The Inter Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:11 pm

wtf wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:22 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:35 am
You are correct about Real numbers. But I am talking about the Hyper Real numbers. Wikipedia: The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R... The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.
FWIW can you please point me to where you said you were discussing the hyperreals and not the reals?

But no matter. Let's talk hyperreals. They are a nonstandard model of the first-order axioms of the reals. They are a field, just like the reals. You can always divide by 2. So if x is a positive infinitesimal hyperreal, then 0 < x/2 < x so that x is not the smallest infinitesimal hyperreal.

In short, the hyperreals are interesting but they don't help your argument in the least. There is no smallest positive hyperreal, infinitesimal or not.

A meta-argument for the non-usefulness of the hyperreals in understanding anything is that Keisler wrote a hyperreal-based calculus text in 1975. Since then, there haven't been any others, and there has NOT been any hyperreal revolution in the teaching of calculus. Studies of the pedagogical effectiveness of hyperreal-based calculus are inconclusive. Students come out of calculus class confused about the real numbers whether the class was traditional or based on the hyperreals.

As I say the hyperreals are an interesting mathematical object in their own right, but they don't shed much light on our understanding of real numbers nor is there a smallest positive hyperreal. And they can't be used to prove any new theorems or develop new math, because they are a model of the first-order axioms of the reals. Any first-order theorem true of the reals is true of the hyperreals and vice versa. This is the famous transfer principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_principle
The website says that the concept of the smallest number is taken from Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis. SIA imposes a special property for Infinitesimals (dx) close to Zero: Even though dx > 0, dx * dx = 0. So if there is a smallest number it would have that property. I then try to show that in an analogous way that there could be a largest number (Gx) and that it would have an analogous strange property: Even though Gx < Infinity, Gx * Gx = Infinity. Then I try to develop a relationship between dx and Gx. The relationship is the more important result. So if there was a Smallest and Largest number then Gx * Gx = 1 / dx * dx. It's all just a thought experiment about Small numbers, Big numbers, Zero , and Infinity.

wtf
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:38 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:11 pm
The website says that the concept of the smallest number is taken from Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis. SIA imposes a special property for Infinitesimals (dx) close to Zero: Even though dx > 0, dx * dx = 0. So if there is a smallest number it would have that property. I then try to show that in an analogous way that there could be a largest number (Gx) and that it would have an analogous strange property: Even though Gx < Infinity, Gx * Gx = Infinity. Then I try to develop a relationship between dx and Gx. The relationship is the more important result. So if there was a Smallest and Largest number then Gx * Gx = 1 / dx * dx. It's all just a thought experiment about Small numbers, Big numbers, Zero , and Infinity.
Oh so now we're not talking about the hyperreals anymore, but rather SIA.

Lurching randomly without understanding from one Wikipedia article to another doesn't help your argument or your credibility. Even in SIA there is no smallest infinitesimal. You're just flailing and you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't want to argue with you, I'm happy to leave you in your own little world. I advise you to study some Real Analysis to learn about the real numbers.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:35 am

Steve, what if material is not conscious.

What if consciousness doesn't exist at all.

What if there's just life that has no knowledge that it exists?

What if the knowledge of there is life with no knowledge of itself is just a ''thought'' the brain produces...the brain being the thing that produces invisible things like the sense of self.... or like pain or like emotion or feelings etc... all invisible.

For example: .......I can feel pain but I cannot know or see what this I is that feels pain, neither can the pain be seen.

Or, I can know things, but I cannot know or see the knower of what's known. I know my hand but when I look for the knower in my hand there is nothing there but blood and tissue.

I see a problem with the idea that the brain creates consciousness? I think the brain creates a sense of self (as a thought) which is invisible.


It seems everything we believe we are is invisible. And everything we are not is visible as in the meat, blood and bone.

If there is an energetic play that produces ''thought'' from within itself then nothing is being produced by the brain..the brain is the ''thought''

I know you don't believe in blowing something like a conscious experience off...but maybe it's happening and not happening to anything?

