Activity Feed
#513·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYes re OR gate.
Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.
If we use Claud Shannon’s framework of understanding information as reducing uncertainty, a light switch doesn’t contain information. But the problem with all kinds of information is that it is dependent on how you subjectively define states and uncertainty. Information is always relative to a certain «perspective».
If we define a computer as anything that processes information, the brain is at least partly a computer, since it also processes information. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a brain is only a computer. Information processing can be done without subjective experience or qualia.
A brain's properties therefore transcend information processing. It is completely conceivable that you can construct a physical brain with identical information processing without accompanying experience (zoombie argument), unless you wan't to say that this instance of information process is dependent on also having the experience.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
#1204·Dennis HackethalOP revised 10 months agoI agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work. At least when it refers to all of existence.
Or am I missing something?
I disagree that the universe would remain an object if we remove all objects, because an object must have properties. If we define “the universe” as the totality of all objects, then removing them leaves only a word with no metaphysical referent, and therefore can’t be thought of as “existing”. So I agree that it doesn’t work when applied to “all of existence”. This is why I think your point about the excluded middle makes nothingness impossible. But generally speaking, “nothingness” as a quantifier typically involves no logical contradictions.
A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities
I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities
I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 9 months agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 9 months agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation […]
We do know that. From the laws of physics. From BoI ch. 6:
[E]xpecting a computer to be able to do whatever neurons can is not a metaphor: it is a known and proven property of the laws of physics as best we know them.
I know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 10 months agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:
I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.
Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in The Biology of Desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind."
#1195·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 10 months agoLogical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.
💯
#1191·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 10 months agoI misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).
I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).
When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.
Or am I missing something?
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work. At least when it refers to all of existence.
Or am I missing something?
#1156·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 10 months agoIf we talk about the quantifier nothing, you would look at the universe = all objects. So if you remove all objects the universe wouldn’t really «refer» to anything. But if you believe there exist such a thing as the object Nothingness, there could possibly exist a universe = Nothingness (as the object), which has some defined properties.
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.
Or am I missing something?
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 10 months agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.
That isn’t a sentence.
#1132·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoNothingness as a qunatifier
Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.
Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.
Nothingness as a qunatifier [sic], is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
#1131·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoNothingness as a qunatifier [sic], is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
The quote is now outdated.
#744·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year agoMy conjecture
Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.
Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.
If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 10 months agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
I think this explanation holds if you assume the law of the excluded middle is true. The only remaining criticism I can see, is if you throw out the law of the excluded middle (like paraconsistent- and intutionist logic.)