Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by uwot » Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:07 pm
Well, the Higgs Boson is the most recent example, but pretty much any fundamental particle you care to shake a stick at. Although yup, I concede, there are alternative interpretations - that's underdeterminism for you.
OK, so lets avoid the talk of "interpretations" then...
Let's not. If you do not yet understand what underdeterminism means, we are going to have to start all over again.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
I grant you ontological carte blanche. Put on your "direct realism" hat.
Have you been paying any attention to what I have written?
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
What evidence would sway your "maybe" into a "yes"? What evidence would convince you that spacetime is a medium?
Fucked if I know, quite frankly, but I'll know it when I see it. I think the evidence is already pretty compelling, but hey - underdetermination and all that.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
If you can't answer that, I am simply going to point out that you are still stuck with a two-valued (Boolean) semantic.
Still? Nah, mate, you're the one who wants to "avoid the talk of "interpretations"".
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
Your "No" means "No". But your "Maybe" is my "Yes". You are playing the very "semantic jiggery-pokery" you are trying to avoid
No Skepdick, let's avoid the talk of "interpretations"; my "Maybe" is maybe; it is you that interprets it as yes.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:07 pm
To be frank Skepdick, I don't expect novelty from you.
That's a 2nd datapoint now causing me to question the intent behind your question... If you don't expect novelty from me, why ask "What's new?"
It was hope, rather than expectation.

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:45 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm
Let's not. If you do not yet understand what underdeterminism means, we are going to have to start all over again.
I have no idea how to convince you that I understand the concept. I know what underdeterminism is. I also know what superdeterminism is.

In general I know what a determination is. As in ontologically (I am making this claim while wearing a "mathematical realist" hat - briefly and for pragmatic purposes).

It's just another word for a yes/no decision.

The problem of underdetermination is about choosing which belief to hold in response to the available evidence. So side-step the problem - choose not to choose. Believe nothing - like a good agnostic. That doesn't prevent you from formulating all of your uncertainty as yes/no questions!
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm
Have you been paying any attention to what I have written?
Yes, but maybe I don't understand your point?
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm
Fucked if I know, quite frankly, but I'll know it when I see it.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OK. I didn't take you for a gnostic. If the answer is already in your head, maybe you should introspect and tell us all about it?

Meno's paradox...
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm
I think the evidence is already pretty compelling, but hey - underdetermination and all that.
Moot point. I am asking you a straight-forward yes/no question - I am asking you to make a determination, and you are avoiding commitment like a whore avoids church.

In your purview, does the proposition "Spacetime is a medium" have three possible answers? Namely: Yes, No or Maybe.

Or I could turn it into a multiple-choice:

A. The proposition "Spacetime is a medium" has three possible answers. Namely: Yes, No or Maybe.
B. The proposition "Spacetime is a medium" has two possible answers. Namely: No or Maybe.
uwot wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:20 pm
No Skepdick, let's avoid the talk of "interpretations"; my "Maybe" is maybe; it is you that interprets it as yes.
OK, so you are still going to play the "semantic jiggery-pokery". Then I am going to turn this a game of 20 questions, so that I can extract the information I need from you in order to understand you.

Does the available evidence convince you that spacetime is a medium? And if you are going to answer me with a "maybe", then go right ahead and explain to me what the hell it means to be "maybe convinced".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by uwot » Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:56 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:45 pm
I have no idea how to convince you that I understand the concept. I know what underdeterminism is. I also know what superdeterminism is.
Jolly good. Then you know they have fuck all to do with each other.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:45 pm
Does the available evidence convince you that spacetime is a medium?
No, not as described in general relativity.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:45 pm
And if you are going to answer me with a "maybe", then go right ahead and explain to me what the hell it means to be "maybe convinced".
Funny you should have mentioned Mr Can. His agenda blinds him to the difference between 'I don't believe p' and 'I believe not p'. Perhaps if you are a bit more nuanced you can work out my attitude to spacetime from that.

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:56 am
Then you know they have fuck all to do with each other.
"Fuckall" is a bit of an exaggeration I would say. Since you are the one doing the (under or super) determination... Fancy words, damn it!

You are the one CHOOSING which theory to use/apply/default to. From the selection of possible theories.

Is that choice mechanism that I am pointing at. The compatibilist version of free will. This black box that determines stuff, including the determination that X is underdetermined.
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:56 am
No, not as described in general relativity.
Great! We are finally getting somewhere. So if spacetime is not a medium, and yet light travels through it, then surely we can conclude that light doesn't require a medium?

OR, at least that if light does require a medium, and spacetime isn't one then spacetime may well be epistemic, not ontic?
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:56 am
Funny you should have mentioned Mr Can. His agenda blinds him to the difference between 'I don't believe p' and 'I believe not p'. Perhaps if you are a bit more nuanced you can work out my attitude to spacetime from that.
Funny you should use the distinction between 'I don't believe p' and 'I believe not p'. Because that's precisely the semantic jiggery-pokery! It's the semantic distinction between classic and intuitionistic logic. You are using negation constructively.

Since I am well aware that you don't read my links, I'll give you a quote instead...
I have proved A ∨ B.
Good. Which did you prove?
What?
You said you proved A or B; which did you prove?
Neither; I assumed ¬A & ¬B and derived a contradiction.
Oh, you proved ¬[¬A & ¬B].
That’s right. It’s another way of putting the same thing.

But he does not agree with her last statement; they have a different semantics and a different notion of proof.
And if that sounds exactly like what you are doing and you want to read the rest of the paper then here's the link: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/int.pdf

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by uwot » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
"Fuckall" is a bit of an exaggeration I would say. Since you are the one doing the (under or super) determination... Fancy words, damn it!
The thing is that any superdeterministic theory will still be underdetermined; that is about the limit of the relationship between the two.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
You are the one CHOOSING which theory to use/apply/default to. From the selection of possible theories.
Yup, pick the best tool for the job.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
Is that choice mechanism that I am pointing at. The compatibilist version of free will. This black box that determines stuff, including the determination that X is underdetermined.
That's a different conversation, which frankly doesn't interest me.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
So if spacetime is not a medium, and yet light travels through it, then surely we can conclude that light doesn't require a medium?

OR, at least that if light does require a medium, and spacetime isn't one then spacetime may well be epistemic, not ontic?
Indeed. As I have pointed out before, it is a mathematical model that you can choose to believe or not.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
Funny you should use the distinction between 'I don't believe p' and 'I believe not p'. Because that's precisely the semantic jiggery-pokery! It's the semantic distinction between classic and intuitionistic logic. You are using negation constructively.
Ah right. You don't get it either.

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
The thing is that any superdeterministic theory will still be underdetermined; that is about the limit of the relationship between the two.
That perspective from which you are determining underdetermination - is the Oracle Machine perspective.
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
That's a different conversation, which frankly doesn't interest me.
I can tell. Your lack of interest (in formal logic) is manifesting as a lack of nuanced understanding.

That Oracle Machine does so much heavy lifting for you - maybe you want to have a look inside...
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
As I have pointed out before, it is a mathematical model that you can choose to believe or not.
Indeed. Mathematics is logic. Logic is mathematics - it's all structuralism.

If you choose not to believe in logical models, do you have some other kind of models to choose from?
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
Ah right. You don't get it either.
Obviously! We use different semantics.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4026
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:36 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:52 am
So if spacetime is not a medium, and yet light travels through it, then surely we can conclude that light doesn't require a medium?

OR, at least that if light does require a medium, and spacetime isn't one then spacetime may well be epistemic, not ontic?
Indeed. As I have pointed out before, it is a mathematical model that you can choose to believe or not.
Surely spacetime must be considered having 'stuff' - a medium - otherwise how can one account for the 'time' component?

Space? maybe no medium.

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:47 am

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:36 am
Surely spacetime must be considered having 'stuff' - a medium - otherwise how can one account for the 'time' component?
Spacetime is one, unified concept/object - a mathematical manifold. It has no components.

Deconstructing spacetime into space and time is reduction

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4026
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:47 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:36 am
Surely spacetime must be considered having 'stuff' - a medium - otherwise how can one account for the 'time' component?
Spacetime is one, unified concept/object - a mathematical manifold. It has no components.

Deconstructing spacetime into space and time is reduction
Ok then, for me spacetime is a medium.

Apparently at every point in space there is a value for the electric field and neutrinos etc.. and the Higgs field affects ALL these other fields (particles moving through space).

It does not then conclude that the Higgs field IS the medium, but certainly, since it affects ALL particles at every point in space (spacetime) it is the most paramount field\particle, to our understanding as to whether there IS a 'medium'.

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:10 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm
Ok then, for me spacetime is a medium.
Like I said - the distinction is conceptual, not ontological.
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm
Apparently at every point in space there is a value for the electric field and neutrinos etc.. and the Higgs field affects ALL these other fields (particles moving through space).
You are mixing up languages (frameworks).

Higgs fields come from the language of Quantum Field Theory.
Spacetime is from the language of General Relativity.

There's no way to unify the two languages at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Even Physics is dualistic. And like all humans physicists are pursuing Monism e.g Theory of Everything.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by uwot » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
That perspective from which you are determining underdetermination - is the Oracle Machine perspective.
Great. So the Oracle Machine and I both know what we are talking about.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
Your lack of interest (in formal logic) is manifesting as a lack of nuanced understanding.
Given that "We use different semantics", how can you tell anything about my understanding?
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
That Oracle Machine does so much heavy lifting for you - maybe you want to have a look inside...
Bit of a waste of time. The key feature of an Oracle Machine is the you don't know what's inside it.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
Mathematics is logic. Logic is mathematics - it's all structuralism.
Bit of a broad term. Can you narrow it down a bit? Then again, since you insist we don't speak the same language, you'd probably be wasting your time.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
If you choose not to believe in logical models, do you have some other kind of models to choose from?
You can read all about it when the book turns up.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:44 am
Ah right. You don't get it either.
Obviously! We use different semantics.
That's incommensurability for you.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4026
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:32 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm
Ok then, for me spacetime is a medium.
Like I said - the distinction is conceptual, not ontological.
It's a theory from my experience of the 3rd party intelligence, I guess that makes it epistemological.

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:10 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm
Apparently at every point in space there is a value for the electric field and neutrinos etc.. and the Higgs field affects ALL these other fields (particles moving through space).
You are mixing up languages (frameworks).

Higgs fields come from the language of Quantum Field Theory.
Spacetime is from the language of General Relativity.

There's no way to unify the two languages at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Even Physics is dualistic. And like all humans physicists are pursuing Monism e.g Theory of Everything.
Sure. The big and the small are aeons apart.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by uwot » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:47 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:36 am
Surely spacetime must be considered having 'stuff' - a medium - otherwise how can one account for the 'time' component?
'Spacetime', as Einstein envisaged it, has some particular properties that we know aren't real. You can tweak it to give it more realistic properties, but then yer kinda talking about something else. And ironically for someone so opposed to 'spooky action at a distance', Einstein didn't explain how matter and spacetime interact.
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:23 pm
Apparently at every point in space there is a value for the electric field and neutrinos etc.. and the Higgs field affects ALL these other fields (particles moving through space).

It does not then conclude that the Higgs field IS the medium, but certainly, since it affects ALL particles at every point in space (spacetime) it is the most paramount field\particle, to our understanding as to whether there IS a 'medium'.
'Field' for the purposes of physics, is simply an area where the behaviour of objects, from sub-atomic particles to galactic clusters is measurably different than it would be if there were no field. I wouldn't say they were 'conceptual, as Skepdick does, because they are clearly demonstrable, but if your point Skepdick, is that they are epistemological, or perhaps instrumental, at least in the English I speak, then I would agree. The reason that the Higgs Boson caused such a fuss, is that the Higgs Field was meant to be a medium with mechanical properties which, if you wallop it hard enough will create tangible particles - and that is what the LHC (almost certainly) demonstrated.

Impenitent
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Impenitent » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:50 pm

is hitting on Higgs more effective than exploding Aether?

-Imp

Skepdick
Posts: 4320
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:52 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:47 pm
I wouldn't say they were 'conceptual, as Skepdick does, because they are clearly demonstrable, but if your point Skepdick, is that they are epistemological, or perhaps instrumental, at least in the English I speak, then I would agree.
My point is that the category of "mediums" or "fields" is conceptual. Platonic if you will.

Many things can fulfil (realize) the function of a medium/field in practice.

If that sounds like you understanding of instrumentalism then we agree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests