officials, then you are dismissed by the public as a terrorist.
If the government is forced to shoot crowds of unarmed people, they are instantly recognized as fascists.
For example, https://youtu.be/ao4g2tqO0yU?t=126
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Historically, low voter turnout gives the advantage to republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
Warning: Do Not Vote
Voting for a democrat is a waste of time.
Democrats want to steal everything from hard working Americans.
Republicans will cut your taxes.
Democrats want to punish hard working Americans.
Republicans want to reward you for being a good citizen.
America First.
Can you identify the logical fallacies above?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I like the survivor reality shows.....Survivor Man, Alone, Dual Survivor, Naked and Afraid and Live Free or Die is a good one.
Have you seen the 2003 movie "Touching the Void"?
Also, the TV shows, 2009 "The Colony" and the 2005 "I Shouldn't Be Alive" seem like shows you might enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Anyone watching Wrecked? I just discovered it and it's hilarious.
Yes, very funny for people who liked the 2004 "Lost".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
If I had to pick an all time 100% awesome A+ #1 TV show, it would be...
2018 "Maniac" TV series (on Netflix) - Two strangers are drawn to a mysterious pharmaceutical trial that will, they're assured, with no complications or side-effects whatsoever, solve all of their problems, permanently.
I believe it is better to go into this show completely cold, with no knowledge of reviews or synopsis.
Another example of one of my all time favorite TV shows is the 2006-2007 ABC series "Day Break" - Today Detective Brett Hopper will be accused of shooting state attorney Alberto Garza. He will offer his rock solid alibi. He will realize he's been framed. And he will run.
I believe it is better to go into this show completely cold, with no knowledge of reviews or synopsis.
Other shows in no particular order, 2002 "The Wire", 2015 "The Expanse", 2003 "Carnivale", 2007 "The Tudors", 2004 "Deadwood", 2005 "My Name Is Earl", 2003 "Arrested Development", 2009 "Better Off Ted", 1995 "The Maxx", and the 2014 FX series "Fargo" is awe inspiring.
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these selections.
Created:
Posted in:
Goldtop,
Please explain what you consider the correct and non-opinion based definitions that can be (and exactly how they can be) derived from (explicitly) true premises.You mean, you have your own personal opinion based on false premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm fairly sure that mammals have consciousness, and probably most vertebrates. I am less sure about,say, insects!
What would you consider the hallmarks (integral, identifiable, scientifically quantifiable characteristics) of consciousness?
Created:
-->
@Jhhillman
This sounds hilarious.Yes, it is. It's worse now. People regularly spread above 400 wpm. There are schools that teach their debaters to simply spam shitty arguments at ridiculous speeds. Those debaters win tournaments. Krikiks are weirder now too. I can see if I can send you a file for one I recently acquired. It's indescribable.
Do you have a youtube (or other web) link perhaps?
Created:
Posted in:
CON says, (cr2.3) "Quanta is the only one where I don't agree with how you name and describe it. For convenience we can keep referring to it as quanta but "quantifiable" is not an accurate criteria for it. It is not raw, value-neutral information but rather it is the physical behaviour of noumenon itself. Physicality must exist for consciousness and qualia to exist and noumenon must exist for physicality to exist, because noumenon is the essence of all that "is" and quanta is what allows qualia to exist through the principles of chemistry and biology etc. Scientific methodology is designed to determine how reality behaves, not what reality is, as such it is capable of bringing you to objective conclusions [conclusions cannot be objective] about reality because even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality."
PRO says, (pr3.3) let me highlight one statement, "...even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality." Ok, do the physics algorithms and collision detection in a video game describe a one-to-one relationship to the computer circuit board? Nothing in the game, no matter how reliable it might seem to the players, does not tell you anything at all about the hardware it is running on. You could never figure out how to build a computer and learn how to program it from playing a single game. I know this is the final round, but I would love to read your preferred definition of the term "science". In my understanding, we can only apply our subjective apparatus, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind, in an effort to identify as specifically as possible, data that is generally indisputable by people with similar perceptions and mental inclinations. Purely scientific data cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. We generally presume it is reasonable to inductively reason that what happens in a laboratory, probably will happen similarly outside of the laboratory, and what happens in other mammals will probably have similar effects in humans, but as we know, this inductive reasoning is very often incorrect or incomplete or misleading. And even if the data is pure, so-to-speak, it is still sample-biased and objectivity cannot tolerate any sort of bias, but even if we had what we could call, purely objective data, our scientific []conclusions[] will always be qualia. The data is scientific (and often mistaken for objective) because it is meaningless. The scientific []conclusions[] are an attempt to inject meaningfulness into meaningless data.