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:53 pm

wtf wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:38 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:11 pm
The website says that the concept of the smallest number is taken from Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis. SIA imposes a special property for Infinitesimals (dx) close to Zero: Even though dx > 0, dx * dx = 0. So if there is a smallest number it would have that property. I then try to show that in an analogous way that there could be a largest number (Gx) and that it would have an analogous strange property: Even though Gx < Infinity, Gx * Gx = Infinity. Then I try to develop a relationship between dx and Gx. The relationship is the more important result. So if there was a Smallest and Largest number then Gx * Gx = 1 / dx * dx. It's all just a thought experiment about Small numbers, Big numbers, Zero , and Infinity.
Oh so now we're not talking about the hyperreals anymore, but rather SIA.

Lurching randomly without understanding from one Wikipedia article to another doesn't help your argument or your credibility. Even in SIA there is no smallest infinitesimal. You're just flailing and you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't want to argue with you, I'm happy to leave you in your own little world. I advise you to study some Real Analysis to learn about the real numbers.
No lurching just pointing out the references that were clearly stated on the website which you said you read. You obviously didn't read the article on the Website. I didn't say SIA said there was a smallest number I said that if there were a smallest number it would have certain properties that are derived from SIA and the Hyperreals.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:00 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:35 am
Steve, what if material is not conscious.

What if consciousness doesn't exist at all.

What if there's just life that has no knowledge that it exists?

What if the knowledge of there is life with no knowledge of itself is just a ''thought'' the brain produces...the brain being the thing that produces invisible things like the sense of self.... or like pain or like emotion or feelings etc... all invisible.

For example: .......I can feel pain but I cannot know or see what this I is that feels pain, neither can the pain be seen.

Or, I can know things, but I cannot know or see the knower of what's known. I know my hand but when I look for the knower in my hand there is nothing there but blood and tissue.

I see a problem with the idea that the brain creates consciousness? I think the brain creates a sense of self (as a thought) which is invisible.


It seems everything we believe we are is invisible. And everything we are not is visible as in the meat, blood and bone.

If there is an energetic play that produces ''thought'' from within itself then nothing is being produced by the brain..the brain is the ''thought''

I know you don't believe in blowing something like a conscious experience off...but maybe it's happening and not happening to anything?

.
If Consciousness did not exist there would be no Philosophy of Mind forums. Pain is a good example of proof of the existence of Conscious experience. Pain exists as a thing in itself just as Red exists as a thing in itself. What are these things?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:39 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:00 pm
If Consciousness did not exist there would be no Philosophy of Mind forums. Pain is a good example of proof of the existence of Conscious experience. Pain exists as a thing in itself just as Red exists as a thing in itself. What are these things?
Steve...

I understand there is a conscious experience of pain else it wouldn't be known.

But can the experiencer of pain be an experience? ....if it's already what's experiencing?

Same with the image of Red...can the experience of red be inseparable from the experiencer...and can the experiencer of red be an experience..if it's already what's experiencing red ?

What we are as awareness / consciousness cannot know itself as an object/image...for it is only aware of these things, while it itself is not a thing. It is that which is aware of things that it cannot know itself as or be.

It can only know itself as the awareness as self evident. ?

Do you understand what I mean?


.

wtf
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:18 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:53 pm

No lurching just pointing out the references that were clearly stated on the website which you said you read. You obviously didn't read the article on the Website. I didn't say SIA said there was a smallest number I said that if there were a smallest number it would have certain properties that are derived from SIA and the Hyperreals.
In logic, any statement whatsoever follows from a false premise.

If 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope.

This is a true statement. It's true by virtue of the fact that 2 + 2 is not 5.

Likewise:

IF there is a smallest positive member of the hyperreals or in Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis,

THEN it has six legs; giraffes can fly; and I am the Pope.

That's a true implication. It's true by virtue of the fact that there is no smallest member of the hyperreals and there is no smallest number in SIA.

So your implication is vacuously true, but meaningless.

I said you were lurching from one Wiki page to another because you are clearly picking up buzzwords (hyperreals, SIA) without any understanding. If you deny this, can you explain to me the categorical underpinnings of SIA? Can you explain category theory to me without looking it up? What do you know about SIA? If you know anything about SIA, wouldn't you understand that there's no smallest element?

