(April 16, 2014 at 12:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Rae, the humanities deal extensively with describing how ideas form and fit together. Linguistics and semiotics are useful areas of study that produce knowledge even if those who advocate scientism believe otherwise. In a sense, we can model, albeit less precisely, the behaviour of ideas.

Can you give an example? I'm not following you here. I'm familiar with linguistics and semiotics and neither seem to give description of what benny is referring to as 'ideas' here, which is the stuff that we have when we experience qualia.

(April 14, 2014 at 6:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 2:14 pm)archangle Wrote: I see your claim as the universe only exist because we "process it". does that sum it up?

No. What you just said has absolutely zero to do with anything I've ever said. In fact, I've contradicted this idea, which is an extension of solipsism, at least twice.

My claim is that the universe itself is not a collection of things, but of the interrelationships between properties that don't supervene on anything-- i.e. they are just ideas or concepts, and there are no "things" that cause them. But they are not ideas or concepts of people-- they are self-existent ideas or concepts.

Cool .. let me try again.

There are no things, just events. And yes, some of these events can be "idea's", or better stated as "data".

We are a data set within a data set. actaully a "processor within a processor".

If that's what you mean, I total'y agree with ya. There is no nouns, only verbs. There is far more proof of this than "we" are the top awareness. We are not the only "data processing" going on.

(April 16, 2014 at 11:44 am)rasetsu Wrote: Our description for what energy is consists of very precise mathematical descriptions of its behavior.

Okay. Now, the question is can you actually find MORE to energy than the relationships which describe it, or from which it is inferred?

Quote:We can predict how it will behave based on this description. We can explain the behavior of higher-level phenomena by reducing them to this level of description. Saying that stuff is made of "ideas" has none of these qualities. Do you have a model of how 'ideas' behave, or is it just a one size fits all placeholder? We can describe energy and quarks by their behavior. What does the description of an idea look like?

I'm agnostic about the fundamental nature of experiences or relationships between them. I do know exactly what experiences are, though, because they are defined by the having. There is nothing else I can say that about.

Quote:I'd like to get your thoughts on split-brain subjects.

Split-brain experiments, aphasias, dementia, etc. make it clear that there is a relationship between the brain and the nature of our experiences. To deny that would be an announcement of solipsism-- i.e. that the brain is just a dreamed-up illusion.

This is not my position. My position is that all our experiences, including those about the physical universe and the relationships embodied in it, are reducible only to ideas, i.e. that "down there" all you'll ever find is that the pot is still at the end of the rainbow: atoms made of protons, electrons and neutrons, these made of quarks, and these made of what? In the end, nothing but an idea of a thing, rather than something that is locatable in time and space and taking volume.

I think you are confusing us with the word "idea's".

could you also answer my attempt at clarification in the post above.. So I can better try to understand you?

Idea's work by particle "movement", so your saying that particle movement is an "idea's". Is the ion exchange in cells from "idea's" or is does the ion exchange cause "Idea's".

Patterns in particle movement are what "idea's" are. Maybe?

(April 17, 2014 at 3:01 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 16, 2014 at 11:44 am)rasetsu Wrote: I'd like to get your thoughts on split-brain subjects.

Split-brain experiments, aphasias, dementia, etc. make it clear that there is a relationship between the brain and the nature of our experiences. To deny that would be an announcement of solipsism-- i.e. that the brain is just a dreamed-up illusion.

This is not my position. My position is that all our experiences, including those about the physical universe and the relationships embodied in it, are reducible only to ideas, i.e. that "down there" all you'll ever find is that the pot is still at the end of the rainbow: atoms made of protons, electrons and neutrons, these made of quarks, and these made of what? In the end, nothing but an idea of a thing, rather than something that is locatable in time and space and taking volume.

I'd still like to get your thoughts on split brain subjects, nonetheless.

That's a rather strong claim, not only that experiences haven't been reduced to brain matters, but that they will never be reduced to brain matters. Do you have an argument or evidence for your position?

(April 17, 2014 at 3:01 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 16, 2014 at 11:44 am)rasetsu Wrote: Our description for what energy is consists of very precise mathematical descriptions of its behavior.

Okay. Now, the question is can you actually find MORE to energy than the relationships which describe it, or from which it is inferred?

Quote:We can predict how it will behave based on this description. We can explain the behavior of higher-level phenomena by reducing them to this level of description. Saying that stuff is made of "ideas" has none of these qualities. Do you have a model of how 'ideas' behave, or is it just a one size fits all placeholder? We can describe energy and quarks by their behavior. What does the description of an idea look like?

I'm agnostic about the fundamental nature of experiences or relationships between them. I do know exactly what experiences are, though, because they are defined by the having. There is nothing else I can say that about.

