But the "head", according to the "laws" of physics, is strictly a product of the physical universe...or isn't it? If it is a product then the physical universe moves towards laws of abstractness inhernently.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:03 pmYou seem to be misunderstanding something here, abstract thinking is an everyday thing, especially above ~100-110 IQ or so. There is nothing special about it. It's a type of human thinking. Of course all great thinkers were perfectly capable of abstractness, but some might have misunderstood it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:52 pm If Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Pythagoras, Wittgenstien, etc. observed similar forms of abstractness (along with the men who provided the foundation for the logic used in computer programming) are they strictly "my" thoughts alone? Or am I building off the observations of others?
It is an inherent part of the process of human rationality then...we can agree on that premise? If abstract thinking, is an inherent part of the reasoning process, and mankind "reasons" in order to observe, understand or form the environment around him, then how can abstract thinking be "unreal" in the respect it defines the reality around him?
Take for example, the computer, the premise for it is within an idea where multiple mathematical/logical/geometric forms reflect to form the idea of the computer. From that idea we observe the relationships between the physical universes laws, our own, and synthesize the product as a median point between the two.
Sensory experience itself is in the head, just like reason. You could even argue that sensory experience is a rudimentary form of "thought". But what sensory experience "shows", is not a thought, it's the outside world.How are the senses interpretted and what seperates reason from sensory experience?
One-way-street time vs circular time
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Nope, we basically build a computer like this: either current is flowing (1) or not (0).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:09 pm It is an inherent part of the process of human rationality then...we can agree on that premise? If abstract thinking, is an inherent part of the reasoning process, and mankind "reasons" in order to observe, understand or form the environment around him, then how can abstract thinking be "unreal" in the respect it defines the reality around him?
Take for example, the computer, the premise for it is within an idea where multiple mathematical/logical/geometric forms reflect to form the idea of the computer. From that idea we observe the relationships between the physical universes laws, our own, and synthesize the product as a median point between the two.
Well, more like part than product, but ok.But the "head", according to the "laws" of physics, is strictly a product of the physical universe...or isn't it? If it is a product then the physical universe moves towards laws of abstractness inhernently.
If the universe moves towards "laws of abstractness inherently", then likewise it also moves towards everything inherently that is part of human civilization, so why single out abstractness.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Because, unless I misunderstood you, you claim it not only does not exist but is unnecessary.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:18 pmNope, we basically build a computer like this: either current is flowing (1) or not (0).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:09 pm It is an inherent part of the process of human rationality then...we can agree on that premise? If abstract thinking, is an inherent part of the reasoning process, and mankind "reasons" in order to observe, understand or form the environment around him, then how can abstract thinking be "unreal" in the respect it defines the reality around him?
Take for example, the computer, the premise for it is within an idea where multiple mathematical/logical/geometric forms reflect to form the idea of the computer. From that idea we observe the relationships between the physical universes laws, our own, and synthesize the product as a median point between the two.
But what determines the order of the flow?
Well, more like part than product, but ok.But the "head", according to the "laws" of physics, is strictly a product of the physical universe...or isn't it? If it is a product then the physical universe moves towards laws of abstractness inhernently.
If the universe moves towards "laws of abstractness inherently", then likewise it also moves towards everything inherently that is part of human civilization, so why single out abstractness.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Well, I guess, it's basically determined by how the hardware is manifactured, and by the software. Software in a computer is usually a bunch of electrons, it's a part of the hardware.
You misunderstood both then.Because, unless I misunderstood you, you claim it not only does not exist but is unnecessary.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Then explain.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:31 pmWell, I guess, it's basically determined by how the hardware is manifactured, and by the software. Software in a computer is usually a bunch of electrons, it's a part of the hardware.
And what determines the differences in manufacturing?
You misunderstood both then.Because, unless I misunderstood you, you claim it not only does not exist but is unnecessary.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Well obviously Intel and AMD and most/all such companies manufacture their hardware parts slightly differently. But it basically comes down to the same thing, either current is flowing or not.
I thought I did several times.. Hmm are you saing that your thoughts aren't real? Or when you for example write your thoughts on a paper, that the ink isn't real?Then explain.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
No you explain that physical laws determine reality, but then I observed the laws are merely abstractions as the laws are a means of definition, to which you implied that abstractions are not real except to help us understand,Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:46 pmWell obviously Intel and AMD and most/all such companies manufacture their hardware parts slightly differently. But it basically comes down to the same thing, either current is flowing or not.
Well, that universal statement is a bit abstract, considering there are so many ways that the variations occur. Why the differences if is all the same?
I thought I did several times.. Hmm are you saing that your thoughts aren't real? Or when you for example write your thoughts on a paper, that the ink isn't real?Then explain.
but that implies our understanding, based upon abstraction which are not real, are in themselves not real....according to you.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
What do you mean? Not every company uses the same technology.
You are making this shit up aren't you, where did I say that our understanding isn't real?No you explain that physical laws determine reality, but then I observed the laws are merely abstractions as the laws are a means of definition, to which you implied that abstractions are not real except to help us understand,
but that implies our understanding, based upon abstraction which are not real, are in themselves not real....according to you.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
??? Laws are something like universal observations, abstractions, approximations about how the world seems to work.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:01 pmWhat do you mean? Not every company uses the same technology.
My point is that you claim dualism do not exist, yet revert to 1 and 0 as "on/off" as the foundation for understanding (relative to computer technology), and then when I follow your logic "that dualisms do not describe reality", you revert back to a dualism.
You are making this shit up aren't you, where did I say that our understanding isn't real?No you explain that physical laws determine reality, but then I observed the laws are merely abstractions as the laws are a means of definition, to which you implied that abstractions are not real except to help us understand,
but that implies our understanding, based upon abstraction which are not real, are in themselves not real....according to you.
Nothing needs to be glued together, "movements" are already there. An abstraction is an abstraction, it doesn't have an effect.
All dualism is just in the human thinking. All human thinking is just approximation so yeah.
Maths/geometry/logic don't define reality. They describe reality. They are all abstractions.
*****Hence all descriptions are just approximations, and what we understand, is not entirely real. If we need a description to understand reality, how does not equate the description as necessary in itself? Why need the abstraction?
Of course evolution is not a universal law. But evolution is not just a human approximation, evolution actually happened.
It it actually happened/happens as a means of movement then by default it is a law is it not?
My best guess is that, again, the obvious way to address why the "constants" are the way they are, is through the Anthropic principle. But "constants" themselves are abstractions, they wield no power.
Umm no.. to me a constant is usually a number, a value, like Planck's constant or the speed of light.. umm what do you mean by a constant?
If the constant, through abstraction, wields no power then how can physics claim the premise of "shut up and calculate" as a means to understanding?
By Anthropic principle I basically mean that we can observe that we are humans, therefore we must have gotten here somehow, the world we observe around us must be able to produce humans.
But that in itself, according to you, is an approximation considering it is strictly just an extension of the "human mind".
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Not what I said
You make no senseHence all descriptions are just approximations, and what we understand, is not entirely real. If we need a description to understand reality, how does not equate the description as necessary in itself? Why need the abstraction?
Word saladIf the constant, through abstraction, wields no power then how can physics claim the premise of "shut up and calculate" as a means to understanding?
You make no senseBut that in itself, according to you, is an approximation considering it is strictly just an extension of the "human mind".
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
If the human mind only observes through approximates then this itself is an approximate, considering we are viewing it through the mind, hence it leads to contradiction in one respectAtla wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:13 pmNot what I said
So it is more than 1's and 0's or flow/no flow?
You make no senseHence all descriptions are just approximations, and what we understand, is not entirely real. If we need a description to understand reality, how does not equate the description as necessary in itself? Why need the abstraction?
Our understanding, through the human mind, is strictly approximate hence what we know we do not or cannot fully know. But if this is true, as a limit to the nature of consciousness, then this is a constant we do know and hence it implies further constants considering this "truth" in itself must be composed of further constants for this constant to exist.
Word saladIf the constant, through abstraction, wields no power then how can physics claim the premise of "shut up and calculate" as a means to understanding?
In all truth, you are just stupid...the majority of your argument is pseudo-empirical jibberish...you should just go back to what you are good at and program computers. Go look up the foundations for empiricism before you come back and spew garbage as truth.
You make no senseBut that in itself, according to you, is an approximation considering it is strictly just an extension of the "human mind".
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
It's always easy to tell when I have won, because the entire subject is avoided and replaced with an ad-hominum only.... get off the thread you are just making yourself look intolerant and closeminded.
Go re-read the foundation for empiricism, in any philosophical encyclopedia, and you will find it is strictly abstract concepts.
The summation of my argument stands:
Human observation is not merely approximate, considering to observe this through the human element, would in turn cause this to be an approximation in itself, hence an infinite regressive contradiction in one respect.
In a separate respect to observe the human condition as approximate, through the human condition would require the human condition to observe a constant; hence human observation observes both approximates and constants (and is therefore both approximate and constant). This approximation may strictly be a deficiency in observing constants, hence when we say the human condition observes approximates we are stating: the human condition can see constants, but not all of them.
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
There is no debate genius, if there was one you lost it on the first page.
You know this is bad right?Wait until your room lights up from every perceivable angle at one moment, a disk is hovering in the back yard shooting beams of light into the ground, or a 19th century little girl is running through your hallway, shadows pass by and the cubbard doors open mysteriously, or a 19th century woman is staring directly at you from a set of stairs in a house that was once "exorcised" of that same spirit......
The world is often times bigger than it appears to be....I tell myself I am crazy just to "fit in"...."don't worry about me I am just delusional....now who won the football game?"
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: One-way-street time vs circular time
Atla: Since when do childish, personal insults amount to an actual argument people should pay attention to? I know there are a number of users here who believe that they "wipe the floor" with people by insulting them, because they lack any ability to make an actual cogent argument. I, however, am not one of those people.