It's not hard to prove that ANY system of numbers that contains infinitesimals, can not possibly contain a smallest one.

I don't mean to pile on. I only mean to note that your mathematical ideas and claims range from wrong to "not even wrong." You don't understand the mathematical ideas you're making things up about.

If you are intellectually honest, you will thank me for taking the time and trouble to correct your mathematical errors. That way you will STRENGTHEN your own argument. Because any time you run the line of argument you've given here, SOMEONE with mathematical knowledge will show up to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. I would think you would appreciate having this pointed out so that you can make a better argument in support of your ideas.

But yeah, strictly speaking, what you said is true. IF there is a smallest infinitesimal, it has tiny little hairs growing from its head. And I am the Pope.

By the way I stipulate for the record that I am not the Pope. Since this is an anonymous message board, for all anyone knows I am the Pope. Now go in peace and sin no more. You can cos all you like.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:45 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:39 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:00 pm
If Consciousness did not exist there would be no Philosophy of Mind forums. Pain is a good example of proof of the existence of Conscious experience. Pain exists as a thing in itself just as Red exists as a thing in itself. What are these things?
Steve...

I understand there is a conscious experience of pain else it wouldn't be known.

But can the experiencer of pain be an experience? ....if it's already what's experiencing?

Same with the image of Red...can the experience of red be inseparable from the experiencer...and can the experiencer of red be an experience..if it's already what's experiencing red ?

What we are as awareness / consciousness cannot know itself as an object/image...for it is only aware of these things, while it itself is not a thing. It is that which is aware of things that it cannot know itself as or be.

It can only know itself as the awareness as self evident. ?

Do you understand what I mean?


.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Experiencer being an Experience. But if you mean that we Experience Pain and Red because we, as Conscious Minds, are Pain and Red then I get it. As I say in "An Interesting Conclusion" on http://TheInterMind.com, I think we are the Light (and therefore the Red) that we have always experienced.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm

wtf wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:18 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:53 pm

No lurching just pointing out the references that were clearly stated on the website which you said you read. You obviously didn't read the article on the Website. I didn't say SIA said there was a smallest number I said that if there were a smallest number it would have certain properties that are derived from SIA and the Hyperreals.
In logic, any statement whatsoever follows from a false premise.

If 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope.

This is a true statement. It's true by virtue of the fact that 2 + 2 is not 5.

Likewise:

IF there is a smallest positive member of the hyperreals or in Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis,

THEN it has six legs; giraffes can fly; and I am the Pope.

That's a true implication. It's true by virtue of the fact that there is no smallest member of the hyperreals and there is no smallest number in SIA.

So your implication is vacuously true, but meaningless.

I said you were lurching from one Wiki page to another because you are clearly picking up buzzwords (hyperreals, SIA) without any understanding. If you deny this, can you explain to me the categorical underpinnings of SIA? Can you explain category theory to me without looking it up? What do you know about SIA? If you know anything about SIA, wouldn't you understand that there's no smallest element?

It's not hard to prove that ANY system of numbers that contains infinitesimals, can not possibly contain a smallest one.

I don't mean to pile on. I only mean to note that your mathematical ideas and claims range from wrong to "not even wrong." You don't understand the mathematical ideas you're making things up about.

If you are intellectually honest, you will thank me for taking the time and trouble to correct your mathematical errors. That way you will STRENGTHEN your own argument. Because any time you run the line of argument you've given here, SOMEONE with mathematical knowledge will show up to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. I would think you would appreciate having this pointed out so that you can make a better argument in support of your ideas.

But yeah, strictly speaking, what you said is true. IF there is a smallest infinitesimal, it has tiny little hairs growing from its head. And I am the Pope.

By the way I stipulate for the record that I am not the Pope. Since this is an anonymous message board, for all anyone knows I am the Pope. Now go in peace and sin no more. You can cos all you like.
I actually do Thank You, your Holiness, for taking the time to read the article. You are the only one that has ever commented. Of course it is Vacuously true, but true nevertheless. As you can see I had to invoke the Hyperreals because the Reals in a sense, don't get small enough. Then the special property of SIA that says dx * dx = 0 means that a smallest number has to have that property. I did not use these two concepts as Buzz Words as you say. I have read them in detail. The concepts that I used were legitimately and properly used. What's wrong with using Wikipedia for these kinds of things. The articles are written and maintained by people that have a certain authority in particular topics. They always provide links and references for further study. Come on, get with the 21st Century way of doing things.

wtf
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:58 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
Of course it is Vacuously true, but true nevertheless.
Perhaps I'm not following your point. Saying that "if there is a smallest hyperreal then ..." is no different than saying "if 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope." It's true but doesn't actually mean anything. It's only true by virtue of the premise being false. Can you explain how this supports your argument? After all, I am not the Pope even though any falsehood implies that I am. A falsehood implies absolutely anything. That's the famous principle of explosion. "From falsehood, anything follows."
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
As you can see I had to invoke the Hyperreals because the Reals in a sense, don't get small enough. Then the special property of SIA that says dx * dx = 0 means that a smallest number has to have that property.
There is no smallest positive number, even in systems containing infinitesimals. You seem unwilling to accept this mathematical truth. You can always divide by 2.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
I did not use these two concepts as Buzz Words as you say. I have read them in detail. The concepts that I used were legitimately and properly used. What's wrong with using Wikipedia for these kinds of things. The articles are written and maintained by people that have a certain authority in particular topics. They always provide links and references for further study. Come on, get with the 21st Century way of doing things.
Misunderstanding fragments of Wiki articles doesn't constitute knowledge. But nice rhetorical trick. I'm criticizing your understanding and you're defending the Wiki pages themselves. "What's wrong with using Wikipedia?" Nothing at all. It's your own understanding that's flawed.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:22 am

Quote: DAM:

Steve...

I understand there is a conscious experience of pain else it wouldn't be known.

But can the experiencer of pain be an experience? ....if it's already what's experiencing?

Same with the image of Red...can the experience of red be inseparable from the experiencer...and can the experiencer of red be an experience..if it's already what's experiencing red ?

What we are as awareness / consciousness cannot know itself as an object/image...for it is only aware of these things, while it itself is not a thing. It is that which is aware of things that it cannot know itself as or be.

It can only know itself as the awareness as self evident. ?

Do you understand what I mean?


.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:45 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by the Experiencer being an Experience. But if you mean that we Experience Pain and Red because we, as Conscious Minds, are Pain and Red then I get it. As I say in "An Interesting Conclusion" on http://TheInterMind.com, I think we are the Light (and therefore the Red) that we have always experienced.
Yes, and what you've just repeated, is the only ''experiencing'' of consciousness that cannot be an experience.
The ''experiencing'' is the ( experiencer, experience, experienced ) all in the same moment, they are one. There is no ''we'' (ego) doing this, the ego is an 'appearance' totally within this one without a second experiencing...all inclusive, embodied ''not a thing'' consciousness...aware of itself all alone. ALL ONE

The experiencing of consciousness - aka consciousness experiencing itself ..aka 'not a thing' experiencing as 'every thing' ONE WITH THE KNOWING...ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

The how of how is this happening cannot be answered - for who would the other consciousness be that would know how? when it's already this immediate knowing?

Consciousness is one without a second...experiencing itself now, and now and now Ad Infinitum...to infinity; endlessly; without limit.

.

.

I understand and respect you don't want to believe consciousness is one...and I wish you all the best in finding the hard problem of consciousness answer you are looking for.

.