Quote:I'd like to get your thoughts on split-brain subjects.

Split-brain experiments, aphasias, dementia, etc. make it clear that there is a relationship between the brain and the nature of our experiences. To deny that would be an announcement of solipsism-- i.e. that the brain is just a dreamed-up illusion.

This is not my position. My position is that all our experiences, including those about the physical universe and the relationships embodied in it, are reducible only to ideas, i.e. that "down there" all you'll ever find is that the pot is still at the end of the rainbow: atoms made of protons, electrons and neutrons, these made of quarks, and these made of what? In the end, nothing but an idea of a thing, rather than something that is locatable in time and space and taking volume.

you can only work with what we have. And we don't have a lot.

space is a thing in of itself right? That has been shown. The idea of a thing takeing up space is because to have an "idea" you have to have some type of "interaction" between stuff.

no "something" no "idea."

Is the animating force an "idea". it seems that is not the case. The split brain is meaning less because the brain is particle interactions. It is something.

(April 17, 2014 at 11:30 am)rasetsu Wrote: I'd still like to get your thoughts on split brain subjects, nonetheless.

That's a rather strong claim, not only that experiences haven't been reduced to brain matters, but that they will never be reduced to brain matters. Do you have an argument or evidence for your position?

Okay, I'd say two things about this. First, experiences ARE reducible down to brain matter; but the brain matter (like everything else we consider physical) may itself not be reducible down to anything but concepts.

Second, the hard problem of consciousness is more about psychogony than psychomorphology (if you'll permit me to coin a couple words here). Why would any arrangement of purely physical "stuff" allow/require the spawning of subjective experience at all? There have been answers, but they seem suspiciously vague and biased-- often a vague wave in the direction of evolution, often the insistence on operationalized definitions ("Consciousness is really just the ability to respond to the environment!").

---

(April 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm)archangle Wrote: space is a thing in of itself right? That has been shown.

I'm not sure what meaning of "thing" you are using with this statement.

Quote:The idea of a thing takeing up space is because to have an "idea" you have to have some type of "interaction" between stuff.

If by "stuff," you are talking about objects made of physical matter, then I don't accept that assertion.

Quote:Is the animating force an "idea". it seems that is not the case. The split brain is meaning less because the brain is particle interactions. It is something.

I'm not sure that QM particles are, or are composed of, "things."

We have to be careful at this point because we are at the limits of our understanding. Under-rant. All we have is the standard mode and it is incomplete.

"Idea": to have an "idea" something has to be exchanged. Some type of "information" stored in a state of a "particle" and then exchanged with another "particle" in A meaningful pattern. There is, because of Heisenberg, particles that can live very short lives. They violate the conservation laws, that's why they call them "virtual". ITS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... BUT THEY DO IT".

When I use the words "thing", "something", or "substance" I mean a "particle", " gauge boson, Or a combination of both. Or something unknown, like "space", dark matter", and "dark energy". "space seems to be something, like a rubber matt. They don't know what it is yet. But they took a gyroscope in space and it was deflected off of "center" by the warping of space due to the earth's mass as predicted by Einstein's equations.

Quantum mechanics"; "little discrete pieces" is what it means. Like a Lego in a bin of legos. It doesn't mean "nothing". When you get down to the quantum level your idea's become problematic because we don't know what's going on. It is all "waving" and "Probability". "probability" means they don't know what it is, but rather how "it" tends to work. "quantized". If space is quantize. For simplicity let's just look in two dimensions, it may look like a screen window. We may only be able to get down to the gaps. But not between them, Both notions still unknown as of yet.

Now we can look at this "waving" property. Could space be waving in such a manner that there are meaning "patters" generating particles? Well, guess what, there is. Where the field interact "in part from waving" you can get a spike in the field and that field is a particle. Like an electron. But this field is "bosons". at lot of them. It is "something". Maybe space itself waves.

I agree with your notions. But you can't separate "idea's", better stated as "information", from some type of particle state, or force carrier state. Also, maybe this "information" is being delivered by interactions between multiverse. Still unknown, but they are looking. we cant, take out the "particles" to 'send" information, at least not yet.

we could explore "spooky action" at a distance also.

(April 18, 2014 at 7:03 am)archangle Wrote: "Idea": to have an "idea" something has to be exchanged. Some type of "information" stored in a state of a "particle" and then exchanged with another "particle" in A meaningful pattern. There is, because of Heisenberg, particles that can live very short lives. They violate the conservation laws, that's why they call them "virtual". ITS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... BUT THEY DO IT".

I don't think that's why virtual particles are called virtual: they are "virtual" because they behave like particles without actually being them. Nor do they violate the law of conservation. Instead, they force us to a more metaphorical understanding of what, exactly, is being conserved.

Quote:When I use the words "thing", "something", or "substance" I mean a "particle", " gauge boson, Or a combination of both. Or something unknown, like "space", dark matter", and "dark energy". "space seems to be something, like a rubber matt. They don't know what it is yet. But they took a gyroscope in space and it was deflected off of "center" by the warping of space due to the earth's mass as predicted by Einstein's equations.

When you can ONLY describe the building blocks of the universe using metaphors and math, and cannot directly interact with any of them, then it might be time to consider the possibility that you're not talking about "things" in a sense that means anything.

I'd further add that when you start speaking metaphorically due to lack of understanding or words for what you're talking about, and you're talking about the most advanced science available, you might want to consider one more idea. "Physical science," for all its poetry and math, is starting to sound very much like the mythologies and metaphors of other cultures. "Oh, see, there's this emptiness which isn't empty at all-- in fact it's more infinitely packed with potential than all the stars in the skies. So how stuff gets created is this-- this empty thing-which-isn't-a-thing starts vibrating-- shhh don't ask why it just does-- and those vibrations interact with each other, and where they intersect, a particle is created. Now, you can't ever see or interact with such a particle, but we know it's there because if it isn't, our mathematical models for reality wouldn't work."

You are pretty sure that bosons exist. But what does a boson look like? What shape is it? How much volume does it occupy?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012...appearance

Sounds like the beginnings of a new mythology to me.

(April 20, 2014 at 12:50 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 18, 2014 at 7:03 am)archangle Wrote: "Idea": to have an "idea" something has to be exchanged. Some type of "information" stored in a state of a "particle" and then exchanged with another "particle" in A meaningful pattern. There is, because of Heisenberg, particles that can live very short lives. They violate the conservation laws, that's why they call them "virtual". ITS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... BUT THEY DO IT".

I don't think that's why virtual particles are called virtual: they are "virtual" because they behave like particles without actually being them. Nor do they violate the law of conservation. Instead, they force us to a more metaphorical understanding of what, exactly, is being conserved.

Quote:When I use the words "thing", "something", or "substance" I mean a "particle", " gauge boson, Or a combination of both. Or something unknown, like "space", dark matter", and "dark energy". "space seems to be something, like a rubber matt. They don't know what it is yet. But they took a gyroscope in space and it was deflected off of "center" by the warping of space due to the earth's mass as predicted by Einstein's equations.

When you can ONLY describe the building blocks of the universe using metaphors and math, and cannot directly interact with any of them, then it might be time to consider the possibility that you're not talking about "things" in a sense that means anything.

I'd further add that when you start speaking metaphorically due to lack of understanding or words for what you're talking about, and you're talking about the most advanced science available, you might want to consider one more idea. "Physical science," for all its poetry and math, is starting to sound very much like the mythologies and metaphors of other cultures. "Oh, see, there's this emptiness which isn't empty at all-- in fact it's more infinitely packed with potential than all the stars in the skies. So how stuff gets created is this-- this empty thing-which-isn't-a-thing starts vibrating-- shhh don't ask why it just does-- and those vibrations interact with each other, and where they intersect, a particle is created. Now, you can't ever see or interact with such a particle, but we know it's there because if it isn't, our mathematical models for reality wouldn't work."

You are pretty sure that bosons exist. But what does a boson look like? What shape is it? How much volume does it occupy?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012...appearance

Sounds like the beginnings of a new mythology to me.

Lets be very clear. We do not know enough to go much deeper. We can only use what we do know. Not what we don't know. Does that make sense?

"virtual" has a few meanings. One is used with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's the one I am using. "virtual" particles DO break the conservation of energy but can only live a very short. They are not a metaphor.

I am ok with your statement about "things" being something different than we think they are. I actually agree with you. There really are no things, only events. No nouns, only verbs. You are calling that notion "idea" In physics they call it electron volts. Matter is frozen energy.

Since we are not sure what energy is your "idea" notion can fit into it quite nicely into that. I can help ya match some basic physics to support it. But I do know if this notion is correct. It is like claiming we know what gravity is. Not yet we can't. But a graviton is a good guess. Maybe yours is a good guess too.

But it seems for ideas to "be" you have to have some type of particle exchange. Look at your brain. A static brain doesn't think any ideas. The only way for it to send information is through particle movement. This is not a metaphor. It is an real event. Well, you know what I mean. As real as we understand.

Also particles moving to fast have trouble relaying information.

You notion aint as crazy as they mite seem. But you kinda have to anchor it something known.