## Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:10 am You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law.
The short and simple-version - yes.

Any and all binary classification ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification ) requires a classification rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ).

And so if you are not familiar with the concepts "color" of "red" no amount of explanation or first-order logic is going to communicate to you the classification rule for "Take all red items out of the box of mixed-colour items".

If I were to ask you for the classification rule for subjective/objective we are forever stuck trying to define the made-up categories in your head.
If you were to ask me for the classification rule for "red" and "non-red" items. I'll just show you what I mean by demonstrating an effective decision procedure: A pile of red things. A pile of non-red things.

Binary classification is sorting.

Why do you nee to sort?
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:01 pm I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

The moon is a KNOWN conceptual perception (an appearance) within the perceiver.
( ''within'' ) being the important factor here. In that an appearance is not actually external to you, everything that appears to be outside of you is actually appearing within you, inseparable from you. ''YOU'' being the first person subjective consciousness.
Without a conscious observer no thing can possibly KNOWS it exists. Therefore, consciousness is the only knowing there is. And there is nothing outside of that KNOWING.

There is no moon without a perceiver present to perceive it...and the moon will only be a KNOWN conceptual appearance within the perceiver that must be first, so the moon does not and cannot exist outside or external to the perceiver...the moon is inside the perceiver, so both the moon and that which is perceiving the moon do not and cannot possibly exist separately in the same sense that wetness does not exist separate from water. Any relationship or division between observer and observed is purely conceptual, so all concepts are illusory fictional characters within the infinite observer, therefore a character does not and cannot exist in and of itself separate from the perceiver/ KNOWER..which is CONSCIOUSNESS.

.
Age
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Atla wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:24 am
Age wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:38 am
Atla wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:45 pm
It's almost funny how lost you are in the standard Cartesian confusion. If all you know are subjective impressions, then you must know that there is a subjective-objective division. Did you know that no such division was ever found? If there is no such division, then the image of the Moon in our head is indeed a model of the real Moon out there, so the Moon does exists out there (the exception is when people are hallucinating objects that aren't there).
You only THINK that the moon exists. You do NOT KNOW this for sure.
Of course I know it for sure, idiot.
Do you think using words like "idiot" somehow makes your made up conclusions more right?
Atla wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:24 am(Beyond the obvious footnotes that everything might be an illusion/simulation/magic/I might have the most epic lifelong hallucination somehow/bla bla bla.)
(What about the other obvious "footnote"? Have you considered that one also? If not, then why not? That "footnote", by the way, is the actual Truth of things. Why have you not worked out what the Truth is yet?)

For the readers, I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum. I do this to point out and SHOW how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings, in the days of when this is written. However, curiosity usually jumps to the forefront when some things are written. We will wait and see.
Age
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Logik wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:10 am Logik, your 'logic' is not sinking into me. Can you clarify?

My own background is intensively on the subject of "logic". You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law. If you are just practicing "fuzzy logic", while useful in other contexts, I'm not sure what you mean when we are only dealing with first-order logical discussions. What specifically are you claiming that I am missing about extended alternatives?
I very much dislike first order logic to the point where I think it's harmful to critical thought, so I insist on high order intuitionistic/constructive logics.

First order logic is complete but not decidable: http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html

Observe the OP title. It can be reduced to a yes/no question: Does the moon exist?
And perhaps reduced down to a bunch more primitives like: Do you have knowledge? Do you have knowledge of the moon's existence?

All yes/no questions are decision problems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem ).
In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer
It's precisely because first order logic is undecidable is why philosophers are trapped in this eternal game of re-interpretation. My narrative is right, your narrative is wrong! With no effective mechanism to decide whether that's actually the case.

Observe that just about any statement you make in first order logic can be turned into a decision problem.

The sky is blue. Is the sky blue?
God exists. Does God exist?
Pain is an illusion. Is pain an illusion?
Feelings are subjective. Are feelings subjective?

If you insist on first order logic you are stuck. Every single distinction is an undecidable dead end. So much like one person can arbitrarily choose to answer "yes" to "Does God exist?", another could answer "no". And there is no way to decide who is right or wrong.

Good luck trying to communicate with somebody who draws different distinctions. You are forever trapped arguing about metaphysics and semantics.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it --Richard Feynman
Well you have gone and TWISTED things around just nicely to fit in with and suit your OWN already held distorted and untrue ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which you obviously just can NOT shake yourself of.

The opening post title specifically does NOT ask what you implied that it could be reduced to. To think such a thing would be absurdly stupid to do so.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Age wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:36 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:10 am Logik, your 'logic' is not sinking into me. Can you clarify?

My own background is intensively on the subject of "logic". You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law. If you are just practicing "fuzzy logic", while useful in other contexts, I'm not sure what you mean when we are only dealing with first-order logical discussions. What specifically are you claiming that I am missing about extended alternatives?
I very much dislike first order logic to the point where I think it's harmful to critical thought, so I insist on high order intuitionistic/constructive logics.

First order logic is complete but not decidable: http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html

Observe the OP title. It can be reduced to a yes/no question: Does the moon exist?
And perhaps reduced down to a bunch more primitives like: Do you have knowledge? Do you have knowledge of the moon's existence?

All yes/no questions are decision problems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem ).
In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer
It's precisely because first order logic is undecidable is why philosophers are trapped in this eternal game of re-interpretation. My narrative is right, your narrative is wrong! With no effective mechanism to decide whether that's actually the case.

Observe that just about any statement you make in first order logic can be turned into a decision problem.

The sky is blue. Is the sky blue?
God exists. Does God exist?
Pain is an illusion. Is pain an illusion?
Feelings are subjective. Are feelings subjective?

If you insist on first order logic you are stuck. Every single distinction is an undecidable dead end. So much like one person can arbitrarily choose to answer "yes" to "Does God exist?", another could answer "no". And there is no way to decide who is right or wrong.

Good luck trying to communicate with somebody who draws different distinctions. You are forever trapped arguing about metaphysics and semantics.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it --Richard Feynman
Well you have gone and TWISTED things around just nicely to fit in with and suit your OWN already held distorted and untrue ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which you obviously just can NOT shake yourself of.

The opening post title specifically does NOT ask what you implied that it could be reduced to. To think such a thing would be absurdly stupid to do so.
Shut up. Moron.
Age
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:47 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:01 pm I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

The moon is a KNOWN conceptual perception (an appearance) within the perceiver.
( ''within'' ) being the important factor here. In that an appearance is not actually external to you, everything that appears to be outside of you is actually appearing within you, inseparable from you. ''YOU'' being the first person subjective consciousness.
To 'you', how many 'you's' are there?
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:47 pmWithout a conscious observer no thing can possibly KNOWS it exists. Therefore, consciousness is the only knowing there is. And there is nothing outside of that KNOWING.
Why do 'you' propose such a thing?

If, as you propose, consciousness is the only knowing, then why do 'you' say that there can NOT be thing outside of consciousness?

If, for example, there is consciousness/knowing of a "moon", then surely that would suggest that there is A thing outside of the consciousness/knowing, right?

If a conscious observer is seeing things, then that suggests that there ARE things, to see and observe, correct?
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:47 pmThere is no moon without a perceiver present to perceive it...and the moon will only be a KNOWN conceptual appearance within the perceiver that must be first, so the moon does not and cannot exist outside or external to the perceiver...
Why are you saying and/or suggesting that there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver? What evidence do you have for this?

How many perceiver's are there existing?
Who/what is A 'perceiver'?
Where does a perceiver exist?
How long have perceiver/s been existing for?
Where do perceiver/s come from if there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver first?
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:47 pmthe moon is inside the perceiver, so both the moon and that which is perceiving the moon do not and cannot possibly exist separately in the same sense that wetness does not exist separate from water.
So, A perceiver encompasses absolutely EVERY thing, and ALWAYS HAS, that is if THINGS have always existed also, correct? If, however, THINGS have not always existed and there still needed to be a perceiver FIRST, then in what shape and/or form was the perciever existing in, prior to 'things', which could be observed, coming into existence? But, if things ONLY exist because of A perceiver, then that would mean that while A perceiver is existing, then so are ALL the "other" things, which you say are inseparable from the perceiver.
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:47 pmAny relationship or division between observer and observed is purely conceptual, so all concepts are illusory fictional characters within the infinite observer, therefore a character does not and cannot exist in and of itself separate from the perceiver/ KNOWER..which is CONSCIOUSNESS.
Back to; How many actual perceiver's/KNOWER's are there, to 'you'?

If you want to come across as KNOWING what you are talking about and that you are actually true, right, and correct, then you have to be able to clear up any and all seemingly perceived contradictions and/or absurdities. If not for "others" but for YOU.
Age
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Logik wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:15 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:36 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 am
I very much dislike first order logic to the point where I think it's harmful to critical thought, so I insist on high order intuitionistic/constructive logics.

First order logic is complete but not decidable: http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html

Observe the OP title. It can be reduced to a yes/no question: Does the moon exist?
And perhaps reduced down to a bunch more primitives like: Do you have knowledge? Do you have knowledge of the moon's existence?

All yes/no questions are decision problems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem ).

It's precisely because first order logic is undecidable is why philosophers are trapped in this eternal game of re-interpretation. My narrative is right, your narrative is wrong! With no effective mechanism to decide whether that's actually the case.

Observe that just about any statement you make in first order logic can be turned into a decision problem.

The sky is blue. Is the sky blue?
God exists. Does God exist?
Pain is an illusion. Is pain an illusion?
Feelings are subjective. Are feelings subjective?

If you insist on first order logic you are stuck. Every single distinction is an undecidable dead end. So much like one person can arbitrarily choose to answer "yes" to "Does God exist?", another could answer "no". And there is no way to decide who is right or wrong.

Good luck trying to communicate with somebody who draws different distinctions. You are forever trapped arguing about metaphysics and semantics.

Well you have gone and TWISTED things around just nicely to fit in with and suit your OWN already held distorted and untrue ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which you obviously just can NOT shake yourself of.

The opening post title specifically does NOT ask what you implied that it could be reduced to. To think such a thing would be absurdly stupid to do so.
Shut up. Moron.
Why has it become that this is about all you can say in reply to me now?

Do I actually point out and SHOW Truths that you do NOT like to look at and SEE about your self?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Although I cannot demonstrate it I think that the physical world is mind independent so think the
moon exists as an object in its own right rather than as a mental construct of my own imagination

The reason why I think the physical world is mind independent is because it cannot be manipulated at will
I cannot change it which means it is beyond my control and therefore cannot be something created by me
AlexW
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:54 am The reason why I think the physical world is mind independent is because it cannot be manipulated at will
I cannot change it which means it is beyond my control and therefore cannot be something created by me
What can you actually control?
If not the world then maybe thought? Can you choose which thought to think next?
If yes, then it would be logical that a "chooser" exists - a separate entity that controls thought, right? Is there one?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Logik wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:10 am Logik, your 'logic' is not sinking into me. Can you clarify?

My own background is intensively on the subject of "logic". You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law. If you are just practicing "fuzzy logic", while useful in other contexts, I'm not sure what you mean when we are only dealing with first-order logical discussions. What specifically are you claiming that I am missing about extended alternatives?
I very much dislike first order logic to the point where I think it's harmful to critical thought, so I insist on high order intuitionistic/constructive logics.

First order logic is complete but not decidable: http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html

Observe the OP title. It can be reduced to a yes/no question: Does the moon exist?
And perhaps reduced down to a bunch more primitives like: Do you have knowledge? Do you have knowledge of the moon's existence?

All yes/no questions are decision problems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem ).
You don't appear to understand. "First Order Logic" deals with the underlying logic of Propositions (statements or claims THAT can be answered with yes/no or some form of binary assignment, Predicates, an extension of propositions that include quantification (All, Some, None, etc) and to connected instances of terms withing propositions, Boolean algebra, which CAN extend to muli-valued systems (3 or more valued logics), and Set theory.

What Godel, Turing, and others were doing had to do with how all logics are proved on meta-level. Propositional and Predicate Calculii ARE proven complete and does 'decide' all possible combinations of any domain within it. The works dealing with "undecidability" were about whether we could formulate a universal meta-logical system based on the consistency as a foundation to decide whether all more complex logical systems (higher-orders) can be complete and consistent using that logic. That is can you make a kind of intellectual machine that can sufficiently prove everything of the consistency-type logics within some domain, ....like all math, for instance. Can you prove all mathematically complex systems beginning with these first-order types that ignore any 'contradictory' allowances.

It doesn't invalidate all logics of consistency, it tells us that we can't exhaust all possible kinds of complex logics within all systems and that we cannot expect any system to prove itself. What you CAN do is to determine each system one by one, just not have a universal means to resolve them all. But many can and are proven. Propositional and Predicate logic, which are 'simple' ARE decided as consistent and complete. Godel, who was the one 'proving' this, ["On Formally undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems"] actually was the one who proved Predicate Calculus as just such. So if the very guy who is credited with this could 'prove' the Incompleteness Theorems, he could only be correct if the very logic he used was itself complete and consistent.

The only most universal logic that CAN do this, and contains all other logics, is based upon inconsistency and an allowance for contradiction. But WE live in a world/universe that has to be consistent and so while thus logics are based on what we deem as an 'illogical' origin, us being a function of a 'consistent' universe can only perceive our expectations to be based on consistency and we cannot PROVE otherwise.

This is not a topic we need to discuss here and it derails the conversation further should you disagree. But as to this thread's question, you don't need a multi-valued logic. If you extend the question as "If we aren't looking up at the sky, does the moon exist?" a question that DID raise issues with QM and Relativity but the arguments still have to be made using language based upon first-order logic.

I won't debate this further with you here. It's off topic.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Alex wrote:
What can you actually control ? If not the world then maybe thought ? Can you choose which thought to think next ?
If yes then it would be logical that a chooser exists - a separate entity that controls thought right ? Is there one ?
You can freely choose between all available potential / possible alternatives
There is no chooser independent of the mind of the one making the choices
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am You don't appear to understand.
You seem to self-identify as somebody who "understands logic" and you sound like you have spent a considerable amount of time studying the Aristotelian religion.

So I am literally setting on a quest to prove to you that your life and identity are an error. The odds are against me...
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am "First Order Logic" deals with the underlying logic of Propositions (statements or claims THAT can be answered with yes/no or some form of binary assignment, Predicates, an extension of propositions that include quantification (All, Some, None, etc) and to connected instances of terms withing propositions, Boolean algebra, which CAN extend to muli-valued systems (3 or more valued logics), and Set theory.
1. Any proposition that can be answered with a binary assignment is a decision problem.
2. First Order Logic is provably UNDECIDABLE.

So, literally - your proposition "First Order Logic deals with yes/no statements/questions" is false!
First Order Logic CAN NOT answer yes/no questions! Because it is undecidable.

There is a fundamental incompatibility here (I consider type theory - you consider set theory foundational) but I'll ignore it for now unless it causes more errors.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am Propositional and Predicate Calculii ARE proven complete and does 'decide' all possible combinations of any domain within it.
Completeness and decidability are unrelated criterions! First order logic is complete BUT undecidable!
Completeness deals with the deductive power of the system. Yes - First Order logic is complete.

Also you have left the contingency door wide open by saying "any domain within it". What is the boundary/domain of FOL?
Is it universal or context-specific? Rhetorical question. FOL is a Type-1 (context sensitive) grammar in the Chomsky hierarchy.

So a far more important question is "In what context does FOL fall apart?". The answer is self-evident: decision-making!

IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE.

First order logic falls apart the moment you ask this question: Are the premises true?

Decision problem! FOL assumes truth is a given. It is not.

The part your brain mis-calculates is that you mistake "completeness" for "universality".

A first order logic which accepts "1+1=2" as true is a different system to a first order logic which accepts the premise "1+1=10" as true.
Both systems will be consistent and complete! The theorems of the first system will APPEAR to contradict the theorems of the other.

So for first order logic to be of any use all interlocutors have to agree on the truth-value of the premises. This leads to infinite regress.

Are the premises true? God exists.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am What Godel, Turing, and others were doing had to do with how all logics are proved on meta-level.
It's not meta. It's (whatever the antonym of meta is). You are pre-supposing foundationalism. Logic as a point of departure.

Logic is synthesized. The synthesis of logic is "reason" or "thought" or whatever else you wish to call it.

Metaphysics IS logic. So Choose your logic wisely. https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am Can you prove all mathematically complex systems beginning with these first-order types that ignore any 'contradictory' allowances.
Yes. Curry-Howard isomorphism. Proofs are programs.
http://www4.di.uminho.pt/~mjf/pub/SFV-C ... rd-2up.pdf

You have to abandon set theory and the law of excluded middle and adopt Type theory.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 am "First Order Logic" deals with the underlying logic of Propositions
FOL doesn't do that. Because it's undecidable.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
AlexW
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:21 am You can freely choose between all available potential / possible alternatives
Can you? How many potential alternatives can you weigh up before deciding on one of them?
Are you aware that there is an infinite number of so called "choices" unfolding every moment... and again the next?
And you really think you can choose freely between all of them?
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:21 am There is no chooser independent of the mind of the one making the choices
You say that there is no chooser, but then you go on saying that there is a "one" that is making choices via the mind...
To me, this sounds like this "one" is an independent chooser, right?

Can you please let me know your definition of "mind" and the "one" that owns this mind?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

AlexW wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:23 am Can you please let me know your definition of "mind" and the "one" that owns this mind?
My mind is an oracle machine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine
An oracle machine can be conceived as a Turing machine connected to an oracle.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

AlexW wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:23 am How many potential alternatives can you weigh up before deciding on one of them?
It depends on the amount of space-time you budget for the decision-making process.