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:25 pm

wtf wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:58 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
Of course it is Vacuously true, but true nevertheless.
Perhaps I'm not following your point. Saying that "if there is a smallest hyperreal then ..." is no different than saying "if 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope." It's true but doesn't actually mean anything. It's only true by virtue of the premise being false. Can you explain how this supports your argument? After all, I am not the Pope even though any falsehood implies that I am. A falsehood implies absolutely anything. That's the famous principle of explosion. "From falsehood, anything follows."
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
As you can see I had to invoke the Hyperreals because the Reals in a sense, don't get small enough. Then the special property of SIA that says dx * dx = 0 means that a smallest number has to have that property.
There is no smallest positive number, even in systems containing infinitesimals. You seem unwilling to accept this mathematical truth. You can always divide by 2.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:12 pm
I did not use these two concepts as Buzz Words as you say. I have read them in detail. The concepts that I used were legitimately and properly used. What's wrong with using Wikipedia for these kinds of things. The articles are written and maintained by people that have a certain authority in particular topics. They always provide links and references for further study. Come on, get with the 21st Century way of doing things.
Misunderstanding fragments of Wiki articles doesn't constitute knowledge. But nice rhetorical trick. I'm criticizing your understanding and you're defending the Wiki pages themselves. "What's wrong with using Wikipedia?" Nothing at all. It's your own understanding that's flawed.
I read the papers on these topics directly. I gave the Wikipedia reference for the website article because it quickly describes the concept but gives references to actual articles. I know exactly what you mean about dx / 2. Since dx * dx = 0 for the Infinitesimals then maybe for the smallest Infinitesimal dx / 2 = 0. It seems like the smallest number will have that property. It's no worse than dx * dx = 0.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:34 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:22 am
Quote: DAM:

Steve...

I understand there is a conscious experience of pain else it wouldn't be known.

But can the experiencer of pain be an experience? ....if it's already what's experiencing?

Same with the image of Red...can the experience of red be inseparable from the experiencer...and can the experiencer of red be an experience..if it's already what's experiencing red ?

What we are as awareness / consciousness cannot know itself as an object/image...for it is only aware of these things, while it itself is not a thing. It is that which is aware of things that it cannot know itself as or be.

It can only know itself as the awareness as self evident. ?

Do you understand what I mean?


.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:45 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by the Experiencer being an Experience. But if you mean that we Experience Pain and Red because we, as Conscious Minds, are Pain and Red then I get it. As I say in "An Interesting Conclusion" on http://TheInterMind.com, I think we are the Light (and therefore the Red) that we have always experienced.
Yes, and what you've just repeated, is the only ''experiencing'' of consciousness that cannot be an experience.
The ''experiencing'' is the ( experiencer, experience, experienced ) all in the same moment, they are one. There is no ''we'' (ego) doing this, the ego is an 'appearance' totally within this one without a second experiencing...all inclusive, embodied ''not a thing'' consciousness...aware of itself all alone. ALL ONE

The experiencing of consciousness - aka consciousness experiencing itself ..aka 'not a thing' experiencing as 'every thing' ONE WITH THE KNOWING...ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

The how of how is this happening cannot be answered - for who would the other consciousness be that would know how? when it's already this immediate knowing?

Consciousness is one without a second...experiencing itself now, and now and now Ad Infinitum...to infinity; endlessly; without limit.

.

.

I understand and respect you don't want to believe consciousness is one...and I wish you all the best in finding the hard problem of consciousness answer you are looking for.

.

.
Since my Conscious Mind has let me ask the question of how Consciousness happens, I think there probably is an answer to the question.

It's not that I don't want to believe that Consciousness is One. It's that I am unable to realize that. I actually would like to realize that. I have been trying for a long time to understand it. I will continue to try.

wtf
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:06 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:25 pm
I know exactly what you mean about dx / 2. Since dx * dx = 0 for the Infinitesimals then maybe for the smallest Infinitesimal dx / 2 = 0. It seems like the smallest number will have that property. It's no worse than dx * dx = 0.
There is no smallest infinitesimal. It's a mathematical fact. I don't understand your willful denial of a fact that's mathematically provable.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:30 pm

Any real number above 0 no matter how small can be infinitely divided by a positive integer. So there will never be a point at which the
answer will be 0 and this is proof that there is no smallest infinitesimal. In theory the smallest would be an infinity of 0s with I added on
the end. But as infinity is never ending nothing can be added on to it. As that is a nonsensical concept both mathematically and logically

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests