My view on this is that levels of function supervene on others, but aren't dependent on them. For example, massive objects, their orbits, the forces that act on them, etc. don't necessarily depend on QM mechanics. I mean, in our universe they do, but you could have billiard-ball mechanics with many other frameworks under the hood.

As an analogy, let's look at the Windows operating system. It's run on particular semiconductor arrangements righ tnow. However, it could in theory run equally well on a diamond-embedded quantum computer or on trained otters arranging seashells on the beach (obviously, it would run a lot slower, then).

I don't think you can learn much about meaning from QM. Meaning exists on ITS level of operation, and while QM are required for a framework of meaning to supervene, the meaning itself is totally independent of the bits on which it supervenes. They are separate contexts.

(September 26, 2016 at 11:02 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My view on this is that levels of function supervene on others, but aren't dependent on them.  For example, massive objects, their orbits, the forces that act on them, etc. don't necessarily depend on QM mechanics.  I mean, in our universe they do, but you could have billiard-ball mechanics with many other frameworks under the hood.

Are you trying to explain something that happens in our universe, or another universe?

(September 26, 2016 at 11:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 26, 2016 at 11:02 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My view on this is that levels of function supervene on others, but aren't dependent on them.  For example, massive objects, their orbits, the forces that act on them, etc. don't necessarily depend on QM mechanics.  I mean, in our universe they do, but you could have billiard-ball mechanics with many other frameworks under the hood.

Are you trying to explain something that happens in our universe, or another universe?

Nope.  It doesn't matter if we're in the Matrix, the Mind of God, or a physical monism, the same applies. Whatever you think lies under the hood, gravity is gravity, trees are trees, and that Gallic bitch in the public bath, that one wearing the new blue tunic, is still a bitch.

If you want to make a quantum-mechanical theory of mind, go ahead. But as far as I know, your theory of mind depends on information, and information is a very good example of something which requires A medium, but not a specific one-- it doesn't really matter if information is encoded as computer bits, seashells on the beach, or as a trillion fairies dancing through a double slit.

(September 26, 2016 at 11:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 26, 2016 at 11:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Are you trying to explain something that happens in our universe, or another universe?

Nope.  It doesn't matter if we're in the Matrix, the Mind of God, or a physical monism, the same applies.  Whatever you think lies under the hood, gravity is gravity, trees are trees, and that Gallic bitch in the public bath, that one wearing the new blue tunic, is still a bitch.

Nope what, I;m just wondering if you're looking to explain something -in this universe- with your caveat of where what rules apply and so forth, lol.

Quote:If you want to make a quantum-mechanical theory of mind, go ahead.  But as far as I know, your theory of mind depends on information, and information is a very good example of something which requires A medium, but not a specific one-- it doesn't really matter if information is encoded as computer bits, seashells on the beach, or as a trillion fairies dancing through a double slit.

I don't think a quantum mechanical theory will be required.  Our brains are pretty big.  Yeah, though, a computational theory only requires -a- medium.  Not any specific medium.  Regardless of what comp theory does and does not require...we have -a- medium that is specific...in our brains.  That's in this universe, anyway.

(September 27, 2016 at 1:43 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 26, 2016 at 11:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Nope.  It doesn't matter if we're in the Matrix, the Mind of God, or a physical monism, the same applies.  Whatever you think lies under the hood, gravity is gravity, trees are trees, and that Gallic bitch in the public bath, that one wearing the new blue tunic, is still a bitch.

Nope what, I;m just wondering if you're looking to explain something -in this universe- with your caveat of where what rules apply and so forth, lol.

Literally everything in the human experience is NOT explained by any of the frameworks on which the human context supervenes. What things are like to experience, complex ideas, dreams, emotions. . . none of it is usefully informed by what's happening at the quantum level.

Quote:I don't think a quantum mechanical theory will be required.  Our brains are pretty big.  Yeah, though, a computational theory only requires -a- medium.  Not any specific medium.  Regardless of what comp theory does and does not require...we have -a- medium that is specific...in our brains.  That's in this universe, anyway.

That's fine, and you and I will never agree on this. When I'm writing music, I imagine a few different sounds, and I put them together in an idea space that I call the mind. That's the reality of music-making. You can talk about how it's the brain doing stuff, and that's fine-- you can go into the brain, follow that complex dance of neurons as they interact, and will completely fail to learn anything about how to compose good music.

That's because it is the ideas which are interacting which other in their context, and the brain functions on which those ideas, and their interactions, supervene.

(September 27, 2016 at 8:07 am)bennyboy Wrote: Literally everything in the human experience is NOT explained by any of the frameworks on which the human context supervenes.

If you say so, I guess.

Quote:What things are like to experience, complex ideas, dreams, emotions. . . none of it is usefully informed by what's happening at the quantum level.

I don't think so either, or...very accurately, I think it would be ancillary.  We know some of the ways that things at our scale of resolution can manipulate information.  I'd exhaust those familiar methods before I proposed an as yet unobserved/un-demonstrated quantum consciousness myself.  

Quote:That's fine, and you and I will never agree on this.  When I'm writing music, I imagine a few different sounds, and I put them together in an idea space that I call the mind.  That's the reality of music-making.

I don't know why you think we don't agree on this?  

Quote:You can talk about how it's the brain doing stuff, and that's fine-- you can go into the brain, follow that complex dance of neurons as they interact, and will completely fail to learn anything about how to compose good music.

Again, if you say so, I guess?

Quote:That's because it is the ideas which are interacting which other in their context, and the brain functions on which those ideas, and their interactions, supervene.

Are ideas interacting, how might they do that?  By what means?  According to what principles?  What is their context?  What purpose does the separation between functions or ideas or experiences and structures serve....could they not be the same?  Why not? I'm going to need more than your insistence. I have an example that violates that separation right here in front of me, so obviously, it's something that computer stuff can do. Tell me why brain stuff or idea stuff can't do that, or why it has to be different, or why you think it is different?

(September 28, 2016 at 2:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Are ideas interacting, how might they do that?  By what means?  According to what principles?  What is their context?  What purpose does the separation between functions or ideas or experiences and structures serve....could they not be the same?  Why not?  I'm going to need more than your insistence.  I have an example that violates that separation right here in front of me, so obviously, it's something that computer stuff can do.  Tell me why brain stuff or idea stuff can't do that, or why it has to be different, or why you think it is different?

Any time you bring small parts into a systematic organization, you have new information which the small parts didn't have. In other words, a system is ALWAYS greater than the sum of its parts, and the new "stuff" represents a level of context that doesn't exist at the level of function of its parts.

You could say, for example, that Windows is just a bunch of electromagnetic interactions of semiconductors, and be right. But what's important about Windows is that an idea is imposed onto those interactions which have meaning in a different context.

So yeah, you can keep saying that even ideas are physical. However, they represent a layer of entanglement with the environment-- the "extra stuff" isn't really of the brain-- it's imposed ON the brain by interactions with the environment.

Take as another example an .mp3 file. The information on it represents a complex interaction between scientific knowledge, the way humans experience sound, and ideas about how to encode sounds. That information comes from outside the medium, say a CD. The CD is not the thing that makes music, even though you couldn't have music in a CD player without it. The CD is a carrier for another context-- the context of musical ideas.

Materialists are predominantly materialists because...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Wait.
For.
It.

...because...

Because they're materialists.

(September 15, 2016 at 11:31 pm)Bunburryist Wrote: Being an atheist and NOT a materialist (and so being a REAL outsider!), I have always had an interest in the relationship between atheism and materialism, on the one hand, and between materialism and science on the other.  Where as most atheists (and non-atheists) conflate materialism and science, I see religion and materialism as BOTH being non-scientific worldviews. 

Before I post my website which is composed of a number of talks where I explain my understanding that the materialist worldview is wrong (which I will do when I reach my quota of 30 posts!) I'd like to ask materialists to explain if and why they believe materialism is either necessary to atheism, or at least an important aspect of the view.

The standard model is all we have.  Anything that doesn't tie back into that has "unknown" for its start.  Yeah, philosophers get to make shit up but in the end its just made up shit.  just one pile of bullshit thrown at  pile of horse shit.

(September 28, 2016 at 8:08 pm)comet Wrote: The standard model is all we have.  Anything that doesn't tie back into that has "unknown" for its start.  Yeah, philosophers get to make shit up but in the end its just made up shit.  just one pile of bullshit thrown at  pile of horse shit.

I would like to say a few things about that. First of all, what's the "standard model?" It seems to me this is one of the things we all think we "know," but I'm curious if you can describe it in any detail or with any accuracy.

Second, whatever the standard model is, not only is it not "all we have," it's not even the first thing we have. All systems of thought, world views, etc. start with experience. THAT is all we have for sure-- the rest is a system of inferences and philosophical assumptions.

Third, you accuse non-standard models of having "unknown" for their start. Ru-heally? Are you claiming that you have access to a world view which is not founded on mystery? You'd better enlighten us right now, because I'm not aware that such a world view exists.