CON says, (cr2.4) "Noumenon and quanta are always objective. The problem is when qualia interferes with our perception of Quanta. We know that we can know things about Quanta, as in our brains are capable of comprehending it, so as long as we are using an accurate methodology we can ascertain quanta. Scientific methodology works when applied correctly, and only fails when qualia interferes. Ironically, one of the main ways Qualia interferes is when we try to quantify reality itself instead of accepting Noumenon as a field rather than a series of quantifiable "bits" (quantum/theoretical physics itself is qualia and is unscientific in methodology as it assumes theoretical mathematics is a valid substitute for empirical data)."
PRO says, (pr3.4) Ok, we may be closing in on our most important point of disagreement. Quanta is merely a subcategory of qualia. Quanta is the qualia that is reliably measurable and specifically identifiable between a broad cross-section of multiple human perceptions. Because humans often disagree about value-judgments, we purposefully strip this specific subcategory of qualia of its meaningfulness in order to facilitate a certain level of indisputability. Without qualia, we humans would be incapable of perceiving anything at all, and therefore science as we know it would not exist. There is no way for quanta to be measured without "qualia interfering" (through the very act of perception and another particularly key ingredient, qualitative "motivation").
CON says, (cr2.5) "Qualia is subjective experience and quanta is necessary for it to exist. You can experience quanta subjectively and you can also experience things that are entirely qualia but qualia itself is rooted in the mechanics of quanta and we are capable of knowing quanta (which basically is reality itself in terms of how noumenon itself behaves)"
PRO says, (pr3.5) The "fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon" is the only thing "necessary" for qualia to "exist" and since we have no way of comparing quanta with "the-fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon", there is no way to say confidently if, when, or how they might or might not be similar.
CON says, (cr2.6) "They apply to reality itself (noumenon) and thus to quanta as well (how noumenon behaves physically).Qualia is the only thing that can be considered not real, as it is the realm of what is imagined or felt and is only a reflection of processes occurring in the realm of quanta."
PRO says, (pr3.6) I'm not convinced the term "fact" can apply to noumenon. Furthermore I am unable to detect any direct or indirect relationship between noumenon and quanta. I agree with you that qualia is 99% imaginary, I also believe that quanta is (axiomatically) 100% real.
PRO's round 3 closing statement:
This has been a phenomenal debate. I would like to thank CON for their focused and well reasoned arguments, fine attention to detail and obvious rhetorical skill.
I would also like to make a note that in the event of a tie on points, I would like to award one additional point to CON (as a tie-breaker) in appreciation of their outstanding performance.
Created:
Posted in:
I award 2 points to CON for their excellent identification of common ground and clearly highlighting points of disagreement.
CON says, (cr2.1) "Your definition for this is fine. One thing that I would add however is that even though it's nature is unknowable, It's existence is logically necessitated by the fact that anything exists at all. Information and physical phenomena would not exist if there was no real "something" underlying it."
PRO says, (pr3.1) I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" and "what may be fundamentally unknowable." For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
CON says, (cr2.2) "Yes, Qualia is the realm of subjectivity in and of itself. To be clear however, it is objectively [not objectively, merely axiomatically] true that we are sentient beings, and since our consciousness exists [consciousness (as qualia) cannot "exist"] we know that [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of] Noumenon must exist because other wise we could not exist to begin with. Even if everything we perceive is subjective, including what we perceive as Quanta, the very fact that our consciousness exists [consciousness (as qualia) cannot "exist"] proves that something [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of noumenon] real exists. Since we also know that our consciousness is [only apparently] contingent upon the properties of the quanta realm and the qualia is subjective by it's very nature it follows that quanta is superior to qualia objectivity [not objectively, only reliability] wise and closer to noumenon [this is a leap-of-faith]. In other words there must be some objectivity to it even if it's not entirely objective [objectivity is binary, it is the polar opposite of subjectivity, you cannot combine the two concepts] because it is causally linked to our experience of qualia, which is objectively real despite the qualia itself being inherently subjective [this is a leap-of-faith].This is how we can know philosophically, that reality itself [the-hypothetical-objective-essence of noumenon] exists, and the closest we can come to knowing it is to understand it's physical properties [this is a leap-of-faith]."
PRO says, (pr3.2) I believe I disagree with CON on the prioritization of the layers we are currently describing. I believe qualia is primary, since qualia is our personal experience of everything we can know. Our introduction to this cosmos is through our eyes and ears and mouth and skin. Our primary senses are collated and categorized and interpreted by our mind. I believe quanta is secondary, since only after I have accumulated adequate personal data am I able to determine where my perceptions and those of "other people" overlap within well defined parameters (scientific data stripped of meaningfulness, quanta). I realize that although I might consider an object "mine" and "valuable", someone else might consider it "theirs" or "undesirable" or "neutral". While the scientific description of the object is not in dispute (reliably stable, value-neutral quanta), however the contextual meaning of the object changes based on the perspective of the observer. I believe that noumenon is tertiary, since (the concept of) noumenon can only be "discovered" once we have thoroughly explored our scientific limits and found that they are incapable of "explaining all possible phenomenon". This leaves us with the strong intuition that there is "more" to be discovered along with the realization that there may likely be some hypothetical limit to human exploration, beyond which we may find what is fundamentally-unknowable. Certainly we have not reached the full limit of what is potentially-knowable, but at this point it would seem nearly-impossible to accurately estimate exactly how much of what is not currently known, may or may not be knowable at some point in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And that is a subjective view, can you produce an objective view?
A human cannot generate an objective view, and even if they could (generate a theoretically objective view) it would be axiomatically meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Nice link, try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs - delayed choice quantum eraser.
It's like double-slit 2.0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Gravity and Dark Energy are both scientifically measurable and therefore quantifiable.Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( are metaphysical i.e. beyond our ability to quantise ye they are presumed to be an occupied Space.
Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
I believe you've done a nice job of pinpointing our apparent disagreement on terms. A "chair" is a metaphysical concept (qualia) that is generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings. I would offer the example of an over-sized bean bag as an example of a possible object that some people might consider a "chair" and others may well insist that it is, and always will be, simply and over-sized bean bag. If you ordered a thousand chairs for a business conference and the vendor delivered a thousand bean bags, well, there might be a bit of a problem. Your example of "chair" is an excellent example of what I was trying to highlight earlier when I mentioned that many people tend to conflate quanta and qualia. Is a hot-dog a sandwich? Well, while some people might consider a hot-dog a type of sandwich, in general, I believe if someone asked for a sandwich and they were given a hot-dog, it probably wasn't what they were expecting. A "sandwich" is another metaphysical concept (qualia) that is generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings. The reason "...people don't cross reference some internal lexicon to identify a..." metaphysical concept is because their experience has taught them that the term (under scrutiny) is generally understood within broadly accepted parameters (consensus) and further clarification would most likely be considered superfluous or even patronizing or insulting.
Like TwoMan, if you apply your definition of "free will" to any animals or insects, you neatly circumvent the thrust of my objection to the concept, which is specifically that this magical (unmeasurable, metaphysical) property only applies (in opposition to all possible logic) to adult humans. Under your definition it would seem to be indistinguishable from "some ability to predict outcomes and adjust strategies to compensate" which I believe would apply perfectly well to computer computer programs as well, and would also be a pretty good definition of "intelligence". I guess my main question for you on this point would be, why would you use the term "free will" instead of simply saying "intelligence"? And I'd like to add that I believe it is important, when someone says "free will" that we clearly define exactly what the "will" is "free" from? The term "will" is something I believe is uncontroversial and logically coherent, however the term "free" is often very misleading and exactly what it is free from must be stated explicitly.
When you say, "Reality exists" this is merely axiomatic. While "reality" is defined as "what exists", inversely "what exists" is defined as "reality".
Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.
Definition of real, being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence; true and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.
It would seem that, based on common definitions, only things with verifiable existence can be considered to properly exist.
What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science).
When you say, "there is an objective standard to it (degrees, mass/weight, frequency) that doesn't need our common parlance description in order for the impetus for the description to exists." you seem to be glossing over the fact that "degrees", "mass", "weight", and "frequency" are also metaphysical concepts (qualia) that are generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings. In this sense, saying "one hundred chairs" is similar to saying "one hundred degrees". The key difference here is simply a question of precision and specificity (rigorous definitions).
At no point is it "necessary" to leap to the conclusion that "objectivity" is "required" for any of this (conceptual framework) to work properly.
Created:
Posted in:
Goldtop, Please explain what you mean by "the concept of objectivity".
Created:
Posted in:
Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan. This creates an inescapable sample bias. This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
No, I don't. But being beyond description in concise or precise terminology doesn't discount existence.
Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.
Definition of real, being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence; true and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.
It would seem that, based on common definitions, only things with verifiable existence can be considered to properly exist.
What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science).
Were I to sum up free will, it would be the understanding of one's circumstance, and the ability to influence one's needed outcomes through decided upon personal action.
So would it be fair to say your concept of free will requires planning? Would this include animals that lie in wait for prey?
Reality being objective on the whole is impossible, however certain aspects of reality can be standardized, we do this aspect pretty regularly in our lives, and it seems to work out pretty well.
Corroboration and standardization only add up to inter-subjectivity. Quantifiable phenomenon, generally within the realm of physics and chemistry would seem to qualify as extant facts (quanta), and yet, these corroborated facts are, by definition, value-neutral.
Human activity is primarily motivated by the value maps (qualia) we overlay on top of value-neutral quanta.
The key problem with the concept of objectivity is that many people make a category error (conflating quanta and qualia) and believe that their qualia carries the same level of factual existence (and associated confidence) as (scientifically quantifiable) quanta. This leads them to believe that they have "objective-opinions" (which is an obvious contradiction in terms) and seemingly justifies their outrage at people who disagree with them (often dismissing them as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, fundamentally and incurably stupid, intellectually deaf and blind, or simply insane).
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone can usually make snap decisions based on their experience. The desirability of the outcome is generally proportional to relevant experience they have. But even badly informed decisions are still based on previous influences, for example, maladapted instincts.
If a decision is free of influence, it is indistinguishable from random.
Human experience is fundamentally subjective. Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan. This creates an inescapable sample bias. This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).
(IFF) science itself is subject to variation, change and interpretation (THEN) it cannot be objective.
Created:
Posted in:
What "ones will decides at any given moment" is (EITHER) influenced by previous events (OR) indistinguishable from random.
How quickly you make a decision is irrelevant. An expert in any field can usually make snap decisions based on their experience and training.
Experience and training is axiomatically considered "previous influence".
The fact that you are able to make a decision without planning ahead does not mean it is not influenced by previous events.
Clearly, something triggered your decision, and at a minimum this trigger is a "previous influence" that caused your decision.
Your instinct or gut reaction to a situation that demands your instant response is also not "free of previous influence".
The Periodic Table (the concept) did not exist before 1869.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but I'll grant you some slack.
Certainly we have rather strong evidence that corroborates the idea that our cosmos has been here for approximately 13.8 billion years.
However, this train of reasoning is moot, because even if our cosmos (and constituent elements) has been here a really long time, we can only observe it through our human senses, and humans are fundamentally subjective (sample biased).
Similar humans view things similarly, there is a word for this and it is called "inter-subjective".
Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.
You seem to be suggesting that our universe is viewed identically by all observers throughout history and this is simply not the case.
Even science itself is subject to variation, change and interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
"Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was the first to publish a recognizable periodic table in 1869"(wiki)
Therefore, the Periodic Table did not exist before 1869.
A "conscious decision" is something you anticipate and plan beforehand, therefore your decision is based on your planning and not properly "free of previous influences". Your ability and inclination to "think ahead" is also influenced by your own personal experiences and as such is not itself "free of previous influences".
Everything and anything you might call a "decision" or "choice" is influenced by your intentional goal(s) or desire(s) which is in turn influenced by your previous experiences and your biology and your physical location.
It is logically impossible to make a decision that is free from previous influence.
Created:
Posted in:
If someone made a decision (freely) without being influenced by previous events, how would that action be qualitatively distinct from a random event?
If a person took an action that was completely out of context (non-contextual, independent of context), and had no intent or goal, and was not related in any way to their training and experience or biological instincts, it would seem that such an action would qualify as a random event.
A random event is not something we would commonly understand as a "willful choice".
Did humans codify the Periodic Table? If there were no humans, there would be no Periodic Table.
Does the Periodic Table exist because humans find it (subjectively) useful? Does a chemist find the Periodic Table more (subjectively) interesting than most other people? Is the Periodic Table understood and valued identically by all people at all times?
Human experience is fundamentally subjective. Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan. This creates an inescapable sample bias. This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).
In order to be considered truly objective, a being, like Laplace's demon, would have to exist that had all possible knowledge and perfect memory and could examine all possible facets and implications of all possible objects and concepts simultaneously in order to eradicate any sample bias.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it possible to make a decision (freely) without being influenced by previous events?
Is it possible to verify the existence of something independent of (without) (subjective) human observation?
Created:
Posted in:
PRO (pr2.4) CON seems to be suggesting here, that even though qualia [Type 2] is subjective, because it is rooted in quanta [Type 3], and quanta [Type 3] is rooted in noumenon [Type 1] that it might be considered objective(?). CON seems to be suggesting that (IFF) noumenon is properly objective and quanta is rooted in noumenon (THEN) quanta is also (potentially) objective and iff qualia is rooted in quanta (THEREFORE) qualia is also (potentially) objective. I would say this logic fails on verifiability. For example, (IFF) noumenon is assumed to be objective and is yet unknowable/unverifiable (THEN) it is impossible to verify if quanta correlates with noumenon in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, even (IFF) quanta is assumed to be objective and perfectly value-neutral (THEN) it is impossible to either inductively or deductively extrapolate "objective qualia" because qualia is not value-neutral and being fundamentally subjective (private), it is antithetical to the very concept of objective.
CON says, (cr1.4)"If it was not for the mechanical [Type 3] processes in place within our brains, our subjective [Type 2] reality would not exist, we know this because you can alter the subjective experience with electrical and chemical [Type 3] changes in the brain. In other words the very existence of [Type 2] subjectivity is at the whim of a mechanical scientific [Type 3] reality of physical phenomena."
PRO (pr2.5) However, since we are fundamentally unable to distinguish (true?) qualia [Type 2] from a dream or elaborate hallucination, it is impossible for us to determine conclusively if quanta [Type 3] is primary or simply a category of qualia.
CON says, (cr1.5)"It's quite impossible for a subjective [Type 2] experience to exist without an objective [Type 1] physical [Type 3] reality, and we already understand that our subjective [Type 2] reality is only possible thanks to the objective [Type 1] principles of a physical [Type 3] reality which we are understanding more and more thanks to science. So if [Type 3] science is not [Type 1] objective, why does it explain the entire basis for why subjectivity exists in the first place?"
PRO (pr2.6) Quanta does not "...explain the entire basis for why we subjectively exists in the first place..." Quanta itself explains nothing. Quanta itself is incapable of explaining anything. Quanta is value-neutral raw data. We like to believe that our corroborated experiential qualitative reality is "real" or "fact" but this is a category error. The common definitions of "real" and "fact" absolutely preclude the examination of anything that is not purely and scientifically quantifiable.
(pr2.1) Question: Do we agree that [Type 1] is unknowable noumenon? Please explain.
(pr2.2) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is meaningful experiential qualia? Please explain.
(pr2.3) Question: Do we agree that [Type 3] is value-neutral scientifically measurable quanta? Please explain.
(pr2.4) Question: Are you suggesting that because [Type 1] might be objective, that the other two types are also somehow objective? Please explain.
(pr2.5) Question: Do we agree that [Type 2] is fundamentally indistinguishable for an elaborate dream? Please explain.
(pr2.6) Question: Do we agree that the terms "real" and "fact" can only apply to [Type 3]? Please explain.
This has been a very enjoyable and informative debate so far and I look forward to the final round.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate and for doing such a nice job of presenting their framework for 3 types of reality in a concise and conversational style.
I believe our ontological outlook is similar, but there are some differences and I will attempt to highlight these differences and formulate some specific questions for CON.
CON says, (cr1.1)"I will start by saying that there are 3 types of reality that the human mind can be aware of, one of them is beyond our grasp [Type 1] but we can know it is there and another is not actually a "reality" but takes up the majority of the average human's thought process. The "non-reality type of reality" [Type 2] is the world of the conceptual, the abstract, and/or the inherently subjective."
CON says, "...one of them is beyond our grasp..." (presumably Type 1) which I agree with but I'm not sure it follows that, "...but we can know it is there..."
PRO (pr2.1) What I have highlighted as [Type 1] reality, is what I propose we label "noumenon". The primary characteristic of noumenon is that it is unknowable. There is no possible aspect of noumenon that is verifiable in any way, either by direct or indirect observation, or by logical induction or deduction. Noumenon is merely a conceptual, hypothetical (untestable) placeholder for the unknown/unknowable. It might be hypothesized that noumenon is "pure objectivity" and as such a claim can never be either confirmed or denied, it makes a rather convenient appeal-to-ignorance case for anyone seeking to build an argument in favor of the existence of "pure objectivity". Noumenon is imaginary and does not properly qualify as "real" or "extant" because it is not scientifically verifiable. Noumenon is [Type 1] reality.
PRO (pr2.2) What I have highlighted as [Type 2] reality, is what I propose we label "qualia". The primary characteristic of qualia is that it is meaningful and personal. Qualia is the primary experience each of us has as an integral part of our human identity. Qualia is almost exclusively private. Qualia is multi-layered and includes such conceptual structures as conscious/subconscious and id/ego/superego. Qualia can be apparently corroborated but never perfectly verifiable because of its private nature. Qualia is fundamentally and epistemologically indistinguishable from a dream state. Examples of qualia are meaningful (scientifically unverifiable) concepts like, love, family, nation, home, useful, and good. Qualia is imaginary and does not properly qualify as "real" or "extant" because it is not scientifically verifiable. Qualia is Type 2 reality.
CON says, (cr1.2)"The reality which science deals with [Type 3] is the physical reality, which is mechanistic in nature. The reality which is beyond our grasp [Type 1] is what fundamentally underlies the mechanical reality, it is what things are rather than merely how they behave."
PRO (pr2.3) What I have highlighted as [Type 3] reality, is what I propose we label "quanta". The primary characteristic of quanta is that it is value-neutral and public. Quanta is the realm of scientifically quantifiable measurements, sound axiomatic/tautological logic, data, and facts. Quanta can generally be corroborated and verified relatively easily using standardized methodology. Examples of quanta are value-neutral, like, 1 mile, 2 inches, 3 planets, 4 grams. While good scientific data is generally considered quanta, scientific []conclusions[] based on this data are almost always qualia. Only quanta properly qualifies as "real" or "extant" because it is axiomatically scientifically verifiable. Quanta is Type 3 reality.
CON says, (cr1.3)"Despite the fact that the human mind is inclined towards a subjective outlook [Type 2], there is an objective [Type 1] basis for how things behave in the physical and mechanistic reality [Type 3] in which we live which humans are capable of discerning in many instances. The reason that I know this is because I already know the basis for the subjective [Type 2] reality, which is rooted in the physical [Type 3] just as the physical is rooted in a deeper existential reality [Type 1] which we can't perceive."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
Much like definitions for God, how you define and apply those terms (not infinite, the other two) I think determines whether such logically exists.
Do you know of any logically coherent definitions of either "free will" or "objective reality"?
I only know of one logically coherent definition of "god" and that would be from Spinoza's Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I mean to say that science is (NEITHER) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (NOR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Science is systematic knowledge (knowledge requires a human) acquired by the application of logic (logic requires a human) to observation (observation requires a human).
That definition of "objective" explicitly states "of a person or their judgement", yet you are applying it to a body of knowledge. I don't see how a body of knowledge can be said to be objective. Accurate or inaccurate would be more appropriate adjectives.
Some people would argue that, "A body of knowledge can be qualified as the second part of the proposed definition of objective, namely, (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."
Created:
Posted in:
You are a veritable fount of wisdom. I'm ever so humbled that you've taken precious time out of your day to enlighten us all.
Created:
Posted in:
I appreciate your well reasoned and scathing critique.
Created:
Posted in:
(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.
"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]
Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".
"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.
In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.
"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]
"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]
The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.
(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,
"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]
"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]
The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.
One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.
But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.
They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.
(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
(2) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."
(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).
(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).
The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).
(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Well stated.IQ is a psychometric for g factor, which accounts for around 30-50% of variance between different cognitive skills. The other 50% variance is not accounted for by the g factor. If you claim g factor is a true measure of "intelligence" you're about 50% correct, which is exactly how much predictive validity you have to work with.Intelligence theories use factor models and IQ is one of them. the g factor is the most broad and is only apparent after dimentionality reduction. Each IQ test has subsets that all items load onto, and each loading itself loads onto the g factor with pretty high strength. As with all factor reductions, a lot of variance is sacrificed in the process. Anyone who claims the g factor is the only predictor of intelligence doesn't understand factor analysis. It's merely the most obvious predictor. A scree plot however would show you that the sum of the next dozen strongest factors summed together wouldn't match the eigenvalue of the g factor, so it's clearly the only factor worth using.In short, IQ is a measure of g factor, g factor is the correlation of performance between unrelated cognitive tests, and the g factor accounts for up to 50% of the variance in performance. For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study.
You might find this interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
Created:
-->
@Type1
I post a bunch of debates and RM eats them up like a wild hog, most of the rest of you just spend your time engaging in pointless banter in the forums.
The forums are a great way to hone your skill and explore possible topics for debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Doesn't a dog have "manifest subjective experience"? I mean, they do seem to remember things. Do you believe a dog has consciousness?What does the conscious mind do?The problematical thing the conscious mind does is manifest subjective experience. That is what we have no idea how it comes about or how we could implement it in a machine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I'd say, human consciousness is a social necessity.@draftermanit's clear that the conscious mind isn't needed (though it probably plays an important role).That makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself. What role does the conscious mind play if all decisions are made by the unconscious mind?
Being able to apparently "explain our motives and intentions" allows us to construct social abstractions that promote enhanced cooperation.
For example, most social mammals use body language and specific grunts, growls, squeaks, and pants in order to communicate rudimentary motives and intentions. Human consciousness is just a small step forward along those same lines, allowing humans to coordinate and cooperate in even more complex ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Well stated.There is no evidence that such a thing exists.What you call "desire" I call post hoc justification for a decision your brain already made at a subconscious level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You seem very ill-disposed towards the subjective and qualia! If the universe was devoid of consciousness, there would be no subjectivity or qualia, but there is consciousness so there is subjectivity and qualia.
One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.
For example: "real" is defined as, "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal." - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+real&t=h_&atb=v79-2&ia=definition
What is "real" is quanta and quanta is meaningless.
All meaning, everything important, is qualia.
I'm not sure how you could characterize my attitude towards qualia as "very ill-disposed"(?) since I have repeatedly stated as clearly as possible, "quanta is meaningless and qualia is meaningful".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It's begging the question to say that prerequisites to life are inherently "important" (to living things).
Without the prerequisites to life, there would, axiomatically, be no life, and therefore nothing to "value" the prerequisites to life or life itself as a concept.
The prerequisites to life are only "valuable" to living things because of their survival instinct.
The prerequisites to life are generally incidental and taken completely for granted.
The fact that most (but not all) living things wish to survive as long as possible is merely a subjective value judgement and as such, pure qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The links you posted have absolutely nothing to do with EtrnlVw.
Your demand that anyone "read every single post" is clearly an appeal to ignorance (typically identified by, "you can't prove me wrong so I must be right" which is also a burden-of-proof-fallacy).
For example, anyone might say, hypothetically, "Goldtop is a troll. Just go back and read all of their posts and you'll certainly agree." such a statement would be an example of an ad hominem attack and an appeal to ignorance as well. At which point someone might ask you, "Goldtop, are you a troll?" to which you may answer "no", and seeing as the definition of "troll" relies implicitly on one's internal motives, it would be practically impossible to prove you wrong since you are the only person who has virtually unfettered access to your personal internal motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yet another predictable personal attack from Goldtop.Lol. One thing I certainly understand is when someone with poor reading comprehension skills pretends to act intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You are begging the question. The phenomena you mention are not "important" in and of themselves.Yeah, right. Those photons that tan your skin brown or burn your skin via UV or ionization are not important.
Photons contacting human skin are merely incidental in most cases. They only become "important" if a person is trying to avoid the discomfort associated with prolonged exposure or if you are concerned about the tone of the exposed skin or other associated potential health risks.
Just like with everything else, your environment is only important in as much as it affects your qualitative experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
And yet another ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to ignorance.Now we know you're lying, that claim would demand you have read every single post of Et, here and ddo.
I will reiterate, regardless of what a person posts, only the individual themself can either confirm or deny their personal motivations.
I would like to think that you of all people would be able to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Goldtop
Nope, he has mentioned many times that cult, here and ddo, that we need to look into it. How is that not recruiting?
EtrnlVw mentions all sorts of religions/cults/beliefs/metaphysics. Your "data" is inconclusive.
Only EtrnlVw can confirm if they are a member of any of the organizations they mention or if they would like anyone else to join a particular group.
Your ad hominem attack is not only unsubstantiated, it is also moot.
Created: